Another silly anti-index article

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
BogleMe
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:10 pm

Another silly anti-index article

Post by BogleMe »

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/troubl ... lcountdown

General theme is that active funds better protect capital in downturns. Of course downside protection is not the role for the equity side of your portfolio. This is about as intellectual as the active side can get...it is a pretty weak defense of paying, in perpetuity, 1-2% for idle cash that many times approaches 20% or more of a funds holdings.
Last edited by BogleMe on Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
cfs
Posts: 4154
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:22 am
Location: ~ Mi Propio Camino ~

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by cfs »

Great !!!

Market veteran gives stockpickers the edge in a downturn

Yeah, right, that's why they did so great during the 2008 financial markets debacle.
~ Member of the Active Retired Force since 2014 ~
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by nisiprius »

Classic XKCD:

Image
Last edited by nisiprius on Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Pizzasteve510
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by Pizzasteve510 »

Brilliant cartoon Nisiprius. Is it repostable?
User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Posts: 32842
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

The Bear Market Myth

Post by Taylor Larimore »

Bogleheads:

This article continues the MYTH that the average actively-managed fund outperforms in bear markets. The facts are opposite.

For more than 10 years the S&P Indices Versus Active studies (SPIVA®) have been
measuring the performance of actively managed funds against their relevant S&P index benchmarks. This is their conclusion:
Bear markets should generally favor active managers. Instead of being 100% invested in a market that is turning south, active managers would have the opportunity to move to cash, or seek more defensive positions. Unfortunately, that opportunity does not often translate to reality. In the two true bear markets the SPIVA Scorecard has tracked over the last decade, most active equity managers failed to beat their benchmarks.
S&P INDICES VERSUS ACTIVE FUNDS (SPIVA) SCORECARD

Happy Holiday!
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
ANC
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by ANC »

BogleMe wrote:http://www.marketwatch.com/story/troubl ... lcountdown

General theme is that active funds better protect capital in downturns. Of course downside protection is not the role for the equity side of your portfolio. This is about as intellectual as the active side can get...it is a pretty weak defense of paying, in perpetuity, 1-2% for idle cash that many times approaches 20% or more of a funds holdings.
I would have to disagree with this. It just makes common sense to reduce the risk on the riskiest part of your portfolio.
cfs wrote:Great !!!

Market veteran gives stockpickers the edge in a downturn

Yeah, right, that's why they did so great during the 2008 financial markets debacle.
I actually own three funds, two active and one passive, that trade along these lines of reducing downside risk. Their 2008 records:

VFIAX -36.97%
PRWCX -27.17%
NSEIX -23.59%
BRLIX -33.30%

Over 10 and 15 years, the two active funds are ahead and the passive slightly behind (NSEIX/BRLIX results are probably affected somewhat by midcap/megacap tilts).
lack_ey
Posts: 6701
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:55 pm

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by lack_ey »

Active fund downside risk depends on the manager's style, types of holdings, and so on. I don't think we should lump all active management together when discussing certain attributes of performance.

And who seriously proposes that equity index funds are necessarily safer? (safer than many active managerial styles, sure, but carrying the market and factor risks of the index tracked) A passive investor's downside protection comes from reducing predictable amounts of market exposure through strategic asset allocation that includes safer securities.
yoasif
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:18 pm

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by yoasif »

nisiprius wrote:Image
Pizzasteve510 wrote:Brilliant cartoon Nisiprius. Is it repostable?
yeah, mostly.
zrzhu111
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:03 pm

Index funds suffer greater losses in a market decline?

Post by zrzhu111 »

[Thread merged into here, see below. --admin LadyGeek]

Just read this article on marketwatch.com. I don't quite understand it. What do you think?

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/troubl ... eid=yhoof2
jebmke
Posts: 25474
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Delmarva Peninsula

Re: Index funds suffer greater losses in a market decline?

Post by jebmke »

I skimmed the article and didn't spot any empirical data supporting his hypothesis. Did you?
Don't trust me, look it up. https://www.irs.gov/forms-instructions-and-publications
Tom_T
Posts: 4836
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:33 pm

Re: Index funds suffer greater losses in a market decline?

