AleisterCrowley wrote:Most professional 'stock pickers' don't do a decent job - the majority of professionally-managed funds don't beat the index in the long run.
Can we agree that many things might be meant by the term "decent job". If we restrict it to beating the index then sadly, while they have performed quite well recently, we must exclude ethical funds from doing or even trying to do a "decent job"!
AleisterCrowley wrote: but survivorship bias looms large
Survivorship bias possibly means more than you think that it does. My brother and I both made some investments on the stockmarket over two decades ago (possibly closer to 3). I DO have survivorship bias, he has failyer bias. We both lost money in a downturn back then. He stopped investing, it's a mugs game, I continued and, as I said, don't do badly. Possibly an example of Darwinian survivorship bias? There is much talk of scarring at the moment. ie
https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/ch ... g-effects/
TR, given that you are a writer I DO suggest that you read Babylon. Not for lessons in investing but to see how the book is written. It really could be renamed by aliens with big ears as "The rules of acquisition".
https://jamesclear.com/book-summaries/t ... in-babylon
I'd also suggest "Rich dad, poor dad" and "The Zuhrich axioms", though again not for investment advice. Indeed many might argue that the latter two should be avoided, but they are great when considering human nature with respect to investment / speculation.
As a sop to AC, you should also read "A random walk down wallstreet". I'm very dubious of a lot in it and just how globally applicable some of the studies of funds investing in the S&P 500 are, but it is a book to read that provides some evidence in favour index trackers.
Ps, I hope that my writing isn't too bad for a simple post. Dyslexia causes me a few problems, though fortunately not with reading.