My Worst Investment Ever Podcast  Por  arte de portada

My Worst Investment Ever Podcast

De: Andrew Stotz
  • Resumen

  • Welcome to My Worst Investment Ever podcast hosted by Your Worst Podcast Host, Andrew Stotz, where you will hear stories of loss to keep you winning. In our community, we know that to win in investing you must take the risk, but to win big, you’ve got to reduce it. Your Worst Podcast Host, Andrew Stotz, Ph.D., CFA, is also the CEO of A. Stotz Investment Research and A. Stotz Academy, which helps people create, grow, measure, and protect their wealth. To find more stories like this, previous episodes, and resources to help you reduce your risk, visit https://myworstinvestmentever.com/
    Copyright 2024 Andrew Stotz
    Más Menos
activate_primeday_promo_in_buybox_DT
Episodios
  • Enrich Your Future 06: Market Efficiency and the Case of Pete Rose
    Jul 15 2024

    In this episode of Enrich Your Future, Andrew and Larry Swedroe discuss Larry’s new book, Enrich Your Future: The Keys to Successful Investing. In this series, they discuss Chapter 06: Market Efficiency and the Case of Pete Rose.

    LEARNING: Don’t try to pick stocks or time the market.

    “The evidence is very clear. The stocks retail investors buy underperform after they buy them, and the stocks they sell go on to outperform at face value.”Larry Swedroe

    In this episode of Enrich Your Future, Andrew and Larry Swedroe discuss Larry’s new book, Enrich Your Future: The Keys to Successful Investing. The book is a collection of stories that Larry has developed over the 30 years or so that he’s been trying to help investors. Larry is the head of financial and economic research at Buckingham Wealth Partners. You can learn more about Larry’s Worst Investment Ever story on Ep645: Beware of Idiosyncratic Risks.

    Larry deeply understands the world of academic research and investing, especially risk. Today, Andrew and Larry discuss Chapter 06: Market Efficiency and the Case of Pete Rose.

    Chapter 06: Market Efficiency and the Case of Pete Rose

    Many people have difficulty understanding why smart investors working hard cannot gain an advantage over average investors who simply accept market returns. In this chapter, Larry uses an analogy in the world of sports betting to explain why the “collective wisdom of the market” is a difficult competitor.

    The case of Pete Rose

    Pete Rose was one of the greatest players in the history of baseball, finishing his career with more hits than any other player. It seems logical that Rose would have a significant advantage over other bettors.

    Rose had 24 years of experience as a player and four years as a manager. In addition to having inside information on his own team, as a manager, he also studied the teams he competed against. Yet, despite these advantages, Rose lost $4,200 betting on his own team, $36,000 betting on other teams in the National League, and $7,000 betting on American League games.

    This reveals that if an expert like Rose, who had access to private information, could not “beat the market,” then it’s very unlikely that ordinary individuals without similar knowledge would be able to do so.

    Sports betting market efficiency

    Larry shares other examples of the efficiency of sports betting markets. One such example is a study covering six NBA seasons in which Professor Raymond Sauer found that the average difference between point spreads and actual point differences was astonishingly low—less than one-quarter of one point.

    In horse racing, the final odds, which reflect the judgment of all bettors, reliably predict the outcome—the favorite wins most often, the second favorite is next most likely to win, and so on. This predictability of the market further emphasizes the futility of trying to exploit mispricings and the need for a more reliable investment strategy.

    Larry goes on to quote James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds,” who demonstrated that as long as people

    Más Menos
    33 m
  • Enrich Your Future 05: Great Companies Do Not Make High-Return Investments
    Jul 8 2024

    In this episode of Enrich Your Future, Andrew and Larry Swedroe discuss Larry’s new book, Enrich Your Future: The Keys to Successful Investing. In this series, they discuss Chapter 05: Great Companies Do Not Make High-Return Investments.

    LEARNING: A higher PE doesn’t mean a higher expected return.

    “A higher PE doesn’t mean a higher expected return. It may mean that you’re paying a high price for high expected growth and safety because the company is really strong.”Larry Swedroe

    In this episode of Enrich Your Future, Andrew and Larry Swedroe discuss Larry’s new book, Enrich Your Future: The Keys to Successful Investing. The book is a collection of stories that Larry has developed over the 30 years or so that he’s been trying to help investors. Larry is the head of financial and economic research at Buckingham Wealth Partners. You can learn more about Larry’s Worst Investment Ever story on Ep645: Beware of Idiosyncratic Risks.

