I beat the market albeit not everyday.
i feel the same, especially afterQuote from neutrino:
We just got 200 years of positive stock returns and academics are quick to conclude that we can expect another 200 years of such stellar performance. //skipped// So there is an implied risk in any kind of decision, including a passive investing strategy.

Quote from rolextrader:
I beat the market albeit not everyday.
(a joke -- i don't have a dog, really)
I think it's much better if the client knows that the money manager is in this business for the money. This will make the client much more careful to pick a manager whom he trusts. An honest manager is better than simply a smart manager, because if at some point he realizes that he cannot deliver the expected returns he will return the money to the client instead of churning his capital for years. I'd like to have clients who know that I will make money even if they lose and they choose me nevertheless. And I will also educate them about the advantages of a passive low-cost investing strategy if they are not aware of it. May be I am too idealistic, but I think targeting the right client and building the business for the long-term is critical to the success in any venture.Quote from u21c3f6:
I assume you will leave the above out of your prospectus. I will assume that you are sincere in your purpose but it does not warm my cockles to see you post the above sentiment.
Quote from NY0BScalper:
Neutrino, just a thought in regards to your opinion on market efficiency and the futility of active trading.
Moving in and out of large - institutional - blocks of stock often incurs excessive slippage, even if the order is well worked. This is a much higher cost than the cost of paying the broker, explaining partially why so many funds massively under perform the indecies.
However, smaller scale players like me can watch you bigger institutional guys try to work your orders... and while you guys may be battling it out in what's really a craps shoot that's so efficient that the only way you will be beating the S&P is with luck, it's a fact that whenever someone tries to work an order large relative to the volume the stock does, slippage is going to happen. Part of the reason slippage happens is scumbags like me are talented at figuring out when and how you're working your order, and we can get in front of it and scalp you for $300 or $1000 or whatever. Doing that everyday, you may not make 7 figs (though that has been done), but making year in year out 6 figs - with returns totally uncorrelated to the S&P, and % ROI that KILL any larger fund - is totally possible.
What I'm saying is... it may be true that you can't really outsmart the market longer term, but as long as people try, guys like me can scalp them and consistently outperform.

Quote from FuturesBroker:
I disagree that you can't make money. I make money trading... Ill admit I have bad days but overall I can trade the mini ES consistently well.
That aside... I will indeed agree that there is no "edge" because we all see the same things and counter each other's moves constantly. That is after all, what makes a market. The fact that you might think its going down and I think its going up creates liquidity and movement.
The only real "edge" is experience. Someone here noted patterns and I completely agree with that. There are times it just "feels" right to go long or short because I notice these patterns or movements and just know its getting ready to make a big move. Heck, just today my indicators pointed short and I went against it with my gut feeling and next thing you knew I was making money.
Experience is the only real edge in my humble opinion.
Quote from tigerwu:
Neutrino,
I agree with you that markets in general are random. I am new to this forum, but not new to the market. Through almost 15 years of successfully trading, including a few years of running my own HF, I can speculate that markets are 99.9% efficient. The key to trading is to find that 0.1% of time when do you have a definable edge. Having positive pnl is not a proof the markets are inefficient. Most people confuse profit with edge. At any given moment, the most successful traders are the ones who take the biggest risk. They may get lucky in the short term, but top traders in general fail spectacularly over time.
Now how do you find that 0.1% definable edge? I am still searching for the answer myself. When in college, I used to work for a bunch of IPO flippers. They had 10 years of consistent 50% plus annual returns, until the strategy got too popular. After college, I traded with the NASDAQ SOES bandits. They had a great edge for a few years until the game was shut down. Back in late 90's the so called time zone arbitrage, was the best risk/reward I have ever seen. Off course that went away when everyone started doing it and regulators soon caught on.
The way I see it, at any moment in time, there are a few trading strategies that can offer consistent returns. But there's always a limit on how much could be done and how long they will remain viable. The more people know about it, the less likely there's an edge. Over time market efficiency always sets in. Look at all the HF blowups now. Stat Arb, Convert Arb, the list goes on and on.....
Markets are always evolving. Isn't this why trading is so much fun?!