/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>14289170
Your main argument was that Lynch's advice is outdated and that, while it may have been good advice that would have produced superior returns at the time (late 80s, early 90s), his advice will no longer produce above-average returns today. The main point of evidence that you've offered for this is an academic theory (efficient market hypothesis) that predates Lynch's books and his career. Unless you're going to provide evidence that the stock market is so much more "efficient" than it was even in Lynch's time, all your argument would show (if true) is that Lynch's principles didn't even work in his own day, and that his success was just a random accident.

The idea that it's impossible to exceed average results doesn't make logical sense. Take your assumption that the average retail investor and the average fund manager both fail to beat the market. Basic arithmetic tells us in order for that to be the case that quite a few people have to be doing significantly better than average. You might say that it's true that some do better than average, but they only do better than average by random chance, but I think that still remains to be proven.

>>1638626
>Vanguard is good if you're content with an average return
This is 100% false.

The average investor underperforms the market index by a substantial factor. There are many reasons for this: fees, commissions, poor asset selection, poor timing, taxes, etc.

An index fund is not only better than picking your own investments, its well above average.

>>725030
kek

Son, you can't push my buttons cuz there's no buttons to push. When you're in the index masterace, you get to sit back and laugh at the peons.