    Larry deeply understands the world of academic research and investing, especially risk. Today, Andrew and Larry discuss Chapter 05: Great Companies Do Not Make High-Return Investments

    Chapter 05: Great Companies Do Not Make High-Return Investments

    In this chapter, Larry explains why investing in great companies doesn’t guarantee high returns.

    When faced with the choice of buying the stocks of “great” companies or buying the stocks of “lousy” companies, Larry says most investors would instinctively choose the former.

    This is an anomaly because people think the whole idea of investing is to identify a great company and, therefore, will get great returns. But if you understand finance, that doesn’t make any sense because the first basic rule of investing is that something you know is only information; it’s not value-added information unless the market doesn’t know it. This is because that information is already embedded in the price through the trading actions of all marketplace investors.

    Small companies versus large companies

    According to Larry, if it were true that markets provide returns commensurate with the amount of risk taken, one should expect great results if they invest in a passively managed portfolio consisting of small companies, which are intuitively riskier than large companies.

    Small companies don’t have the economies of scale that large companies have, making them generally less efficient. They typically have weaker balance sheets and fewer sources of capital. When there is distress in the capital markets, smaller companies are generally the first to be cut off from access to capital, increasing the risk of bankruptcy. They don’t have the depth of management that larger companies do. They generally don’t have long track records from which investors can make judgments.

    The cost of trading small stocks is much greater, increasing the risk of investing in them. When one compares the performance of the asset class of small companies with that of large companies, one gets the same results produced by the great companies versus value companies comparison.

    Why great earnings don’t necessarily translate into great investment returns

    The simple explanation for why great earnings don’t necessarily translate into great investment returns is that investors discount the future expected earnings of value stocks at a higher rate than...

    Más Menos
    27 m
  • Enrich Your Future 04: Why Is Persistent Outperformance So Hard to Find?
    Jul 1 2024

    In this episode of Enrich Your Future, Andrew and Larry Swedroe discuss Larry’s new book, Enrich Your Future: The Keys to Successful Investing. In this series, they discuss Chapter 04: Why Is Persistent Outperformance So Hard to Find?

    LEARNING: Focus on building a robust asset allocation plan, regularly rebalancing it, and stick with it.

    “Investors should just build an asset allocation plan, rebalance, and stick with it. So, when there’s a bubble, take advantage of it and sell some stock high to buy those that haven’t performed.”Larry Swedroe

    In this episode of Enrich Your Future, Andrew and Larry Swedroe discuss Larry’s new book, Enrich Your Future: The Keys to Successful Investing. The book is a collection of stories that Larry has developed over the 30 years or so that he’s been trying to help investors. Larry is the head of financial and economic research at Buckingham Wealth Partners. You can learn more about Larry’s Worst Investment Ever story on Ep645: Beware of Idiosyncratic Risks.

    Larry deeply understands the world of academic research and investing, especially risk. Today, Andrew and Larry discuss Chapter 04: Why Is Persistent Outperformance So Hard to Find?

    Chapter 04: Why Is Persistent Outperformance So Hard to Find?

    In this chapter, Larry explains why persistent outperformance beyond the randomly expected is so hard to find.

    According to Larry, the equivalent of the Holy Grail is finding the formula that allows many investors to time the market successfully. For others, it is finding the fund manager who can exploit market mispricings by buying undervalued stocks and perhaps shorting overvalued ones. However, markets are very highly efficient. An efficient market means that the price is the best estimate investors have of the right price. They don’t know the right price until after the fact.

    The efficiency of the markets and the evidence of the effects of scale on trading costs explain why persistent outperformance beyond the randomly expected is so hard to find. Thus, the search by investors for persistent outperformance is likely to prove as successful as Sir Galahad’s search for the Holy Grail.

    Larry adds that the only place we find the persistence of performance (beyond that which we would randomly expect) is at the very bottom—poorly performing funds tend to repeat. And the persistence of poor performance is not due to poor stock selection. Instead, it is due to high expenses.

    The efficient market hypothesis

    Larry says the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) explains why all investors should expect a lack of persistence. It states that it is only by random good luck that a fund can persistently outperform after the expenses of its efforts. But there is also a practical reason for the lack of persistence: Successful active management sows the seeds of its own destruction.

    Just as the EMH explains why investors cannot use publicly available information to beat the market (because all investors have access to that information, and it is therefore already embedded in prices), the same is true of active managers. Investors should not expect to outperform the market by using publicly available information to...

    Más Menos
    23 m

Lo que los oyentes dicen sobre My Worst Investment Ever Podcast

Calificaciones medias de los clientes

Reseñas - Selecciona las pestañas a continuación para cambiar el origen de las reseñas.