https://sh.itjust.works/post/65893764

Notable that this is only using information from the chart, and that just because something is a 100 year trend doesn't mean it will remain a trend forever.

I can't tell if you're joking or not.

if you want to try it , it is fun : https://beatthecouch.com/can-you-time-the-market

it is interesting that 1 out of 10 fund manager beat the market. And that is exactly what did the player of the game : 12% beat the market without it being pure luck.

So it seems there is an embedded 10% of beating the market. Which could only mean , that even those 10% are just lucky, or in other term, there is a non randomness in the market that 10% of people can actually randomly get right. Or something like that.

Not joking, so I'll elaborate: although I still own them because they aren't a bad choice overall I believe index funds will likely not continue growing indefinitely and this period of history will prove to be exceptional, so I disagree with the narrative that it is always a better choice to trust them over your own judgment. Here's some possible reasons for this:

• They track the growth of the US empire, which faces increasing risk of collapse
• They track global population growth, which is halting, bringing an end to the pyramid scheme of larger new generations of labor
• As a general principle, resources are finite and infinite growth is a contradiction
• Even if the economy overall continues to grow, political corruption or other factors can force index funds to be packed with companies that have delusional valuations. If financial institutions have an obligation to buy trash on behalf of investors, that grift could go on for a while before blowing up. The whole mechanism that makes it work as an investment is that they are correctly reading, and the market is giving, accurate signals about the value of companies that you can copy trade in aggregate, but that could break or be broken.

The couch always wins.

Yep. Keep in mind that investing in index funds was a successful strategy during a period when it was not so commonplace. When it becomes the norm the whole foundation of why it was successful changes.

You actually have to have people analysing companies and stocks, ie actively trading based on fundamentals, for it to work. Index investing is piggybacking in that. But when it becomes the driving force the market loses its ability to pick winners and gets dominated by momentum, and can be taken advantage of

• https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Fama_and_French_three-factor_model
• https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Fama_and_French_five-factor_model

It would be interesting to see if it's kind of the same fund managers beating the market all the time, or it is random 10%? Unfortunately since everyone involved is competing for profit there's no incentive to let the rest of the world know what they've found.

The flip side of those numbers is that 90% of fund managers won't beat the market. If your fund manager is just buying stacks of VOO then why are you paying them to do what you can do yourself. If they're buying a bunch of complicated stuff to match VOO but charge you more money for it, then you're behind people who just bought VOO for a much smaller fee. If they're not beating VOO then how do they stay in business (hint: marketing)?

One interesting aspect of this game is that it's enough to trigger Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO). It does not, however, capture how many days it would take for whatever your guess is to play out. You can be utterly convinced a crash is coming and try to sit it out and just watch the line go up. To really play you'd need to see other indicators like volume and what the VIX is doing, but none of that measures the underlying health of the market itself-just what other people think it's doing.

This reminds me of the crypto trading hamster

The Renaissance quantitative fund (only based on stat) seems to beat the market consistently : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Technologies

So was Warren buffet (mostly based on owning company and ruling them)

But that's about the only who consistently are beating the market.. but they do... so, it's possible

Buffet can sling around more money than most and tends to buy huge chunks of single companies rather than move a lot of chess pieces at once. I thought the article on Renaissance was interesting with regards to how periods of high volatility jammed up their computers/models. I wonder if all these NVIDIA chips that work well for LLMs would work well for investment style calculations.

this is kinda dumb. your choosing when to enter or exit the market with no news or any other information about whats going on in the world at the time and it loops through a year so fast you have to make a decision in an instant. it is simply not realistic and doesn't really show anything about how the market or trading works.

no llm are bad at predicting market : https://www.zerve.ai/blog/llms-in-quantitative-research
And I'm pretty sure it is not a human problem, a lot of fund, and intelligent people inside those, must have tried to make very advanced llm predict stock market for them. And if some succeeded (even remotely) the llm makers would have loved to publicize those.

Quantitative model, usually use average and long term strategy, using data in the marked to anticipate how the marked would move next. High volatility move.. are just things outside of the market moving it weirdly. Models can not predict nor anticipate those. It would be like predicting a terrorist attack, or something unusual.

Aside: High intensity trading is not a strategy, it is just a computer market maker : using known bid and ask and matching them fast, and catching a few fraction of cents every time, but doing it all the time. No prediction in that.

1. people usually vastly overestimate their knowledge of the market
2. there are plenty of people who think they can just judge stocks based on previous performance and "line on graph"

DO NOT TELL JD VANCE ABOUT THIS GAME

If you know what a single greek letter means financially, i can assure you that you will never make a single dollar day trading.

Or 4 million in an instant. Highly depends. Even a blind elephant can remember to nut twice a day

It works if you sell options and don’t buy them

yes but this does not show that.

this does not give an example of that though. day trading is a whole nuther beast vs regular trading. its actually why I think every stock transaction should have a very small tax to discourage it.

Now that the stock market has been raped so badly they've opened it up to the citizenry so they can get their hands on all the small change as well. Questrade anyone?

That's interesting, but only go after the high volume traders. Keep the computers at bay, because those are the ones that are sucking our life force.