home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.invest
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet
- From: jhsu@eng-nxt03.cso.uiuc.edu (Jason Hsu)
- Subject: Re: Index funds
- References: <185096@pyramid.pyramid.com>
- Message-ID: <C1Gy6r.94v@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Sender: usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner)
- Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:08:50 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <185096@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com
- (Paul Collacchi) writes:
- > |> Question: If anybody (eg. you or I) can consistently pick
- outperforming
- > |> mutual
- > |> funds, then must there be an ineffiency in the system?
- > |>
- > |> Here are a couple possible answers:
- > |> (a) Yes, there is an inefficiency, it's all those financial planners
- > and brokers who
- > |> have other goals than recommending the best funds to their clients.
- > |> (b) The premise is invalid; you and I can't consistently pick
- outperforming
- > |> mutual funds.
- > |>
- > |>
- >
- > Both are probably true. How can both be true? It depends upon what
- > assumptions you make about the flow of information. Premise (b) assumes
- > that complete information eventually shows up in the market price of
- > a security. Premise (a) acknowledges that the stock price doesn't
- > instantly reflect the information change.
- >
- > Through market mechanisms, (b) is probably more accurate
-
- If the "efficient market hypothesis" is true, then why do most
- institutions and mutual funds underperform the market with their stock
- picks? Couldn't you beat the S&P 500 simply by buying the less popular
- S&P 500 stocks?
-