Another year of hedge funds not earning their keep

dozu888 said:
if you have time to kill pls check my thread 'trading is easy'.... to me it's crystal clear what is going on... call it superhuman or not..
More...

I did check it out. You have a "method" that can't be backtested (but is 'easy'), with no evidence that it is profitable and you don't believe that money management is important.

If it works for you, great, but it's of no use to anyone else and indeed such attitudes are positively dangerous.

GAT
 
globalarbtrader said:
I did check it out. You have a "method" that can't be backtested (but is 'easy'), with no evidence that it is profitable and you don't believe that money management is important.

If it works for you, great, but it's of no use to anyone else and indeed such attitudes are positively dangerous.

GAT
More...

Warren doesn’t backrest right? Backtestable stuff is only a temporary pattern that always self defeats.

Mine has been forward tested because once you are on the same page with them pro boys there are very few surprises.

No I can’t prove it. I thought about how to show my accounts without showing my accounts. But who gives a f. This is the internet.

Seems some people have picked up this method. So it can be helpful to some. But no. For most people it’s no use. Most people don’t deserve to be rich anyway lol.
 
Different strokes for different folks.

Warren Buffet would probably be average at portfolio management, Ray Dalio at making concentrated investment decisions and George Soros risking 2% per trade.

The worst thing you can do is adopt another person's ideology that you don't believe in and doesn't leverage your skills.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dozu888 said:
Warren doesn’t backrest right? Backtestable stuff is only a temporary pattern that always self defeats.

Mine has been forward tested because once you are on the same page with them pro boys there are very few surprises.

No I can’t prove it. I thought about how to show my accounts without showing my accounts. But who gives a f. This is the internet.

Seems some people have picked up this method. So it can be helpful to some. But no. For most people it’s no use. Most people don’t deserve to be rich anyway lol.
More...
In a way we (some of us) do appreciate your posts, they gave us retails hope. We don't need a statistic, physics, math or finance PhD to be successful traders.
 
ironchef said:
N

Not quite, buy and hold BRK is better. Or MSFT, or....
More...

in hindsight BRK yes... but Warren has lost edge... has market performed for what, 20 years already? value investing dead.... but QQQ will always catch whatever new stuff coming along... so then you are talking QQQ vs. SPY more or less.

now MSFT, actually MAGA msft aapl googl amzn... you could argue for the foreseeable future just buying the top few can actually enhance return without adding risk... it's a valid argument in this age of big scale... big data AI that small guys can't compete... and the entire economy for that matter... IWM dead for the same reason... nimbleness is no longer an advantage.
 
ironchef said:
In a way we (some of us) do appreciate your posts, they gave us retails hope. We don't need a statistic, physics, math or finance PhD to be successful traders.
More...

thx...

this is the best environment...

- looking back in history this is the first time with NIRP ZIRP and due to 'forced diversification' and yield chasing from retirees pension funds etc now we have a 'value pocket' in equities with a huge yield advantage, which I have posted repeatedly.... this is where you want to be, the asset class that's hated.

- technology is the only game in town.... no growth anywhere else, traditional industries all dead.. ... only computer/network speed and storage capacity is doubling every 18 months... no brainer here.

therefore for the average retail even if you don't get fancy just buy n hold with eyes closed you capture 12.5% with consistent accumulation you get rich in no time... simple math.

statistics etc all waste of time... if them HFs loaded with army of PhDs and programmers can't do it, why bother as a retail.

the stuff I put out in 'trading is easy' is not that significant... perhaps add a few % points per year, but in the grand scheme of things it's really about investing in America and technologies and let the best and the brightest like bezos pichai cook etc make you rich.
 
Out of curiosity I looked up my own performance vs QQQ since inception (July 2013): 247% vs 176.3% (both numbers from Fundseeder so may be different from numbers I report myself)

I could go on about Sharpe Ratio, statistical signficance and alpha; but none of that 'book learning' matters apparently just historic performance :-)

GAT
 
globalarbtrader said:
The lower risk of diversification is a mathematical fact*, nothing to do with what has happened historically.

* Unless all correlations go to exactly one and stay there permanently

It's a massive gamble unless you have a super human ability to forecast future returns. If you don't then, in expectation, a diversified portfolio will have a higher Sharpe Ratio than a non diversified one.

GAT
More...
You're discussing modern portfolio theory with someone who doesn't grasp what a Sharpe Ratio is. It's like trying to explain general relatively to a 5 year old who thinks they know better than you
 
Sig said:
You're discussing modern portfolio theory with someone who doesn't grasp what a Sharpe Ratio is. It's like trying to explain general relatively to a 5 year old who thinks they know better than you
More...
I don't quite understand modern portfolio theory and Sharpe Ratio but I do understand general relativity. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top