cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
     
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Boglehead Fury

What does a Boglehead do when someone cuts him off in traffic?

 

Gives him the index finger!:smileysurprised:

121 Replies
Highlighted
Explorer ○○

Re: Boglehead Fury


@bilperk wrote:

What does a Boglehead do when someone cuts him off in traffic?

 

Gives him the index finger!:smileysurprised:


Wrong, as usual, Bill. We give them the three finger salute and tell them to read between the lines. Many folks can't seem to figure that out, just as they can't seem to figure out that indexing is a winning strategy. :-)

Best regards,

Mel

(Paraphrasing my friend and mentor, the late Jack Bogle.)
Don't search for the needle in the haystack. Simply own the haystack.

Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Boglehead Fury

I wish we could definitely decide the definition of the whole haystack. VTI (US stocks)? or VT (world stocks)?

IMHO VTI is generally best for USA domicled investors. And VT is best for USA-NRA (no US tax treaty) investors.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@galeno wrote:

I wish we could definitely decide the definition of the whole haystack. VTI (US stocks)? or VT (world stocks)?

IMHO VTI is generally best for USA domicled investors. And VT is best for USA-NRA (no US tax treaty) investors.


If you have ever seen a hay field you would have noticed that there are many hay stacks in the field of different sizes and shapes. The myth of Boglehead investing is that there is one haystack when in reality there are an infinite number to select for a portfolio depending on an investor’s preferences and investment horizon.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Explorer ○○○

Re: Boglehead Fury


@Intruder

If you have ever seen a hay field you would have noticed that there are many hay stacks in the field of different sizes and shapes. The myth of Boglehead investing is that there is one haystack when in reality there are an infinite number to select for a portfolio depending on an investor’s preferences and investment horizon.

I believe Mr. Bogle's reference to "the needle in the haystack" referred to buying an individual company stock vs. buying the total market, hence buy the entire haystack. I don't think there's any myth involved with this premise.

Jerry


 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@cudaman wrote:

@Intruder

If you have ever seen a hay field you would have noticed that there are many hay stacks in the field of different sizes and shapes. The myth of Boglehead investing is that there is one haystack when in reality there are an infinite number to select for a portfolio depending on an investor’s preferences and investment horizon.

I believe Mr. Bogle's reference to "the needle in the haystack" referred to buying an individual company stock vs. buying the total market, hence buy the entire haystack. I don't think there's any myth involved with this premise.

Jerry


 


Who is talking about investing 100% of assets in 1 stock? What about investors who own 50 stocks, funds, ETFs, CEFs, REITs, etc  which form a diversified portfolio which delivers higher returns and is more tax efficient than an index fund?

and just what is the total market when public US companies today are less than 50% of public co 20 years ago?

the myth is believing that an index fund will out perform other diversified portfolios which are more tax efficient. But it’s your money.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@Mel-Lindauer wrote:

@bilperk wrote:

What does a Boglehead do when someone cuts him off in traffic?

 

Gives him the index finger!:smileysurprised:


Wrong, as usual, Bill. We give them the three finger salute and tell them to read between the lines. Many folks can't seem to figure that out, just as they can't seem to figure out that indexing is a winning strategy. :-)

Best regards,

Mel


If we were to truly index world financial markets, twud be roughly 30/50/20 stocks/bonds/real estate.  Stocks would be roughly 20 US, 10 foreign.

ElLobo, de la casa de la toro caca grande
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@Intruder wrote:

@cudaman wrote:

@Intruder

If you have ever seen a hay field you would have noticed that there are many hay stacks in the field of different sizes and shapes. The myth of Boglehead investing is that there is one haystack when in reality there are an infinite number to select for a portfolio depending on an investor’s preferences and investment horizon.

I believe Mr. Bogle's reference to "the needle in the haystack" referred to buying an individual company stock vs. buying the total market, hence buy the entire haystack. I don't think there's any myth involved with this premise.

