Quote from makloda:
Isn't a similar argument valid for trend following? If you can ride a couple of big trends and otherwise cut your losing positions fast you will likely beat the market, as you are (historically) able to dodge tail risk.
Why is rigorous, scientific proof required for trendfollowing (survivor-ship bias free etc.), but all other trading approaches get the benefit of the doubt. I find that strange.
The problem is that they claim there is a simple edge that wont go away, this goes against the history of markets in which edges tend to routinely dissapear. If Tiger Woods says he is a great golfer and will continue to be Top 50 ranked till he is 60, that is one thing, I would believe that, I would take as evidence the fact that he was no1 for so long, this must mean he was born very talented. But if Joe Doe says hes got a special golf club and will be a Top 50 player till he is 60 while telling the entire world how to build and use that club, I would doubt that very much
Now its possible that TF is like going long way OTM options to take advantage of fat tails like Taleb does, and this takes advantage of human nature desire for steady consistent profits while risking large losses but that is a possibility, which is why I would like to see TF returns being calculated in a biases free way, after all, there is no rule that says this human flaw edge cant be closed by large smart hedge funds making levered bets
