Hacker News Reader

Comment by timthelion | Hacker News Reader

There is a lot of this going on in Prague. There is even an entire specialty called geoinformatics that you can study. I have an aquantance who's first comercial project was to tell the city which street lights are out.

This really goes to show, however, how the everyday man has no hope, as an investor, against the big boys.

Edit: I origionally wanted to link to this startup https://spaceknow.com/ but couldn't remember the name.

View on HN

The everyday man should not be investing in individual stocks like this. They should be parking their money in low cost indexes[1].

[1] http://seekingalpha.com/article/4049862-investment-advice-wa...

Index funds seem to be emerging as a new religion on the comment sections of the internet. As religions go it's reasonably harmless, but the faith that some folks have in index funds vs sensibly diversified portfolios of decent self-selected stocks is disarming.

A reasonably chosen self-selected buy-and-hold portfolio will, on average, perform just about as well as an index fund. Psychologically it can be better or worse depending on your personality because you get/have to take responsibility for your profit/loss.

> on average

I think the goal of an index fund is to normalize results, so that you don't happen to be the guy who ends up significantly below average.

But that means you're not going to end up significantly above average either. Whether that makes sense really depends on your financial situation and tolerance for risk than any hard and fast rule.

But it seems that most people don't really beat the index funds so the expected returns are essentially the same as index funds. Without higher returns why would you take higher risk?

Your returns are potentially higher. And lower.

Let's say I want to take an Alaskan cruise, but I don't quite have the money. If I get a higher return I'll have enough to go. If I get a lower return I won't go, and I'll still have enough money for rent. In my (admittedly contrived) scenario I'm willing to accept more risk as long as my returns are potentially higher.

It's risk-adjusted return that you and the GP care about. It's fairly straightforward to add both risk and return - just add leverage. Picking individual stocks, on the other hand, means you wind up being the "dumb money" that the "smart money" systematically takes advantage of.

I don't think it's that hard to beat the "smart money" provided you don't try to out-trade them.

Buying and holding low-cost index funds is one way to beat the "smart money."

The way that you manipulate this is by adjusting your risk profile. If you want potentially higher returns, you accept more risk. If you want predictability, you accept lower returns.

Self-selecting a bunch of stocks increases your risk profile compared to using an index fund of the whole stock market, but you incur significantly more trading costs as a result. If you want to increase your possible returns at greater risks, there are cheaper ways of doing it.

There have been lot of talks that index funds are not what they used to :). The reason stock goes high or low is because there is asymmetry in demand and supply. Previously, some people intelligently bought average stock noticing that average always go up high over long run. However, imagine a world where everyone is always buying average of all stocks. Now there is no longer asymmetry and no longer profits for people who settled for average. So as everyone move towards low cost index funds, they receive diminishing returns.

There will still be that asymmetry. My comment was specifically with regards to "the everyday man" who is not a savvy investor, does not have access to all the tools and data, etc. Wallstreet will keep doing its thing just fine even if more Mainstreet investors jump on indexes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com