Jerry


 


 What about investors who own 50 stocks, funds, ETFs, CEFs, REITs, etc  which form a diversified portfolio which delivers higher returns and is more tax efficient than an index fund? There has never been a fifty product portfolio that has outperformed its appropriate Index. If you know of one please provide the posted dated and post number of any such previously posted portfolio.

and just what is the total market The total market is a basket of all tradable securities weighted as they exist in the marketplace.

the myth is believing that an index fund will out perform other diversified portfolios which are more tax efficient. But it’s your money. Actually the myth is believing active managers outperform passive index based investment strategies in either up or down markets. The fellas who use to post on the I&D forum often claimed their portfolio's were much superior to Bogle inspired portfolios. They claimed their supior tax strategy by investing in mlp's and recommended extreme overweighting of the largest Alerian index products. That strategy has caused many to fall way behind a total market strategy for well over a decade now, ( on average ). I don't see anyone who took the advice, five years ago, to pile into those "taxed advantaged" products to ever recover their loses vs a low cost, diversified, indexed based portfolio.


 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@Bentley wrote:

@Intruder wrote:

@cudaman wrote:

@Intruder

If you have ever seen a hay field you would have noticed that there are many hay stacks in the field of different sizes and shapes. The myth of Boglehead investing is that there is one haystack when in reality there are an infinite number to select for a portfolio depending on an investor’s preferences and investment horizon.

I believe Mr. Bogle's reference to "the needle in the haystack" referred to buying an individual company stock vs. buying the total market, hence buy the entire haystack. I don't think there's any myth involved with this premise.

Jerry


 


 What about investors who own 50 stocks, funds, ETFs, CEFs, REITs, etc  which form a diversified portfolio which delivers higher returns and is more tax efficient than an index fund? There has never been a fifty product portfolio that has outperformed its appropriate Index. If you know of one please provide the posted dated and post number of any such previously posted portfolio.

and just what is the total market The total market is a basket of all tradable securities weighted as they exist in the marketplace.

the myth is believing that an index fund will out perform other diversified portfolios which are more tax efficient. But it’s your money. Actually the myth is believing active managers outperform passive index based investment strategies in either up or down markets. The fellas who use to post on the I&D forum often claimed their portfolio's were much superior to Bogle inspired portfolios. They claimed their supior tax strategy by investing in mlp's and recommended extreme overweighting of the largest Alerian index products. That strategy has caused many to fall way behind a total market strategy for well over a decade now, ( on average ). I don't see anyone who took the advice, five years ago, to pile into those "taxed advantaged" products to ever recover their loses vs a low cost, diversified, indexed based portfolio.


 


Actually, any portfolio that has a higher return and/or yield than either market beats it.  Each market is market cap weighted and is the 'average' return or yield of those investment vehicles.  Even keeping the same vehicles will change the risk/return characteristics, one way or another whenever the weighting changes.  Studies suggest equal weighting out performs market cap weighting.  DFA funds are, or at least used to be, famous for their funds that were equal weighted.

Studies also showed that higher yielding stocks usually outperformed lower, or no, yielding stocks so funds holding only divey paying stocks will produce more income than pure growth stocks and could return more against the appropriate index fund in terms of average market cap.  Value usually outperforms growth at each size, let alone the market cap v equal weight argument, IOW.

ElLobo, de la casa de la toro caca grande
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@ElLobo wrote:

@Bentley wrote:

@Intruder wrote:

@cudaman wrote:

@Intruder

If you have ever seen a hay field you would have noticed that there are many hay stacks in the field of different sizes and shapes. The myth of Boglehead investing is that there is one haystack when in reality there are an infinite number to select for a portfolio depending on an investor’s preferences and investment horizon.

I believe Mr. Bogle's reference to "the needle in the haystack" referred to buying an individual company stock vs. buying the total market, hence buy the entire haystack. I don't think there's any myth involved with this premise.