Post by Tom_T »

There is quite the debate going on in the comments section of that article. Let's just say that nobody is changing the other side's mind.
User avatar
Aptenodytes
Posts: 3786
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:39 pm

Re: Index funds suffer greater losses in a market decline?

Post by Aptenodytes »

Seems to be the same junk they've peddled before. Why do you read this stuff? It is 100% baloney.

1) Active funds keep more cash so they lose less money during bear markets. True but irrelevant. You invest for the long term and you can't predict bear markets, so this has no practical meaning.

2) Index funds are market-cap weighted but investors are better off tilting to small-cap funds. Kind of true -- the "but" makes it wrong though. The best way to tilt to small-cap is with index funds. This is a stupid canard.

3) Index fund owners engage in panic-selling, whereas active managers are smarter than that. Some truth to this statement but completely wrong regarding the implication. We know that many index fund owners buy and sell at the wrong time. They buy the right product but they don't know how to do it right. They buy high when everything looks rosy and then they cash out at the trough because they are sickened by the experience. Professional money managers don't make this mistake so much. Instead, they make other mistakes. But the advice is 100% idiotic, self-serving and harmful. If this were a regulated profession the author should be sued for malpractice. If you have a patient whose disease is panic selling, the remedy is not getting them to shift from index to managed funds; it is getting them educated about the markets and their own tolerance for risk, and then adjusting their index fund holdings so they don't engage in panic selling. As far as I know there is no evidence whatsoever that owners of index funds engage in panic selling more often than owners of actively managed funds. So the argument is specious.

Don't read this newsletter!
Call_Me_Op
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Milky Way

Re: Index funds suffer greater losses in a market decline?

Post by Call_Me_Op »

Are you surprised that being 100% in the market during a downturn may mean greater loss than being less than 100% exposed to the market? The usual useless jibberish, IMO.
Best regards, -Op | | "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Einstein
Leeraar
Posts: 4109
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:41 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Index funds suffer greater losses in a market decline?

Post by Leeraar »

There you go, the new slogan:

"We don't gain more, but we lose less."

It's quite possible. Underperforming (gaining less) on the upside may mean underperforming (losing less) on the downside. That, for example, is what DCA predictably does. Edit: Cash drags both ways.

L.
Last edited by Leeraar on Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You can get what you want, or you can just get old. (Billy Joel, "Vienna")
livesoft
Posts: 86075
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: Index funds suffer greater losses in a market decline?

Post by livesoft »

Actively-managed funds suffer greater losses in a market rise.

My spouse's 401(k) plan has the Madoff option where the advisor gets to manage any assets put in this option. It is down about 10% for 2014 despite the S&P 500 being up about 15%.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.
User avatar
Aptenodytes
Posts: 3786
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:39 pm

Re: Index funds suffer greater losses in a market decline?

Post by Aptenodytes »

Leeraar wrote:There you go, the new slogan:

"We don't gain more, but we lose less."

It's quite possible. Underperforming (gaining less) on the upside may mean underperforming (losing less) on the downside. That, for example, is what DCA predictably does.

L.
I don't see the logic. They gain less on the way up because they pick winners inaccurately and have high fees. On the way down they are still picking the wrong stocks and still have higher fees, but they get a little boost by holding higher cash reserves, which does lower losses compared to being fully invested. But there's no mathematical way that benefit can offset the negatives, any more than trying to drive a car with three wheels will work any better if you have a good muffler.
Leeraar
Posts: 4109
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:41 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Index funds suffer greater losses in a market decline?

Post by Leeraar »

I didn't say it's a good argument. :happy

L.
You can get what you want, or you can just get old. (Billy Joel, "Vienna")
User avatar
tfb
Posts: 8397
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:46 pm

Re: Index funds suffer greater losses in a market decline?

Post by tfb »

Duplicate thread. See viewtopic.php?f=10&t=154198
Harry Sit has left the forums.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 95686
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by LadyGeek »

FYI - I merged zrzhu111's thread into here.

Also, nisiprius is using inline linking (the browser is displaying the image directly from the website), which constitutes fair use of copyright. Linking to Copyrighted Materials

For completeness, the image is from xkcd.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
Jeff7
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by Jeff7 »

Pizzasteve510 wrote:Brilliant cartoon Nisiprius. Is it repostable?
Original site link.
For those new to XKCD, hover your cursor over the image. Alt-text pops up as a sort of secondary caption.

