OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics


GO TO THE MAIN THREAD Sort By:


antat 1 May 2015 03:20 PM
63%

You're mixing several things here...

Professional stock analysts actually do perform slightly better than passive funds (even accounting for the random walk effect), but that slight gain of 1-2% is eaten up by their fees, so passive funds are a better choice.

"if economists cannot reliably predict the future of a single company, how can they be blindly trusted with setting the economic policy for an entire country?" is a nonsense statement. Since analogies seem popular, that's like saying: "If my weatherman said it might rain today, and it didn't, how can we blindly trust climate scientists that the earth is warming?"

Macro-economists are the not the same thing as stock analysts. The variables that affect a single company's performance are vastly different than a national economy.

Economists have been influential in economic policy in the US for decades. They rarely have the opportunity to set policy, that's what politicians do, but they do run important institutions, like the Federal Reserve. The US is one of the strongest economies in the world, in part because of good economic policy.

No one is "blindly" trusting "them". There are thousands of people involved in economic decisions.

If trained economists shouldn't be trusted to run an economy, then who? Some anonymous post on some website?



stars0
Reply


melian 1 May 2015 06:51 PM
72%

Professional stock analysts actually do perform slightly better than passive funds (even accounting for the random walk effect), but that slight gain of 1-2% is eaten up by their fees, so passive funds are a better choice.

Do you have a link to that? I seem to recall a study for Taiwan showing that actively traded funds underperformed index funds by 4% (mostly because of the trading expenses, not the management fees which are usually smaller).

stars0
Reply