Jerry


 


 What about investors who own 50 stocks, funds, ETFs, CEFs, REITs, etc  which form a diversified portfolio which delivers higher returns and is more tax efficient than an index fund? There has never been a fifty product portfolio that has outperformed its appropriate Index. If you know of one please provide the posted dated and post number of any such previously posted portfolio.

and just what is the total market The total market is a basket of all tradable securities weighted as they exist in the marketplace.

the myth is believing that an index fund will out perform other diversified portfolios which are more tax efficient. But it’s your money. Actually the myth is believing active managers outperform passive index based investment strategies in either up or down markets. The fellas who use to post on the I&D forum often claimed their portfolio's were much superior to Bogle inspired portfolios. They claimed their supior tax strategy by investing in mlp's and recommended extreme overweighting of the largest Alerian index products. That strategy has caused many to fall way behind a total market strategy for well over a decade now, ( on average ). I don't see anyone who took the advice, five years ago, to pile into those "taxed advantaged" products to ever recover their loses vs a low cost, diversified, indexed based portfolio.


 


Actually, any portfolio that has a higher return and/or yield than either market beats it.  Each market is market cap weighted and is the 'average' return or yield of those investment vehicles.  Even keeping the same vehicles will change the risk/return characteristics, one way or another whenever the weighting changes.  Studies suggest equal weighting out performs market cap weighting.  DFA funds are, or at least used to be, famous for their funds that were equal weighted.

Studies also showed that higher yielding stocks usually outperformed lower, or no, yielding stocks so funds holding only divey paying stocks will produce more income than pure growth stocks and could return more against the appropriate index fund in terms of average market cap.  Value usually outperforms growth at each size, let alone the market cap v equal weight argument, IOW.


 

 

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

 If you believe an active/former member has outperformed the market over the past ten years, please provide a reference to that portfolio. Anyone can cherry-pick from a list of past performance data, but nobody can point to a member posted portfolio that has actually outperformed over the past five or ten years.

 I and other passive investors can post many member portfolios posted over the past five and ten year periods that have performed miserably. One thing in common among those portfolios is that at the time they were posted, their previous performance looked great.

 Just take a look back at the number of portfolios posted on the I&D forum, which were posted during the mlp heyday. Looks silly now that all have fallen miles behind markets based portfolios.  The evidence is clear for those who are willing to see.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@Bentley wrote:

@ElLobo wrote:

@Bentley wrote:

@Intruder wrote:

@cudaman wrote:

@Intruder

If you have ever seen a hay field you would have noticed that there are many hay stacks in the field of different sizes and shapes. The myth of Boglehead investing is that there is one haystack when in reality there are an infinite number to select for a portfolio depending on an investor’s preferences and investment horizon.

I believe Mr. Bogle's reference to "the needle in the haystack" referred to buying an individual company stock vs. buying the total market, hence buy the entire haystack. I don't think there's any myth involved with this premise.

Jerry


 


 What about investors who own 50 stocks, funds, ETFs, CEFs, REITs, etc  which form a diversified portfolio which delivers higher returns and is more tax efficient than an index fund? There has never been a fifty product portfolio that has outperformed its appropriate Index. If you know of one please provide the posted dated and post number of any such previously posted portfolio.

and just what is the total market The total market is a basket of all tradable securities weighted as they exist in the marketplace.

the myth is believing that an index fund will out perform other diversified portfolios which are more tax efficient. But it’s your money. Actually the myth is believing active managers outperform passive index based investment strategies in either up or down markets. The fellas who use to post on the I&D forum often claimed their portfolio's were much superior to Bogle inspired portfolios. They claimed their supior tax strategy by investing in mlp's and recommended extreme overweighting of the largest Alerian index products. That strategy has caused many to fall way behind a total market strategy for well over a decade now, ( on average ). I don't see anyone who took the advice, five years ago, to pile into those "taxed advantaged" products to ever recover their loses vs a low cost, diversified, indexed based portfolio.


 


Actually, any portfolio that has a higher return and/or yield than either market beats it.  Each market is market cap weighted and is the 'average' return or yield of those investment vehicles.  Even keeping the same vehicles will change the risk/return characteristics, one way or another whenever the weighting changes.  Studies suggest equal weighting out performs market cap weighting.  DFA funds are, or at least used to be, famous for their funds that were equal weighted.

