I’m going to share 2 studies, one new and one old that say something that is counterintuitive to most people but probably not to traders:
Even with perfect foresight of market movements, there’s no guarantee you’ll be a better investor.
The old one first:
Even God would get fired as an Active Investor (7 min read)
via Alpha Architect
This post from 2016. It demonstrates how a hypothetical portfolio built with perfect knowledge of the top-performing stocks over the next 5 years yielded impressive returns (29% CAGR) but also experienced significant volatility and a 76% drawdown.
Even a ‘perfect’ long portfolio can bring a long-only investor a ton of pain.
The hypothetical long/short portfolio, again with perfect foresight, achieved a remarkable 46% CAGR but still faced a 47%+ drawdown.
For investors who are benchmarked the news is still tougher — The god portfolio still underperformed SPY for extended periods that make it hard to stick with.
When a Crystal Ball Isn’t Enough to Make You Rich (20 min read)
Elm Wealth
Victor Haghani and his team discuss an experiment where participants were given historical front pages of the Wall Street Journal and tasked with trading stocks and bonds based on the news.
Hijinx ensue.
The majority of participants, despite having access to “future” news, failed to generate substantial profits. Many even went bust. This highlights the difficulty of translating information into profitable trading decisions. (It’s why opinions are worthless. The question is always “ok, what’s the trade?”)
Notable findings:
It’s not shocking that Haghani, one of the principals of LTCM back in the day, reminds us that there is little value in the crystal ball without sensible trade-sizing.
You can try the game yourself:
Haghani is also half the duo behind the famous Haghani-Dewey study where economists and investment folks, many with graduate, degrees embarrass themselves with their inability to size bets on a coin weighted in their favor.
You can play that game too:
🪙Elm Wealth Coin Flip Challenge
My synopsis of it was a very popular post when I published it 2 years ago, (see Bet Sizing Is Not Intuitive) because the conclusion is profound:
Like these crystal ball/god studies, prediction is just not enough. Betting and trading require a far richer set of practices than just having an edge. Edge is a necessary but insufficient criterion for sustained success.
In the spirit of these games, I’ll remind you of this riddle from Philip Maymin’s Financial Hacking (GOAT-tier trading book — if I’m ever tasked with developing firm or education department this is required reading).
This is excerpted from my extensive guide to the book:
🧩How much would you pay to know the closing price of SP500 in one month?
This is the exclamation point on the matter:
These kinds of practical issues are ignored in standard textbook discussions of riskless profit opportunities but they are precisely the issues that financial hackers worry about most. And you will almost surely never experience anything with this level of certainty at any time in your career. There will always be doubts about your model, your inputs, and your forecasts…According to standard theoretical concepts of arbitrage, none of those questions matters. According to real-world practical experience, you can’t even begin to trade until you have answered all of them.
Euan Sinclair needs no introduction from me. I’ll cut straight to the gold. He’s been…
A moontower user sent this [paraphrased] message in our Discord the morning of Jan 9th:…
Remember that chart of CAR last week. (Matt Levine wrote about the fundamentals of the squeeze on…
At least once a day, I think about how the staunchest supporters of “broken window…
From @buccocapital on Anthropic CEO’s insistence that AI is going to wipe out 50% of jobs. Bingo.…
In this issue: obvious error rule broken window theory why home prices aren’t going to…