Sentences with phrase «to beat the index»

Add in the fact that research shows that there's no proof that actively managed funds beat index funds on even a gross basis.

That is, only 5 % of the mutual funds beat the index by 2.2 % over the entire 25 - year period.

Their comment about more than half of the actively managed fund beating their index in six out of the last ten years is flawed thinking because it's past history.

There is a bit of research showing that very few active managers consistently beat an index over the long term.

Investing in the stock market by choosing individual stocks takes time and expertise, and research shows it doesn't even boast a track record of beating index funds over time.

The majority (over 80 %) of professional actively managed fund managers can not beat the index benchmark over the long - term.

In no other year since 1991 has 60 % of stocks beat the index.

I don't like giving up control of my investments to money managers who rarely beat indices over time, charge high fees, and can put clients at excess risk.

By doing so, you might actually beat index investors at their own game.

An index is going to be more diversified than a single stock so while you could put all your money on x and easily beat the index if the stock goes up.

If you're paying a premium for an investment with a shot at beating the index, it shouldn't look like the index.

First, some professional managers do indeed beat the indices before fees are included.

Another year of data provides no new evidence that you (or anyone) can routinely beat an index investing approach.

Nevertheless, it is interesting that in the 33 years since 1984, value, which I think people just assume beats the index, has failed to do just that.

The original 2016 version of Article 5.2 found that there was practically zero evidence that anyone, even the very best professional investors, can routinely beat index funds.

Five - star domestic stock funds with expense ratios in the bottom 20 % of their category beat their index 66 % of the time.

After three years, only 9.7 % of the original group was still beating the index.

You know that there's no such thing as a stock picking expert and that most actively managed mutual funds can't even beat their indexes.

Most equity active mutual funds do not beat the index so I am a fan of ETF's or index mutual funds.

Over the long run picking the worst performing countries beat the index by about 4 % annually.

That means right off, they have to beat the index substantially in order to cover their larger expenses.

Even in hindsight, it is tough to distinguish a manager who beat the index due to skill from the ones that got merely lucky.

These managers only beat the index by being very different from the index — not from trying to track it.

I don't get too risky (usually) per stock pick because I've taken the time to realize what slightly beating the index averages can do to your returns.

The only funds that beat their index counterparts are growth funds, and they do so in all three market cap classes.

There is also the idea that most money managers do not beat the index anyway so they can't help either.

It's a similar argument to believing that «top fund managers» can beat an index tracker.

The best performing countries do beat the index sometimes.

Funds are consistently beating index returns over last 5 years.

No human being on the planet can consistently beat index fund performance.

When markets are exceptionally kind like this, it's even more difficult for active fund managers to beat their index benchmarks.

This makes intuitive sense, half the stocks beat the index and half do worse.

I don't like giving up control of my investments to money managers who rarely beat indices over time, charge high fees, and can put clients at excess risk.

I'm saying several of the active funds you'd mentioned have actually beaten their indexes over meaningful periods of time despite their «high» fees.

Nevertheless, it is interesting that in the 33 years since 1984, value, which I think people just assume beats the index, has failed to do just that.

So, yes the Dividend Fund has beaten the index over 10 years but not over 15 - and 20 - years.

I like to invest myself (as opposed to an index fund or similar) so I set my goal at beating the index.

Because after fees, most mutual fund managers can not beat the index on a consistent basis year - in and year - out.

Top university endowments have faced years of pressure for difficulty beating indexes like the S&P 500 while also paying Wall Street stars big pay packages.

Over the last 15 years, 92 % of large - cap funds trailed the S&P, according to a report by Standard & Poor's Dow Jones Indices, and as many as 95 % of managers of funds trying to beat indexes for medium - sized companies trail their benchmark indices.

Investors Global handily beat the index but the Globe Fund database notes the inception date as 2002 and it is not clear if the fund is the same one as Investors Global — C whose returns are noted here.

Over the last twenty - four years, the percentage of stocks beating the index got as high as 66.5 % in 2001 and as low as 29 % in 1998.

Those who choose DGI thinking it will help them generate both more income and beat the index run the risk of achieving neither.