Studies also showed that higher yielding stocks usually outperformed lower, or no, yielding stocks so funds holding only divey paying stocks will produce more income than pure growth stocks and could return more against the appropriate index fund in terms of average market cap.  Value usually outperforms growth at each size, let alone the market cap v equal weight argument, IOW.


 

 

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

 If you believe an active/former member has outperformed the market over the past ten years, please provide a reference to that portfolio. Anyone can cherry-pick from a list of past performance data, but nobody can point to a member posted portfolio that has actually outperformed over the past five or ten years.

 I and other passive investors can post many member portfolios posted over the past five and ten year periods that have performed miserably. One thing in common among those portfolios is that at the time they were posted, their previous performance looked great.

 Just take a look back at the number of portfolios posted on the I&D forum, which were posted during the mlp heyday. Looks silly now that all have fallen miles behind markets based portfolios.  The evidence is clear for those who are willing to see.


Actually you haven't addressed either the market cap weighted vs equal weighted argument nor the divey v growth argument.  The stock and bond market indices are just one point on an efficient surface, while all other portfolios are somewhere else.  All other portfolios will either outperform the market or underperform it.  What you are missing is that you never know which will do what, going forward.

What you DO know is that a market index fund will underperform its index by expenses!  Something about below average investing, from those old forums. 8-))

ElLobo, de la casa de la toro caca grande
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@Bentley wrote:

@ElLobo wrote:

@Bentley wrote:

@Intruder wrote:

@cudaman wrote:

@Intruder

If you have ever seen a hay field you would have noticed that there are many hay stacks in the field of different sizes and shapes. The myth of Boglehead investing is that there is one haystack when in reality there are an infinite number to select for a portfolio depending on an investor’s preferences and investment horizon.

I believe Mr. Bogle's reference to "the needle in the haystack" referred to buying an individual company stock vs. buying the total market, hence buy the entire haystack. I don't think there's any myth involved with this premise.

Jerry


 


 What about investors who own 50 stocks, funds, ETFs, CEFs, REITs, etc  which form a diversified portfolio which delivers higher returns and is more tax efficient than an index fund? There has never been a fifty product portfolio that has outperformed its appropriate Index. If you know of one please provide the posted dated and post number of any such previously posted portfolio.

and just what is the total market The total market is a basket of all tradable securities weighted as they exist in the marketplace.

the myth is believing that an index fund will out perform other diversified portfolios which are more tax efficient. But it’s your money. Actually the myth is believing active managers outperform passive index based investment strategies in either up or down markets. The fellas who use to post on the I&D forum often claimed their portfolio's were much superior to Bogle inspired portfolios. They claimed their supior tax strategy by investing in mlp's and recommended extreme overweighting of the largest Alerian index products. That strategy has caused many to fall way behind a total market strategy for well over a decade now, ( on average ). I don't see anyone who took the advice, five years ago, to pile into those "taxed advantaged" products to ever recover their loses vs a low cost, diversified, indexed based portfolio.


 


Actually, any portfolio that has a higher return and/or yield than either market beats it.  Each market is market cap weighted and is the 'average' return or yield of those investment vehicles.  Even keeping the same vehicles will change the risk/return characteristics, one way or another whenever the weighting changes.  Studies suggest equal weighting out performs market cap weighting.  DFA funds are, or at least used to be, famous for their funds that were equal weighted.

Studies also showed that higher yielding stocks usually outperformed lower, or no, yielding stocks so funds holding only divey paying stocks will produce more income than pure growth stocks and could return more against the appropriate index fund in terms of average market cap.  Value usually outperforms growth at each size, let alone the market cap v equal weight argument, IOW.


 

 

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

 If you believe an active/former member has outperformed the market over the past ten years, please provide a reference to that portfolio. Anyone can cherry-pick from a list of past performance data, but nobody can point to a member posted portfolio that has actually outperformed over the past five or ten years.

