In the concept of ordinary people, the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics of Xinjiang Business Opportunity Network should belong to a senior expert. How could it go bankrupt? However, there is indeed a precedent in history that the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics of Xinjiang Business Opportunity Network was involved in the bankruptcy case. From 65438 to 0998, Long-term Capital Fund, one of the largest hedge funds in the world, was on the verge of bankruptcy. If it hadn't been for the intervention of the Federal Reserve, this hedge fund with assets exceeding $654.38+000 billion would have triggered the US financial crisis ten years in advance. Among the founders of long-term capital funds, two Nobel Prize winners are familiar to all financial students. They are Mino Scholes and robert merton, the proponents of option pricing theory. The latter's continuous-time financial theory is the basis of modern mainstream finance. But it was with the help of these two "big immortals" that the top funds on Wall Street were screwed up.

Nobel prize winners are like this, and other experts talk to themselves. Almost every year, several course papers or graduation papers written by Peking University students are about the performance evaluation of open-end and closed-end funds in China. All the research results show that the performance contribution of China fund managers is negative. In other words, if ordinary investors buy index funds that do not need to be managed, their risk-adjusted returns will greatly exceed those of equity funds. In fact, the performance of American counterparts is equally bad. The empirical research for many years shows that after the overall risk adjustment of the fund, the return is obviously lower than the market index. The function of the fund is mainly to provide investors with different styles of choices, rather than contributing income. So my advice to ordinary investors is that if you must buy a fund, buy an index fund.

Will stock critics do better? The answer is only two words: hehe. 2065438+August 2002 ~ 65438+2065 4381October+Sina invited 55 stock experts to trade. During this period, the Shanghai Composite Index was -4.95%, while the median income of 55 experts was only-1 1.66%. Among them, 5 lazy experts (such as the famous financial commentator "Shui Pi") have never operated, and the income is 0, ranking fifth among 55 experts. There is a big difference between simulated stock trading and firm operation, but I believe readers should not trust any stock critics after reading such results, right?

In the eyes of retail investors, stock commentators in the media usually speak very clearly. However, in the eyes of professionals, the analysis of stock critics generally lacks rigorous logic, and many opinions are not worth refuting. A female financial commentator who often appears in the mainstream media often makes irresponsible remarks without common sense and becomes a joke in the financial community. So, will those stock analysts who have been trained in finance in top universities perform better? The answer is still no, the seller analyst hired by CITIC Jiantou Securities publishes hundreds of thousands of stock research reports every year, and more than 90% of investment suggestions are "buying". Readers who have bought stocks in recent years should know that it is obviously more reasonable if 90% of them are "sold".

Similar to the situation of fund managers, the poor performance of seller analysts is also an international practice. In 2009, for example, the average return rate of the top ten stocks favored by Wall Street analysts was 22%, while the average return rate of the least favored stocks was "only" 70%, while the S&P index rose by 26% in the same period. This is not surprising, because the purpose of the seller's analyst is to attract business. If analysts advise customers to sell shares of a listed company, it will be difficult for owners to receive the job of issuing shares of this listed company.

Starting from 200 1, the SEC began to investigate the conflict of interest of wall street investment bank analysts. A survey by the regulatory authorities shows that all the top ten investment banks force analysts to make overly optimistic investment suggestions. Under the threat of litigation from the regulatory authorities, in April 2003, the top ten investment banks on Wall Street agreed to pay a total fine of * * * 65.438+38 billion US dollars, and promised to ensure the independence of analysts' opinions. Judging from the effect after the engagement, the fine was paid, but the research report remained unchanged. At the beginning of 2008, on the eve of the subprime mortgage crisis, Lehman Brothers was already tottering. However, among the 17 Wall Street analysts who followed Lehman, 9 suggested "holding", 5 suggested "buying", 2 suggested "buying strongly" and only 1 suggested "selling". After reading this paragraph, it is estimated that everyone's understanding of the "financial elite" on Wall Street has improved.

The logic we discussed above is somewhat incoherent. At first, we discussed the ability of experts, and then we discussed morality. So aside from moral issues, what about the investment performance of stock critics and analysts themselves? Zhao Xiaoyun, once known as "China Trust No.1", returned to China Stock Market on 201/and became a private fund manager. His net fund value fell within three months 1/4, which greatly underperformed the market. The performance of other stock critics is not much better. Regression analysis of China Sunshine Private Equity Fund shows that under the same risk level, private equity funds underperform the market. The three sources of private fund managers are fund managers, stock critics and analysts. The incentive mechanism of private equity funds comes from American hedge funds. In the case of exceeding the guaranteed income, the fund manager can get 20% of the excess. Therefore, the performance of private equity funds should reflect the real ability of fund managers.

Years of academic research shows that some fund managers may outperform the broader market for a period of time, but they will soon disappear as time goes by. Hedge funds have a very poor record in this regard. Often, a fund is transferred immediately after several years, which brings huge losses to investors. The famous Tiger Fund once brought an average of 20% income to investors in its 20-year history, but in 2000, the loss of $5 billion brought by shorting the yen directly brought its performance to zero. In 2005, Hunt, the manager of Eternal Flower Fund, made a huge profit of $654.38 billion. The following year, he set a record, costing investors $5 billion in a week. In 2008, Paulson Fund, which is famous for shorting subprime loans, ranked first in 20 12, but this time it was the last. All these.

Over the years, many people have qualified to be called investment masters, such as Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch (Magellan Fund Manager) and george soros (Quantum Fund Manager). However, compared with the huge team of investment experts, fund managers with extraordinary performance (and extraordinary luck) are still a drop in the ocean. Are you willing to compete with fund managers in person, or are you willing to let fate follow the market? Most people will choose the former. For this reason, 90% of retail investors are underperforming the market.