Originally Posted by
Excargodog
The common glib belief that has been repeatedly proven wrong is that certain funds or financial advisors can reliably beat the market. The issue is one of ascertainment bias. You start with a thousand funds (or financial advisors) and those that do poorly simply lose out in the market to those who do better and fold. The bottom half of the bell-shaped curve simply gets culled. And culled repeatedly. It certainly doesn’t need to have anything to do with superior ability. Substitute 1000 people rolling dice repeatedly for stock picking and you’ll get the same result. Hence the “past performance is no guarantee of future results” disclaimer.
But on a related note…
That is not the case with my financial management firm. They consistently rank in the top 1 or 2% of rate of returns over most years and averaged over a long period of time. They have a track record decades long.
Most financial investment firms do worse than the market averages. They are one of the few who do better. It is not just selling the losers to make the portfolio look better. It is not flash in the pan with one year good and the next year bad. It is not smoke and mirrors. They actually have a better rate of return, consistently.