 I and other passive investors can post many member portfolios posted over the past five and ten year periods that have performed miserably. One thing in common among those portfolios is that at the time they were posted, their previous performance looked great.

 Just take a look back at the number of portfolios posted on the I&D forum, which were posted during the mlp heyday. Looks silly now that all have fallen miles behind markets based portfolios.  The evidence is clear for those who are willing to see.


As every intelligent investor knows, on any given Sunday any stock, fund, ETF, sector, portfolio, etc can outperform another stock, fund, ETF, sector, portfolio etc depending on the period of time measured and data points used to measure performance. Comparing relative performance of different investments to determine superior results over a specific time period only determines the results for that period and no other which is why relative performance is only important to those who track it.  

As noted by Lobo there are many ways to calculate performance.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@Intruder wrote:

As every intelligent investor knows, on any given Sunday any stock, fund, ETF, sector, portfolio, etc can outperform another stock, fund, ETF, sector, portfolio etc depending on the period of time measured and data points used to measure performance. OK, great. Let's use the past 15 years for which we have verifiable published data. Less than 9% of surviving professional fund managers, competing with the S&P have been able to match or exceed the returns of the S&P. Not one of those managers were pointed out as winners fifteen years ago bby you, Lobo or any other member. Can you name the 8% that might be able to match the S&P or any other appropriate benchmark over the NEXT fifteen years? I thought not. Comparing relative performance of different investments to determine superior results over a specific time period only determines the results for that period and no other which is why relative performance is only important to those who track it. Measuring your returns against a index/benchmark is very important for any investor.

As noted by Lobo there are many ways to calculate performance. The one that matters most to investors is the total return of an investment. The S&P does a good job of it..............https://www.spglobal.com/_assets/documents/corporate/us-spiva-report-11-march-2019.pdf

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@ElLobo wrote:

@Bentley wrote:

@ElLobo wrote:

@Bentley wrote:

@Intruder wrote:

@cudaman wrote:

@Intruder

If you have ever seen a hay field you would have noticed that there are many hay stacks in the field of different sizes and shapes. The myth of Boglehead investing is that there is one haystack when in reality there are an infinite number to select for a portfolio depending on an investor’s preferences and investment horizon.

I believe Mr. Bogle's reference to "the needle in the haystack" referred to buying an individual company stock vs. buying the total market, hence buy the entire haystack. I don't think there's any myth involved with this premise.

Jerry


 


 What about investors who own 50 stocks, funds, ETFs, CEFs, REITs, etc  which form a diversified portfolio which delivers higher returns and is more tax efficient than an index fund? There has never been a fifty product portfolio that has outperformed its appropriate Index. If you know of one please provide the posted dated and post number of any such previously posted portfolio.

and just what is the total market The total market is a basket of all tradable securities weighted as they exist in the marketplace.

the myth is believing that an index fund will out perform other diversified portfolios which are more tax efficient. But it’s your money. Actually the myth is believing active managers outperform passive index based investment strategies in either up or down markets. The fellas who use to post on the I&D forum often claimed their portfolio's were much superior to Bogle inspired portfolios. They claimed their supior tax strategy by investing in mlp's and recommended extreme overweighting of the largest Alerian index products. That strategy has caused many to fall way behind a total market strategy for well over a decade now, ( on average ). I don't see anyone who took the advice, five years ago, to pile into those "taxed advantaged" products to ever recover their loses vs a low cost, diversified, indexed based portfolio.


 


Actually, any portfolio that has a higher return and/or yield than either market beats it.  Each market is market cap weighted and is the 'average' return or yield of those investment vehicles.  Even keeping the same vehicles will change the risk/return characteristics, one way or another whenever the weighting changes.  Studies suggest equal weighting out performs market cap weighting.  DFA funds are, or at least used to be, famous for their funds that were equal weighted.

