Is it true that more than 99% of active traders cannot beat the index?
What decision are you trying to make?  Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance.  Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively   managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple   reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what   future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps   his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not.   That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this.  This is what I do. Obviously, these numbers can never be absolute simply because not all the information is public. Any statistic will most likely be biased. I can tell you the following from my own experience that might get you closer in your answer: Hence, even though I cannot give you exact numbers, I fully agree that traders cannot beat the index long term. If you add the invested time and effort that is necessary to follow an active strategy, then the equation looks even worse.  Mind you, active trading and active asset allocation (AAA) are two very different things. AAA can have a significant impact on your portfolio performance. That is such a vague statement, I highly recommend disregarding it entirely, as it is impossible to know what they meant. Their goal is to convince you that index funds are the way to go, but depending on what they consider an 'active trader', they may be supporting their claim with irrelevant data Their definition of 'active trader' could mean any one or more of the following: 1) retail investor 2) day trader 3) mutual fund 4) professional investor 5) fund continuously changing its position 6) hedge fund. I will go through all of these. 1) Most retail traders lose money. There are many reasons for this. Some rely on technical strategies that are largely unproven. Some buy rumors on penny stocks in hopes of making a quick buck. Some follow scammers on twitter who sell newsletters full of bogus stock tips. Some cant get around the psychology of trading, and thus close out losing positions late and winning positions early (or never at all) [I myself use to do this!!]. I am certain 99% of retail traders cant beat the market, because most of them, to be frank, put less effort into deciding what to trade than in deciding what to have for lunch. Even though your pension funds presentation is correct with respect to retail traders, it is largely irrelevant as professionals managing your money should not fall into any of these traps. 2) I call day traders active traders, but its likely not what your pension fund was referring to. Day trading is an entirely different animal to long or medium term investing, and thus I also think the typical performance is irrelevant, as they are not going to manage your money like a day trader anyway. 3,4,5) So the important question becomes, do active funds lose 99% of the time compared to index funds. NO! No no no. According to the WSJ, actively managed funds outperformed passive funds in 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015. 2010 was basically a tie. So 5 out of 9 years. I dont have a calculator on me but I believe that is less than 99%!   Whats interesting is that this false belief that index funds are always better has become so pervasive that you can see active funds have huge outflows and passive have huge inflows. It is becoming a crowded trade. I will spare you the proverb about large crowds and small doors. Also, index funds are so heavily weighted towards a handful of stocks, that you end up becoming a stockpicker anyway. The S&P is almost indistinguishable from AAPL. Earlier this year, only 6 stocks were responsible for over 100% of gains in the NASDAQ index. Dont think FB has a good long term business model, or that Gilead and AMZN are a cheap buy? Well too bad if you bought QQQ, because those 3 stocks are your workhorses now. See here 6) That graphic is for mutual funds but your pension fund may have also been including hedge funds in their 99% figure. While many dont beat their own benchmark, its less than 99%. And there are reasons for it. Many have investors that are impatient. Fortress just had to close one of its funds, whose bets may actually pay off years from now, but too many people wanted their money out. Some hedge funds also have rules, eg long only, which can really limit your performance. While important to be aware of this, that placing your money with a hedge fund may not beat a benchmark, that does not automatically mean you should go with an index fund. So when are index funds useful? When you dont want to do any thinking. When you dont want to follow market news, at all. Then they are appropriate.
