Re: [請益] 追高殺低長期能賺錢嗎?

看板Stock作者 (流雨風雪)時間6年前 (2018/01/01 22:18), 6年前編輯推噓8(808)
留言16則, 7人參與, 6年前最新討論串4/6 (看更多)
https://www.vanguard.com/bogle_site/sp2004AIMRefficientMrkts.html 直接看BOGLE說了啥好了 But the EMH may well prove less important in investment theory than a new wisdom that is beginning to emerge. I call it the CMH: The Cost Matters Hypothesis. Like the EMH before it, the CMH posits a conclusion that is both trivially obvious and remarkably sweeping: The mathematical expectation of the speculator is a loss equal to the amount of transaction costs incurred. When he concluded otherwise, that “the mathematical expectation of the speculator is zero,” Bachelier was wrong. So, too, the mathematical expectation of the long-term investor is a shortfall to the stock market’s return, a shortfall that is precisely equal to the costs of our system of financial intermediation—the sum total of all those advisory fees, marketing expenditures, sales loads, brokerage commissions, transaction costs, custody and legal fees, and securities processing expenses. Intermediation costs in the U.S. equity market may well total as much as $300 billion a year, nearly 3% of the value of that $12 trillion market. http://time.com/money/3956351/jack-bogle-index-fund/ Q: What about the benefits of diversification or the idea that going abroad can lower overall risk because markets aren’t correlated? A: Diversification is certainly true, but noncorrelation is bunk. It’s applying higher mathematics to something I don’t think requires it. We’ve overanalyzed the whole thing. I’m always the apostle of simplicity and lower costs. 不管市場有沒有效率,投資人「整體」得到的報酬就是市場報酬, 成本最低的投資人會打敗大部份的投資人,市值加權先天周轉率比其他方式低,就這樣。 -- FB: http://0rz.tw/l3Kcq █◣ \◣◣\◣▼◣◣█◣ ╬╬ ˊ どんだけ── ◥█◣ )) ▲██╴▲██ "囧█ ╬╬ ˊ 好文要推── ◥█◣ ◢██▼██▼███m@ ╬╬ EVERYBODY SAY ◣█ █▇▇█▇▇ " ╬╬ 市場求生手冊─ (( ╲ ╲ ▇▇▇ ▆▆▆ ╬╬ http://stasistw.blogspot.com/ █████ ████▅▄▃▂▁ -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 150.116.118.6 ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Stock/M.1514816282.A.CDC.html ※ 編輯: stasis (150.116.118.6), 01/01/2018 22:24:12

01/01 22:29, 6年前 , 1F
沒錯 就是「低成本」跟「整體」創造的效益
01/01 22:29, 1F

01/01 22:58, 6年前 , 2F
壓低成本就對了,當某檔股票以技術面來觀察,已經
01/01 22:58, 2F

01/01 22:58, 6年前 , 3F
跌無可跌,大家都不想賣,成交量低迷時,進場,剩
01/01 22:58, 3F

01/01 22:58, 6年前 , 4F
下就只需要考慮賺多少要賣了!
01/01 22:58, 4F

01/01 23:49, 6年前 , 5F
剩下要考慮的是還有沒有起死回生的可能...錢閒置也
01/01 23:49, 5F

01/01 23:49, 6年前 , 6F
是價值
01/01 23:49, 6F

01/01 23:57, 6年前 , 7F
如果是用閒錢投資,又何必急?
01/01 23:57, 7F

01/02 00:03, 6年前 , 8F
不是急不急的問題,是期望值的問題
01/02 00:03, 8F

01/02 00:06, 6年前 , 9F
你就不要押寶到垃圾 呵
01/02 00:06, 9F

01/02 00:14, 6年前 , 10F
定力不夠的人,想買這種股票,不要來板上問,大家一定
01/02 00:14, 10F

01/02 00:15, 6年前 , 11F
叫你不要買,因為基本(消息)面太差了 XD
01/02 00:15, 11F

01/02 00:16, 6年前 , 12F
你不知道,我就是專靠撿垃圾股翻倍賺錢的XD
01/02 00:16, 12F

01/02 00:19, 6年前 , 13F
剛好我大部分又還能判斷垃圾什麼時候要開始變黃金
01/02 00:19, 13F

01/02 00:19, 6年前 , 14F
,所以其實也不會等太久啦
01/02 00:19, 14F

01/02 08:57, 6年前 , 15F
重點是怎麼判斷不是垃圾
01/02 08:57, 15F

01/02 11:37, 6年前 , 16F
讚讚讚
01/02 11:37, 16F
文章代碼(AID): #1QIaCQpS (Stock)
討論串 (同標題文章)
文章代碼(AID): #1QIaCQpS (Stock)