Studies also showed that higher yielding stocks usually outperformed lower, or no, yielding stocks so funds holding only divey paying stocks will produce more income than pure growth stocks and could return more against the appropriate index fund in terms of average market cap.  Value usually outperforms growth at each size, let alone the market cap v equal weight argument, IOW.


 

 

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

 If you believe an active/former member has outperformed the market over the past ten years, please provide a reference to that portfolio. Anyone can cherry-pick from a list of past performance data, but nobody can point to a member posted portfolio that has actually outperformed over the past five or ten years.

 I and other passive investors can post many member portfolios posted over the past five and ten year periods that have performed miserably. One thing in common among those portfolios is that at the time they were posted, their previous performance looked great.

 Just take a look back at the number of portfolios posted on the I&D forum, which were posted during the mlp heyday. Looks silly now that all have fallen miles behind markets based portfolios.  The evidence is clear for those who are willing to see.


Actually you haven't addressed either the market cap weighted vs equal weighted argument nor the divey v growth argument. The stock and bond market indices are just one point on an efficient surface, while all other portfolios are somewhere else.  All other portfolios will either outperform the market or underperform it.  What you are missing is that you never know which will do what, going forward. What we do know for sure is it is much more probable that passive portfolios constructed of low cost passive funds have an overwhelming record of outperformance vs actively managed funds. Expecting history to suddenly change course over any extended time period is not rational.

What you DO know is that a market index fund will underperform its index by expenses!   This is not ALWAYS true, but let's assume it is. Underperforming the S&P by .03 e/r is something I would accept any day. Something about below average investing, from those old forums. 8-))


 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury

"Actually you haven't addressed either the market cap weighted vs equal weighted argument nor the divey v growth argument. The stock and bond market indices are just one point on an efficient surface, while all other portfolios are somewhere else.  All other portfolios will either outperform the market or underperform it.  What you are missing is that you never know which will do what, going forward. What we do know for sure is it is much more probable that passive portfolios constructed of low cost passive funds have an overwhelming record of outperformance vs actively managed funds. Expecting history to suddenly change course over any extended time period is not rational."

A low cost equally weighted passive index fund, from DMA, will more probably outperform a low cost market cap weighted index fund.  Ditto for an equally weighted passive fund of divey payers compared to non-divey payers.  Such a fund will ALWAYS outperform whenever diveys/distributions are totaled, by definition.

"What you DO know is that a market index fund will underperform its index by expenses!   This is not ALWAYS true, but let's assume it is. Underperforming the S&P by .03 e/r is something I would accept any day. Something about below average investing, from those old forums. 8-))

I would accept a DFA fund that gives me an extra 50 basis points over a market cap weighted index fund as well, especially if it also produced 200 basis points more income! 8-))

ElLobo, de la casa de la toro caca grande
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@ElLobo wrote:

"Actually you haven't addressed either the market cap weighted vs equal weighted argument nor the divey v growth argument. The stock and bond market indices are just one point on an efficient surface, while all other portfolios are somewhere else.  All other portfolios will either outperform the market or underperform it.  What you are missing is that you never know which will do what, going forward. What we do know for sure is it is much more probable that passive portfolios constructed of low cost passive funds have an overwhelming record of outperformance vs actively managed funds. Expecting history to suddenly change course over any extended time period is not rational."

A low cost equally weighted passive index fund, from DMA, will more probably outperform a low cost market cap weighted index fund. Please provide ticker for the DMA fund?? you are referring to. Ditto for an equally weighted passive fund of divey payers compared to non-divey payers. Who would avoid divey payers? Can you name any fund composed of non divey paying companies? You are grasping at stratws. Such a fund will ALWAYS outperform whenever diveys/distributions are totaled, by definition. The way you could support your claim is to provide an example of a fund composed of non dividend paying companies vs another one that does. If it ALWAYS outperforms show us an actual comparison, not what ifs. This should be fun......

