> Shouldn't everyone just buy the lowest cost passive ETF of a big enough index like S&P 500 then?
Yes, this is very best the advise to invest your money (except if your name is Warren Buffet). Buy it and hold it.
There have been so many papers published that show this. You cannot predict the market, what you can do is save yourself some risk and some transaction costs.
Any investment advisor that tells you different is plain wrong and probably has a second agenda.
You can also save yourself time. I see so many people use enormous amounts of time reading headlines about companies and consuming videos about the economy and all that jazz to stay up to date and make "informed trades". But in the end a lot of that time is wasted. And you might say that's ok if that is their hobby, but lets be honest, the reason people do this is because they got sold on the idea that they can get rich from it.
If everyone invested in index funds, then there would be a lot of money to be made from you alone looking at the market. There are often companies that announce some new product that will (at least for a few years) outsell their competition. Index fund have no way to know that the company will thus be worth more money than their competition, but you do.
The problem is the above is similar to a zero sum game in that there is a fixed total profit to be made in that way, and that money is shared between everyone who is correct (including index funds!). Since there are a lot of people trying to make the above trades the total profit you can make is reduced as they have already moved the price above what a pure index fund market would have it at. (a true zero sum game every winner is paired with a loser, while the above doesn't actually have losers in the same way, but I don't know any other way to explain it)
I concluded long ago that if I made studying the market my full time job and hobby I could make a good income doing it. However reading all the reports is boring, while writing code is fun, so I just invest in index funds.
> I concluded long ago that if I made studying the market my full time job and hobby I could make a good income doing it
I'd be curious how you reached this conclusion. The outside view (lots of academic papers on this) is that nobody beats the market over a long time frame. I've often thought this assumes scale-invariance; as I look to make lower volumes of money, I'll see things that aren't worth a real trader's time. Another way I can see this as true is if you don't need to have the money invested all the time - if you strategically pick 1 investment every 5 years, can I expect to beat the market by picking the absolute best trade?
Despite those ideas, I concluded long ago that nobody can beat the market over time, with maybe 1-2 exceptions.
There are a handful of people - Peter Lynch, Warren Buffet... That over the years have proven that thesis false. The vast majority do not beat the market, but the vast majority are investing on emotion and fads.
I would have completely missed amazon and google, but there were other companies that would for a while grow at better than market rates that I would have found (or so I think!), and would have been able to get out of in time (this isn't hard because I don't need to call the top, I can be off by many months and still have a nice return). These companies carry much less downside risk vs dot coms - most of which failed, and part of doing well long term is ensuring that your losses are not good because you will have them from time to time.
Note that you don't have to beat the market by much to pull this off so long as you live cheap those first years.
> nobody can beat the market over time, with maybe 1-2 exceptions.
Apologies for the poor wording. Agreed there do appear to be a few people who beat the market regularly. My perspective is those people are not using the same tools available to even elite traders - Buffett gets really good deals because of who he is. That kind of thing isn't available to anyone else and in the context of "could GP beat the market if they worked really hard and were really smart", it rounds to "nobody can beat it".
I haven't read those academic papers you mentioned so I might have missed some insights, but after thinking about it on and off for a while my thoughts on it are:
1. Many people trading on the stock market are professional traders who do it as a full time job, and they have access to information and tools that you don't. So unless you expend similar amount of time in studying the markets, it's highly unlikely you'd beat them.
2. Even the best traders generally beat the market by a couple percent on average. So in order to compensate for time cost of equivalent to a full time job on studying the markets, the fund you're investing needs to be: (your salary / x%) -- Let's say you expect 100k salary, and somehow you can beat the market by 5% if you put in the time, then you need a fund of 100k/0.05 = 2000k for the enterprise to "break even" so to speak.
3. Most people don't have 2 million to invest. And even if they do, they don't want to spend 40+ hours a week studying the stock market. So, since trading is basically a zero sum game, most people who invest small amounts of money perform worse than the market.
This doesn't even go into the tricky details of determining whether your performance is due to skill or luck (or lack thereof). The 5% is subtle enough, but not having any degree of certainty at all makes reviewing your decisions and trying to improve your trading skills even harder.
That said, there's probably more than a couple people besides the big names who can pull this off. It's just that even if you consistently beat the market, it takes a long time for people (including yourself?) to notice, because the effects are so subtle at first. In a sense Warren Buffet owes his fame not only to his skill but also to his age, and his willingness to engage in the activity even when he has all the money in the world. I suspect most other people find other interesting things to do once they earn a hundred million or so since it's more money than they ever need...
This is a reasonable summary of mutual funds not beating the market. I think it's maybe a single-digit number of individuals can do it, but the reasonable default should be something like "a number that rounds to 0% of money managers in any format are able to beat the market over a long time frame".
Yes, this is very best the advise to invest your money (except if your name is Warren Buffet). Buy it and hold it. There have been so many papers published that show this. You cannot predict the market, what you can do is save yourself some risk and some transaction costs. Any investment advisor that tells you different is plain wrong and probably has a second agenda.