The page itself gives instructions for linking and embedding the image.


cfs wrote:Great !!!

Market veteran gives stockpickers the edge in a downturn

Yeah, right, that's why they did so great during the 2008 financial markets debacle.
James Stack, a widely respected investment newsletter editor and money manager...
He knows how to navigate severe downturns, and yet he's still just a newsletter editor and "money manager?" (I manage money too, though it's mainly my own. Can I get similar billing?) If he was around for the dot-com bust and the 2009 recession, he should own at least one superyacht by now.


While active managers will sell stock on the way down, the sense of security engendered by index funds may lead shareholders to wait longer to sell, prolonging the decline.
Buy and hold. So yes, they probably will wait longer to sell.
Prolonging the decline? If it's passive indexing, shouldn't it inherently have little effect on the duration of a downturn?
User avatar
Trevor
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:16 pm

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by Trevor »

Maybe an active manager gets lucky and shields their investors from the next market crash before it happens, but are they going to get lucky AGAIN and re-enter the market at the lowest point? That's where I'm doubtful :oops:
WWJD - What Would Jack Do?
Median Joe
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:37 pm

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by Median Joe »

Rest of the article doesn't make much sense but this argument needs to be addressed.
Also, with index funds accounting for so much of new investment, how soon will it be before they become so dominant that effectively no one is setting prices for stocks beyond a minority of active managers, day traders, computer algorithms and investment bank proprietary trading desks? That could mean prices being determined even more by momentum and less by intrinsic value based on economic and corporate fundamentals.
I guess counter argument is: If/when index funds become dominant, opportunity for some sort of arbitrage will come up and market forces will determine the balance.
Topic Author
BogleMe
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:10 pm

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by BogleMe »

Yes, Bernstein thinks it will shake out about 50/50 active/passive.
dgdevil
Posts: 938
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 12:42 pm

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by dgdevil »

I subscribe to James Stack's newsletter, and saw his anti-index item about 2 weeks ago - and agreed with him, of course. He's a pretty conservative guy overall, about 80% invested and giving the bull market "the benefit of the doubt." You'd be unwise to bet against him.
Stonebr
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:19 am
Location: Maine

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by Stonebr »

ANC wrote: I actually own three funds, two active and one passive, that trade along these lines of reducing downside risk. Their 2008 records:

VFIAX -36.97%
PRWCX -27.17%
NSEIX -23.59%
BRLIX -33.30%

Over 10 and 15 years, the two active funds are ahead and the passive slightly behind (NSEIX/BRLIX results are probably affected somewhat by midcap/megacap tilts).
I used to buy track records. Never could figure out how to buy them retroactive to when they started. :confused
"have more than thou showest, | speak less than thou knowest" -- The Fool in King Lear
User avatar
Random Musings
Posts: 6770
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by Random Musings »

The title of the article, "How index funds misleads investors" provided enough info for me.

Although I do think Stack, who provides comprehensive historical information, gave interesting insight to money flows into index funds.

RM
I figure the odds be fifty-fifty I just might have something to say. FZ
subham
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:01 pm

is there any truth in this?

Post by subham »

[Thread merged into here, see below. --admin LadyGeek]

How index funds mislead investors

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/troubl ... 2014-12-30
DualIncomeNoDebt
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 3:38 am

Re: is there any truth in this?

Post by DualIncomeNoDebt »

User avatar
in_reality
Posts: 4529
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by in_reality »

I'll go out on a limb here and say in a way the article is true and informative for a certain type of investor.

For us, we set our AA and have bonds to limit losses.

Some investors use mutli-asset funds though. American Funds is a prime example. In that case, just switching to index funds is not the solution.