"What you DO know is that a market index fund will underperform its index by expenses!   This is not ALWAYS true, but let's assume it is. Underperforming the S&P by .03 e/r is something I would accept any day. Something about below average investing, from those old forums. 8-))

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@Bentley wrote:

@ElLobo wrote:

"Actually you haven't addressed either the market cap weighted vs equal weighted argument nor the divey v growth argument. The stock and bond market indices are just one point on an efficient surface, while all other portfolios are somewhere else.  All other portfolios will either outperform the market or underperform it.  What you are missing is that you never know which will do what, going forward. What we do know for sure is it is much more probable that passive portfolios constructed of low cost passive funds have an overwhelming record of outperformance vs actively managed funds. Expecting history to suddenly change course over any extended time period is not rational."

A low cost equally weighted passive index fund, from DMA, will more probably outperform a low cost market cap weighted index fund. Please provide ticker for the DMA fund?? you are referring to. Ditto for an equally weighted passive fund of divey payers compared to non-divey payers. Who would avoid divey payers? Can you name any fund composed of non divey paying companies? You are grasping at stratws. Such a fund will ALWAYS outperform whenever diveys/distributions are totaled, by definition. The way you could support your claim is to provide an example of a fund composed of non dividend paying companies vs another one that does. If it ALWAYS outperforms show us an actual comparison, not what ifs. This should be fun......

"What you DO know is that a market index fund will underperform its index by expenses!   This is not ALWAYS true, but let's assume it is. Underperforming the S&P by .03 e/r is something I would accept any day. Something about below average investing, from those old forums. 8-))

 


Although not DFA funds, VADAX and RSP outperformed VFINX.  See link.

ElLobo, de la casa de la toro caca grande
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@ElLobo wrote:

@Bentley wrote:

@ElLobo wrote:

"Actually you haven't addressed either the market cap weighted vs equal weighted argument nor the divey v growth argument. The stock and bond market indices are just one point on an efficient surface, while all other portfolios are somewhere else.  All other portfolios will either outperform the market or underperform it.  What you are missing is that you never know which will do what, going forward. What we do know for sure is it is much more probable that passive portfolios constructed of low cost passive funds have an overwhelming record of outperformance vs actively managed funds. Expecting history to suddenly change course over any extended time period is not rational."

A low cost equally weighted passive index fund, from DMA, will more probably outperform a low cost market cap weighted index fund. Please provide ticker for the DMA fund?? you are referring to. Ditto for an equally weighted passive fund of divey payers compared to non-divey payers. Who would avoid divey payers? Can you name any fund composed of non divey paying companies? You are grasping at stratws. Such a fund will ALWAYS outperform whenever diveys/distributions are totaled, by definition. The way you could support your claim is to provide an example of a fund composed of non dividend paying companies vs another one that does. If it ALWAYS outperforms show us an actual comparison, not what ifs. This should be fun......

"What you DO know is that a market index fund will underperform its index by expenses!   This is not ALWAYS true, but let's assume it is. Underperforming the S&P by .03 e/r is something I would accept any day. Something about below average investing, from those old forums. 8-))

 


Although not DFA funds, VADAX and RSP outperformed VFINXShow us current 3yr, 5yr, 10yr performance to support your claim.


 

 Not sure why you reference DFA funds? Secondly, both of your cherry-picked funds have underperformed Vanguard's simple VFINX over the past 1mo, 3mo, 6mo, YTD, 1yr, 3yr, 5yr, and 10yr periods through 10/29/2019. The article you posted is old and outdated. Check your data before posting a conclusion.

 

10 year performance of a $10,000 investment

RSP...............$29,337

VADAX.......$33,671

VFINX........$34,755

 

 Thank you, Mr Bogle

 Thank you, Taylor

Thank you, Rick Ferri

Thank you........................................Gene Fama

Than you........well you get the picture.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@Mel-Lindauer wrote:

@bilperk wrote:

What does a Boglehead do when someone cuts him off in traffic?

