We digress from the thread topic, but joking aside, I think that's too cynical, unfortunately, and assumes that most academics are driven primarily by publicity. I'm not an academic but I highly doubt that's true. I know academics rely on sufficient funding and publicity may help to bring that, but I'm sure (or at least, I hope!) that more value the respect of their peers through publication in a journal such as Nature than the wider publicity of generating a headline in the Daily Wail.Hi Martyn
It's quite prevalent. I saw it most recently in behavioural psychology.
...
I've also seen it many times in other areas of science. I can't recall the details: I'm not an academic researcher!
PS: Needless to say, I'm not saying that it's true for ALL academic research. It's a completely understandable phenomenon. If I do a study and conclude that roast beef doesn't cause cancer, no-one will notice, but if I can find some way to adjust the statistics or the statistical significance test I'm using, to conclude that it DOES cause cancer, then I'm onto a winner in terms of publicity.
Berkshire Hathaway common stock has failed to materially outperform the S&P500 for well over a decade at this stage and Warren Buffett routinely advises retail investors to put their money in index funds.I'm happy to be put into the same "lucky" bucket as Warren Buffett!
As previously pointed out to you on other threads, this statement is simply untrue.
European stocks have outperformed US stocks over significant time periods - including the decade to the end of 2010. You are also conveniently ignoring currency effects.
In any event, the past is not prologue. European stocks are less richly valued than US stocks by almost every reasonable measure, which implies an expectation of higher future returns.
MartynWe digress from the thread topic, but joking aside, I think that's too cynical, unfortunately, and assumes that most academics are driven primarily by publicity.
US stocks have clearly outperformed European stocks over the last 8 years.since 2010 how have european stocks measures up against the u.s market ?
US stocks have clearly outperformed European stocks over the last 8 years.
But you said that European stocks have never outperformed US stocks over any material time period in the past, which is simply untrue.
Again, the past is not prologue.
There is a high degree of correlation between stock markets in all developed markets if that's your point. However, the correlation between different markets has never been perfect.ok let me put it this way , the u.s market as a rule outperforms the european market most of the time and the european market follows movements in the u.s market more than the u.s market apes the european market
There is a high degree of correlation between stock markets in all developed markets if that's your point. However, the correlation between different markets has never been perfect.
The US stock market has certainly been one of the best performing markets of the last 100 years (incidentally, it wasn't the best performing national market).
But that's the past - don't confuse outcome with strategy.
Would you have said the same thing about Japan, which was the biggest stock market on the planet at one point back in 1989?
Things change - markets don't follow "rules". If they did, investing would be easy.
Ah, I wasn't chasing an apology!Martyn
I completely agree that many academics - probably the vast majority - are not driven by publicity. It was a cheap shot. I'm sorry for saying it.
I’ve seen that argument advanced many times; people talk about the US being “expensive” and Europe being “cheap”, but perhaps that should be the case if the US companies are better and the environment is more favourable?
dont take the opinion of an average idiot like me either
It doesn't.all i know for certain is that europe follows the u.s down like clockwork
Which raises an interesting question - has it become more difficult for stock pickers to beat or even match market returns?
Have technological advancements reduced arbitrage opportunities for diligent investors that are prepared to research individual stocks (in other words, has the Internet made markets more efficient)?
I don't see any reason why efficient markets should be less volatile than (relatively more) inefficient markets. I would have thought that effective price discovery requires a significant degree of price volatility.I would have thought the internet and computers made markets more volatile.
Yes, I'm sure.Also with regard to most money in the market being professionally managed, are you sure, I thought most money in market or a large proportion is now exchange traded funds with much less being professionally managed
Why not go the whole hog and say that all three, including Apple, are small or micro caps! No more need be said about Apple. The other two are firmly in the top 350 shares in the UK All-Share index, a long way from being small cap or micro cap!
Berkshire Hathaway common stock has failed to materially outperform the S&P500 for well over a decade at this stage and Warren Buffett routinely advises retail investors to put their money in index funds.
I don't pretend to have the answers to these questions but if the greatest stock picker in history can't beat the market anymore, what chance do the rest of us have?
Sorry Jim but I'm not taking anything out of context. I am fully aware of the rationale that Mr Buffett has offered for his advice.You are taking this out of context - Buffet advises index investing as opposed to investing in Berkshire as at this stage it can deliver at least as good a return as Berkshire at probably a slightly lower risk.
I'm drawing a contrast with individual stock pickers (like Colm and Brendan)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?