Of course active isn't the solution either. So really the article should be titled "index funds need bonds" or something along those lines, and then properly explain about setting an AA.
selters
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:26 am

Re: Another silly anti index article

Post by selters »

The argument that active funds reduce losses in down markets has been debunked many times and is obviously silly. But the point about the market behaving differently in the future because of more and more assets being held by index investors and etfs is plausible. 50 years ago the stock market was the sum of many stock pickers. In the future the stock market will act like many holders of indices and a few stock pickers and computer traders. I don't know how that will affect the market, but I'm sure it will affect it somehow. Maybe in the future we will see even greater herd like behavior than before.
Last edited by selters on Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 95686
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Another silly anti-index article

Post by LadyGeek »

I merged subham's thread into here. I also changed the thread title from "anti index" to "anti-index".
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
555
Posts: 4955
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:21 am

Re: Another silly anti-index article

Post by 555 »

Another silly "Another silly anti-index article" thread.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Another silly anti-index article

Post by nisiprius »

Since an index fund tracks an index, it is true that "an [index fund] investor will experience all of the losses in the market index."

It is therefore vacuously true that any investor who does not experience all the losses in the market index cannot be indexing.

Corollary: all funds that do not experience all of the losses in the market index must be actively managed funds.

But of course, the inverse is not true. All funds that protect capital in a downturn better than index funds are active funds, but not all active funds better protect capital in a downturn.

For example, this one didn't:

Source: Morningstar

Image

So it's the same old problem. How do you know which active funds will?
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Another silly anti-index article

Post by nisiprius »

Obviously, it's easy to tell which active funds that will provide protection in downturns. Just use the ones that say they will. For example, this 2007 JPMorgan Chase document says
For instance, we developed a series of target date funds with a focus on downside protection, to address the fact that overly aggressive allocations may negatively affect participants who retire during unfavorable markets or have less than ideal investing habits. Our target date funds include alternative asset classes, which seek to provide the additional diversification that captures alpha and helps reduce risk.
Here, then, is the comparative performance of JPMorgan SmartRetirement 2040, SMTIX, and Vanguard Target Retirement 2040, VFORX.

You can decide whether a fall to $6,134, instead of $6,238, can be considered "downside protection."

Source: Morningstar

Image
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
rakaye47
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 6:35 am

Re: Another silly anti-index article

Post by rakaye47 »

actually the JP Morgan actively managed fund in my 401k has been doing pretty well, beating the S&P

ticker is JGACX - JPMorgan Growth Advantage Fund Class C
Pizzasteve510
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 3:32 pm

Re: Another silly anti-index article

Post by Pizzasteve510 »

Removed by OP
Last edited by Pizzasteve510 on Thu Jan 01, 2015 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Miriam2
Posts: 4387
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:51 am

Re: Another silly anti-index article

Post by Miriam2 »

nisiprius wrote:Corollary: all funds that do not experience all of the losses in the market index must be actively managed funds.
But of course, the inverse is not true. All funds that protect capital in a downturn better than index funds are active funds, but not all active funds better protect capital in a downturn.
For example, this one didn't: graph of LMVTX
So it's the same old problem. How do you know which active funds will?
LMVTX - Legg Mason ClearBridge Value C fund is still in business. ER 1.76%, 12b1 fee .95, back end load of .95%, turnover 40%.
10-yr return 1.89% vs. Vg Total Stock of 8.08%, according to the internet.
HOW do these funds STAY IN BUSINESS?? Who buys them?
subham
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:01 pm

Re: Another silly anti-index article

Post by subham »

Index funds can also suffer from their emphasis on momentum over value. Benchmark indexes tend to be capitalization weighted; the highest allocations go to the market’s largest companies. As investors make big stocks, such as Apple AAPL, -0.18% and Google GOOG, -0.30% , bigger, the stocks become bigger parts of indexes, so when investment in index funds rises, even more money goes into those stocks, Stack points out.
This has bothered me a lot as one of the downsides of market weighted index. Is there a proven index that came out winning over market weighted index? Or is there a fundamental flaw in this reasoning?
toto238
Posts: 1914
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:39 am

Re: Another silly anti-index article

Post by toto238 »

Miriam2 wrote:
nisiprius wrote:Corollary: all funds that do not experience all of the losses in the market index must be actively managed funds.
But of course, the inverse is not true. All funds that protect capital in a downturn better than index funds are active funds, but not all active funds better protect capital in a downturn.
For example, this one didn't: graph of LMVTX
So it's the same old problem. How do you know which active funds will?
LMVTX - Legg Mason ClearBridge Value C fund is still in business. ER 1.76%, 12b1 fee .95, back end load of .95%, turnover 40%.
10-yr return 1.89% vs. Vg Total Stock of 8.08%, according to the internet.
HOW do these funds STAY IN BUSINESS?? Who buys them?
12b-1 fee of 0.95% explains exactly how they stay in business. If I'm an financial advisor, what do I care if my client's funds grow? I get 0.95% kickback and another 1% on top of that without lifting a finger.
vencat
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:30 pm

Re: Another silly anti-index article

Post by vencat »

subham wrote:
Index funds can also suffer from their emphasis on momentum over value. Benchmark indexes tend to be capitalization weighted; the highest allocations go to the market’s largest companies. As investors make big stocks, such as Apple AAPL, -0.18% and Google GOOG, -0.30% , bigger, the stocks become bigger parts of indexes, so when investment in index funds rises, even more money goes into those stocks, Stack points out.
This has bothered me a lot as one of the downsides of market weighted index. Is there a proven index that came out winning over market weighted index? Or is there a fundamental flaw in this reasoning?
The answer is buried in your question! (I'm referring to the word 'fundamental'). I'm sure, by now, that you are aware of the 2 basic schools of indexing. The popular capweighted, broad index based investing as in the 3 or 4 fund portfolio advocated by John Bogle, perhaps Malkiel, Allan Roth and of course, Taylor Larimore. The other is tilting to small and value based on academic research of Fama and French (complicated recently by introduction of new factors such as momentum and profitability) advocated by many experts such as Larry Swedroe, Rick Ferri (almost reluctantly), William Bernstein, Bill Schultheis, Robert T. Fundamental indexes are a variation of this popularized by Arnott.
But, of course, after 110 posts, you already know all this.
subham
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:01 pm

Re: Another silly anti-index article

Post by subham »

vencat wrote:
subham wrote:
Index funds can also suffer from their emphasis on momentum over value. Benchmark indexes tend to be capitalization weighted; the highest allocations go to the market’s largest companies. As investors make big stocks, such as Apple AAPL, -0.18% and Google GOOG, -0.30% , bigger, the stocks become bigger parts of indexes, so when investment in index funds rises, even more money goes into those stocks, Stack points out.
This has bothered me a lot as one of the downsides of market weighted index. Is there a proven index that came out winning over market weighted index? Or is there a fundamental flaw in this reasoning?
The answer is buried in your question! (I'm referring to the word 'fundamental'). I'm sure, by now, that you are aware of the 2 basic schools of indexing. The popular capweighted, broad index based investing as in the 3 or 4 fund portfolio advocated by John Bogle, perhaps Malkiel, Allan Roth and of course, Taylor Larimore. The other is tilting to small and value based on academic research of Fama and French (complicated recently by introduction of new factors such as momentum and profitability) advocated by many experts such as Larry Swedroe, Rick Ferri (almost reluctantly), William Bernstein, Bill Schultheis, Robert T. Fundamental indexes are a variation of this popularized by Arnott.
But, of course, after 110 posts, you already know all this.
Thanks for bring back the perspective :)

So the issue remains unsettled!
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Another silly anti-index article

Post by nisiprius »

vencat wrote:...The other is tilting to small and value based on academic research of Fama and French (complicated recently by introduction of new factors such as momentum and profitability)...
No, no, no. You aren't hip to the factor jive. Fama and French's five-factor model involves "the market factor RM-RF, the size factor SMB, the profitability factor RMW (robust minus weak) and the investment factor CMA (conservative minus aggressive)." They don't recognize momentum, that's somebody else's factor. And they now consider the value factor, HML, "redundant."

(Added: the momentum factor seems to be due to Mark Carhart. The history is summarized by Larry Swedroe).
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
PeanutButterIsJelly
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:14 pm

Re: Another silly anti-index article

Post by PeanutButterIsJelly »

nisiprius wrote:
So it's the same old problem. How do you know which active funds will?
Easy. Just out fox the box. :oops:

I'll take the three fund for the long haul. I'd rather not spend decades wondering when my factor bet was going to pay off or when my stock jockey's streak will end.
Post Reply