 

Gives him the index finger!:smileysurprised:


Wrong, as usual, Bill. We give them the three finger salute and tell them to read between the lines. Many folks can't seem to figure that out, just as they can't seem to figure out that indexing is a winning strategy. :-)

Best regards,

Mel


I invest both ways. Some in funds like VTSAX and VFIAX and then some in funds like VDIGX, which is doing well and VPMAX, which has been a good in the past.

I would expect the S&P 500 funds to do well as so many are indexing, thus purchasing more of these funds, which is buying more shares of these stocks weighted by cap size. There the greatest stock holdings in such funds cause those stocks to increase in sales and thus in value. The problem with this is soon the largest companies with be more over prices and may fall first into a correction. Then companies with lower PE ratio may be what is being purchased, giving rise to other less large company stocks, like one would find in value funds like VVIAX and DODGX, and wide moat funds like VDIGX, JENSX and MPGFX. I like to capture that diversity by not only investing in the total stock market, thus investing most in the largest companies, but also investing in value companies and stable dividend growth companies. I like to add to this by holding good mid-cap and small-cap active funds to investment houses I trust.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Boglehead Fury


@Bentley wrote:

@ElLobo wrote:

@Bentley wrote:

@ElLobo wrote:

"Actually you haven't addressed either the market cap weighted vs equal weighted argument nor the divey v growth argument. The stock and bond market indices are just one point on an efficient surface, while all other portfolios are somewhere else.  All other portfolios will either outperform the market or underperform it.  What you are missing is that you never know which will do what, going forward. What we do know for sure is it is much more probable that passive portfolios constructed of low cost passive funds have an overwhelming record of outperformance vs actively managed funds. Expecting history to suddenly change course over any extended time period is not rational."

A low cost equally weighted passive index fund, from DMA, will more probably outperform a low cost market cap weighted index fund. Please provide ticker for the DMA fund?? you are referring to. Ditto for an equally weighted passive fund of divey payers compared to non-divey payers. Who would avoid divey payers? Can you name any fund composed of non divey paying companies? You are grasping at stratws. Such a fund will ALWAYS outperform whenever diveys/distributions are totaled, by definition. The way you could support your claim is to provide an example of a fund composed of non dividend paying companies vs another one that does. If it ALWAYS outperforms show us an actual comparison, not what ifs. This should be fun......

"What you DO know is that a market index fund will underperform its index by expenses!   This is not ALWAYS true, but let's assume it is. Underperforming the S&P by .03 e/r is something I would accept any day. Something about below average investing, from those old forums. 8-))

 


Although not DFA funds, VADAX and RSP outperformed VFINXShow us current 3yr, 5yr, 10yr performance to support your claim.


 

 Not sure why you reference DFA funds? Secondly, both of your cherry-picked funds have underperformed Vanguard's simple VFINX over the past 1mo, 3mo, 6mo, YTD, 1yr, 3yr, 5yr, and 10yr periods through 10/29/2019. The article you posted is old and outdated. Check your data before posting a conclusion.

 

10 year performance of a $10,000 investment

RSP...............$29,337

VADAX.......$33,671

VFINX........$34,755

 

 Thank you, Mr Bogle

 Thank you, Taylor

Thank you, Rick Ferri

Thank you........................................Gene Fama

Than you........well you get the picture.


DFA funds focus on equal weighting, as you well know.

"What we do know for sure is it is much more probable that passive portfolios constructed of low cost passive funds have an overwhelming record of outperformance vs actively managed funds. Expecting history to suddenly change course over any extended time period is not rational."

And my favorite:

This is not ALWAYS true, but let's assume it is. Underperforming the S&P by .03 e/r is something I would accept any day. Something about below average investing, from those old forums. 8-))

Howzabout 75 and 100 basis points over the last 16 years? PV link

RSP...............$49,074       CAGR.....10,23%

VADAX.......$47,449          CAGR.....10.00%

VFINX........$42,317           CAGR.....9.23%

Check out the income numbers for VADAX.  Only difference between the three is market cap weighting or not and results are net of expenses.

ElLobo, de la casa de la toro caca grande
0 Kudos
Announcements