proven by statistics. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...d-the-math-explaining-active-manager-futility
Traders don't need to outperform the market, they just need a tiny piece of it. And I owe it all to margin.
I believe fund managers are out for themselves, anyone disagree? So what is going rate of management fee that is percentage of entire account? 4%, 5%, 6% ??? SO, for example have small 1 million account and you being manager, made 20% return for the clients which comes to $200,000 and you charging 6% management fee paid end of the year your fund made $72,000 plus 20% of new profits manager makes which comes to $40,000, so the fund made more than the manager, and why I think cuts into why many funds don't beat the S&P500 Index, you want to make enough so people don't bail on your fund and yet the fund makes more than the clients.
The article's headline says: "An overlooked statistical concept shows why it’s so hard to beat a benchmark." This thread's headline says: "why you or active money managers cannot outperform the markets" ...
Dude management fees are 1%, 2% if you're a retail (and the fund usually pays the 1% to the distributor) and more 0.5% if you're institutional.
If you actually listen to what the guy says, this relates only to mutual funds and stock pickers. Hedge funds = credit, distressed, private equity, managed futures, etc. This is far from statistical proof.
James Simons I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there's a reason why he only hires matheticians, engineers and phycists that the economists/finance types still can't figure out.