Made a Reddit post then other day and a commenter (whom I suspect was an active money manager, as my Spidey senses kicked in), said that one could absolutely do better than a 2 or 3 fund portfolio, they ‘just’ need to have an ‘excellent’ active money manager. Someone who will select sectors, bundles of stocks (for example, take a subsection of SP500 and omit particular stocks like Tesla, with the assessment being that it’s overpriced, etc…. I can see the point there, in all fairness.)
I know that the data shows that for active FUND managers, 90% underperformed the market over the last 10 years. (and I suspect the data shows that over 30 or 40 years, probably 98% of them underperformed the market).
My assumption is that this is also true for active money managers (and, for the same reasons as the fund managers. None of those people have any special inside information, they can’t make accurate predictions of the future, and so on, and so forth).
But I’d be curious what people have to say based on actual data. (Not anecdotes, like “ oh, I knew this one guy named Johnny Jackpot that always did better than the market when managing peoples money.” That’s not data.).
I know that the data shows that for active FUND managers, 90% underperformed the market over the last 10 years. (and I suspect the data shows that over 30 or 40 years, probably 98% of them underperformed the market).
My assumption is that this is also true for active money managers (and, for the same reasons as the fund managers. None of those people have any special inside information, they can’t make accurate predictions of the future, and so on, and so forth).
But I’d be curious what people have to say based on actual data. (Not anecdotes, like “ oh, I knew this one guy named Johnny Jackpot that always did better than the market when managing peoples money.” That’s not data.).
Statistics: Posted by spindrift103 — Mon Apr 08, 2024 12:55 pm — Replies 7 — Views 223