Money manager's long-term performance

#3 10-15-2003, 01:22 PM

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:57:56 CST, zhendsch[at]yahoo.com (zak) wrote:

- quote -

> > 15 years, preferably 20+. Objective is to get both sides of the
> > cycle.
> > I was afraid of that. The only stuff I've seen that would contradict
> that have either been much shorter term or anecdotal in nature.
> While I generally believe that passive will beat active over the long
> term (and I certainly invest that way), I am still uncomfortable with
> the stronger statements about passive management.

Agree. Short-mid term anything can happen and anyone can beat an
index. At least, anybody but me. <grin
Longer term is where I am comfortable enough to buy and hold a
diversified, low cost index fund. And with the longer-term, the only
data I have seen (and my own experience) shows active management is
like betting against the house. (It can work, but only with looooong
odds.)

Hence my request for any recent information on recent performance for
longer terms.

-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

#2 10-15-2003, 12:57 PM

"HW \"Skip\" Weldon" <skip5700[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<o45movg3u0f5ebhglesaa8k3m3oanvind5[at]4ax.com> ...
- quote -

> 15 years, preferably 20+. Objective is to get both sides of the
> cycle.

I was afraid of that. The only stuff I've seen that would contradict
that have either been much shorter term or anecdotal in nature.

While I generally believe that passive will beat active over the long
term (and I certainly invest that way), I am still uncomfortable with
the stronger statements about passive management. I guess in large
part that's because it has the same feel as every other "one good way
to invest." Usually, when everyone believes there's one good way to
invest, it means a crash is imminent.

#1 10-13-2003, 10:43 PM

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:50:29 CST, zhendsch[at]yahoo.com (zak) wrote:

- quote -

> "HW \"Skip\" Weldon" <skip5700[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<p06lovcj7r4mau5e9dshtvu4otgvl6ret1[at]4ax.com> ...
> > Cites, web sites, etc., appreciated. Am interested in LONG-TERM
> > only.
> I started to take a look (there are a couple I can recall), but ran
> into a stumbling block. How long do you consider to be LONG-TERM?

15 years, preferably 20+. Objective is to get both sides of the
cycle.

-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

10-13-2003, 09:50 PM

"HW \"Skip\" Weldon" <skip5700[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<p06lovcj7r4mau5e9dshtvu4otgvl6ret1[at]4ax.com> ...
- quote -

> Cites, web sites, etc., appreciated. Am interested in LONG-TERM
> only.

I started to take a look (there are a couple I can recall), but ran
into a stumbling block. How long do you consider to be LONG-TERM?

#-1 10-13-2003, 01:26 PM

A few years ago Forbes ran an article concluding that long-term, the
market beat most investors.
http://www.forbes.com/funds/2001/06/01/0601funds.html

(I realize that this article is about mutual funds, but professionals
are the ones who guide mutual funds, and mutual fund results is one of
the few places we get to view their audited results over time.)

Does anyone know of an article, report, study, etc., that contradicts
this?

Cites, web sites, etc., appreciated. Am interested in LONG-TERM
only.

Thanks.

-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Short-term, long-term, spinoff Michael Stemper: I have held stock in a company for several years, and have augmented my position by participating in their Dividend Re-Investment Program (DRIP)....	Taxes	5	02-05-2007 05:51 AM
Long Term Gain -- Determining Base Price (May not be the correct term) Patrick: Greetings, (1) In 6/2003, my daughter bought 2 acres or rural land thinking she was going to build on it-- and then sold it in 6/2005 for a...	Taxes	2	02-15-2006 03:38 PM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode