Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Survivorship Bias Datapoint of the Day
Veryan Allen has many bones to pick with John Bogle, most of which seem to be some variation on the basic theme that hedge funds are a better investment than index funds. Interestingly, he never takes issue with Bogle's main point, which is that index funds are a much better investment than mutual funds. But he does pull out one very interesting statistic:
If you had bought the ORIGINAL 500 components and held on with no adjustments whatsoever you would have outperformed the "real" S&P 500 even though only 86 names survived the past 50 years.
It's true that big indices are, almost by definition, overweight winners. The Intels and Microsofts of this world have to comprise a large part of the S&P 500 and the Dow, otherwise those indices simply wouldn't reflect the reality of the markets. But you'd be wrong, it would seem, if you concluded that their returns have been boosted as a result. The Dow drops Bethlehem Steel and adds Microsoft? Great – but remember that it adds Microsoft only after that company has already posted the vast majority of its gains.
Maybe a really long-term buy-and-hold investor should just buy 10 shares apiece of each stock in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and hold on to them all. I wonder how the returns would compare to those of the Dow itself.






