I showed this to a friend and he was like "but without knowing what's happening in the world, it's a lot harder"
I said, "like insider trading?"
He said "no, no, other stuff."
I showed this to a friend and he was like "but without knowing what's happening in the world, it's a lot harder"
I said, "like insider trading?"
He said "no, no, other stuff."
The simulation is cute, but it's also heavily stacked in favor of buy-and-hold by
a) the selected timeline (from 1928 to 2019 the trajectory of the market was overwhelmingly upwards)
b) the limited timespan (only two years to play, so you never have enough time to glean information from the simulation)
And - most importantly
c) no additional information to make your decisions
You can't see the prevailing interest rates. You can't see p/e ratios. You can't see what the S&P is invested in at a given moment.
It's a rigged game, where "buy and hold" is always the optimal strategy.
Vary a, b, or c such that sitting on your money is optimal and you can "beat the couch" more often than not
Saying that a near century long period is a bad sample is a little obtuse IMO
A "near" century that conspicuously omits the Roaring Twenties leading into the worst market crash in history and the COVID crash at the end.
As a counterexample, if you consider the Nikkie's historical run - from it's inception in 1950 to the 2019 benchmarks, the slog from the 1989 downturn to 2019 produces a negative ROI, about −1.65% annualized in yen. The Nikkei closed 1989 at 38,915.87 and 2019 at 23,656.62.
Any Beat the Couch gambit during this period rewards people for staying in cash.
Of course... since 2019, the Nikkei has seen a whooping 17% annualized return, skyrocketing to 66,405.56
The S&P, by comparison, only grew 13% annually.
So if you're playing "Beat the Couch" with the Nikkei as an option, you can win by holding that over the S&P.
But the real TL;DR; of it is that past performance isn't an indication of future success. You can't invest in the historical market. You have to play the market that exists today, without knowing in advance what the future return will be.
I mean if we include up to 2026 buy and hold is up even more. If anything this is underestimating lmao
Years ago, I managed a high-end restaurant. And twice a year a local brokerage firm would rent out the entire restaurant (to the tune of about $30,000) and treat their best clients for dinner.
I always asked the brokers what they invested their own money in. The answer was always the same, an index fund.
When you play the market, you are handicapping yourself with your trading costs, which as a small player will be high. After this, you are betting that you are smarter than the average dollar invested. This is a bad bet.
You could win, if you got the right hands. But the more trades you make, the more your results trend toward your average, and the more the information asymmetry hits. Do you actually know more about these trades than the industrial investors who do this for a living?
Let me put things this way: I worked in Investment Banking as a software developer for the front-office - so directly with traders - at one point in my career, and if people think those guys and galls aren't breaking ever trading rule and regulation (especially insider trading and market manipulation) whilst the Market Regulator very purposefully looks the other way, I have a piece of water crossing property to sell you.
(And this is just normal trading, not even algorithmic trading, were the whole thing is rigged in even more reliable ways like faster than retail access to market information or direct access to the order stack)
Playing the Market as Retail is a mug's game.
Better to just buy mutual funds and leave the money alone
Isn't this essentially a lesson that the market goes up on average?
Of course you can't expect to beat the average trend with uninformed guesses. Do people actually trade like that?
Generally, you can’t expect to beat the market even with informed guesses. That’s the point.
You've been added to the Best of Lemmy: https://sh.itjust.works/post/65897371

As part of my econ degree, we did the math where you pick 20-30 stocks and bonds, toss 30 years of their returns into a matrix, sacrifice a falafel, and figure out the optimal portfolio.
The day we turned in the projects (it was too much math, but like I got the computer to do the linear algebra for me so it only took like 15 minutes. I think it was supposed to take a month or something but I needed enchiladas) we watched a 60 minutes or some other news clip abouta group of economists and a group of stock brokers having an investment competition. They would reach start with 10k of fake seed money, and they'd invest in a fake stock market. Whichever group had the higher average earnings/lowest loss at the end of I don't remember got bragging rights. The stock brokers all day traded, the economists all bought index funds and never touched their investments again. There were a few brokers who had huge earnings, but most of them lost big. All the economists had modest gains. Most of the brokers lost everything. The economists won. Which of course, he wouldn't have shown it to us, the economics department, if they'd lost.
Don't make me tap the sign..
Past performance is not an indication of future returns
This applies to index funds too. An entire market that runs on index funds cannot function at all, and the more they dominate the more risky the outcome. Past stock markets do not indicate what will happen in future, the distribution is different.
These articles/games push a message to invest and don't think, it is not a good message
That's the incorrect conclusion.
People claiming that by regularly adjusting your portfolio, they can get you better returns, are more often incorrect.
That's not a correct conclusion either
are more often incorrect
Have previously been incorrect to an extent.
You do have to adjust a portfolio over time regardless.
And it may be the case that in future value-based investing is more successful than index tracking, which is especially the case when index funds get detached from the value of the underlying business.
Actual performance of a business does matter
Have previously been incorrect to an extent.
Your insert of "Previously" is misleading. There exists no evidence that active management will be more correct in the future either.
value-based investing is more successful than index tracking
You fundamentally misunderstand. You can invest in indicies that track value. The important point is the need to avoid the management and transaction fees of active funds.
Time to invest in a couch 🛋️
The market is easy-hard to make money in.
Easy: pick index funds, put your money in, keep putting money in regularly. That’s it.
Hard: don’t fuck with it. Don’t touch it. Don’t try to time it. Don’t panic and sell if the market rolls back. Don’t listen to people trying to tell you how to get rich quick. Don’t let people manage your money, they’ll move shit around and incur fees and taxes.
That’s how you do it. Yeah, there are people who get lucky and pull a win out of their asses on individual stocks. They’re the exception, that’s why they stand out compared to 99% of the rest of investors. But to win long term? Just do the above.
Judging by the change done to the NASDAQ 100 so that Space X could be in the index soon after IPO instead of having to stay out for longer and obey certain conditions like all other recently IPO-ed stock, even putting your money in an index fund isn't safe anymore since in average stocks after IPOs massively underperform and that inclusion in the NASDAQ 100 forced index funds tracking it to buy the stock at its peak price (the stock price is still well below that, even below its IPO price).
So even owning index funds is now just another way to be one more of the retail sheep that's there to get sheared by well connected insiders and pros.
fun game and fun data but the entire site is ai generated, i think you should disclose that
Indexes are great, but S&P 500 is a US focused index. Would you have the same results if you picked an index based on Britain or Italy over the same time span?
I feel like that sort of thing is going to matter as China keeps rising while the US keeps shooting itself in the foot.
I somehow managed it on my first try!

Still won't try it with real money, but thought it was funny nonetheless.
I am a couch, apparently. I don't recall ever having sold anything I bought.
So the top 10% of players is comparable to the top 10% of monkeys? Would the "Skilled" category not be lucky as well? I mean, a p-value of 10% is not great...
You should calculate portfolio Sharpe/Sortino ratios. Hedge funds for instance often also do not beat just buying an S&P500 ETF, but have less volatile returns (smaller drawdowns) because they go long on some stocks and short on others, which does better in a downturn.
top 50 comments