"common sentiment that no investor can consistently beat the market on returns.  I guess its more like very few investor can beat the market, a vast Majority cannot / do not. What evidence exists for or against this? Obviously we can have a comparison of all investors. If we start taking a look at some of the Actively Managed Funds. Given that Fund Managers are experts compared to common individual investors, if we compare this, we can potentially extend it more generically to others. Most funds beat the markets for few years, as you keep increasing the timeline, i.e. try seeing 10 year 15 year 20 year return; this is easy the data is available, you would realize that no fund consistently beat the index. Few years quite good, few years quite bad. On Average most funds were below market returns especially if one compares on longer terms or 10 - 20 years. Hence the perception Of course we all know Warren Buffet has beat the market by leaps and bounds. After the initial success, people like Warren Buffet develop the power of ""Self Fulfilling Prophecy"". There would be many other individuals." "Simply put, you cannot deterministically beat the market. If by being informed and following all relevant news, you can arrive at the conclusion that company A will likely outperform company B in the future, then having A stocks should be better than having B stocks or any (e.g., index based) mix of them. But as the whole market has access to the very same information and will arrive at the same conclusion (provided it is logically sound), ""everybody"" will want A stocks, which thus become expensive to the point where the expected return is average again.  Your only options of winning this race are to be the very first to have the important information (insider trade), or to arrive at different logical conclusions than the rest of the world (which boils down do making decisions that are not logically sound - good luck with that - or assuming that almost everybody else is not logically sound - go figure)." First: it sounds like you are already making wise choices with your cash surplus. You've looked for ways to keep that growing ahead of inflation and you have made use of tax shelters. So for the rest of this answer I am going to assume you have between 3-6 months expenses already saved up as a “rainy day fund” and you're ready for more sophisticated approaches to growing your funds. To answer this part: Are there any other ways that I can save/ invest that I am not currently doing? Yes, you could look at, for example: 1. Peer to peer These services let you lend to a 'basket' of borrowers and receive a return on your money that is typically higher than what's offered in cash savings accounts. Examples of peer to peer networks are Zopa, Ratesetter and FundingCircle. This involves taking some risks with your money – Zopa's lending section explains the risks. 2. Structured deposits These are a type of cash deposit product where, in return for locking your money away for a time (typically 5 years), you get the opportunity for higher returns e.g. 5% + / year. Your deposit is usually guaranteed under the FSCS (Financial services compensation scheme), however, the returns are dependent on the performance of a stock market index such as the FTSE 100 being higher in x years from now. Also, structured deposits usually require a minimum £3,000 investment. 3. Index funds You mention watching the stock prices of a few companies. I agree with your conclusion – I wouldn't suggest trying to choose individual stocks at this stage. Price history is a poor predictor of future performance, and markets can be volatile. To decide if a stock is worth buying you need to understand the fundamentals, be able to assess the current stock price and future outlook, and be comfortable accepting a range of different risks (including currency and geographic risk). If you buy shares in a small number of companies, you are concentrating your risk (especially if they have things in common with each other). Index funds, while they do carry risks, let you pool your money with other investors to buy shares in a 'basket' of stocks to replicate the movement of an index such as the FTSE All Share. The basket-of-stocks approach at least gives you some built-in diversification against the risks of individual stocks. I suggest index funds (as opposed to actively managed funds, where you pay a management fee to have your investments chosen by a professional who tries to beat the market) because they are low cost and easier to understand. An example of a very low cost index fund is this FTSE All Share tracker from Aberdeen, on the Hargreaves Lansdown platform: http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/a/aberdeen-foundation-growth-accumulation General principle on investing in stock market based index funds: You should always invest with a 5+ year time horizon. This is because prices can move up and down for reasons beyond your anticipation or control (volatility). Time can smooth out volatility; generally, the longer the time period, the greater your likelihood of achieving a positive return. I hope this answer so far helps takes into account the excess funds. So… to answer the second part of your question:  Or would it be best to start using any excess funds […] to pay off my student loan quicker? Your student loan is currently costing you 0.9% interest per annum. At this rate it's lower than the last 10 years average inflation. One argument: if you repay your student loan this is effectively a 0.9% guaranteed return on every pound repaid – This is the equivalent of 1.125% on a cash savings account if you're paying basic rate tax on the interest. An opposing argument: 0.9% is lower than the last 10 years' average inflation in the UK. There are so many advantages to making a start with growing your money for the long term, due to the effects of compound returns, that you might choose to defer your loan repayments for a while and focus on building up some investments that stand a chance to beat inflation in the long term. "From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but   importantly, the advice is not simply ""buy index funds.""   There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation   across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular   rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or,   much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The   advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a   cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment   discipline which involves action over time, and an initial   choice among indexes. An index-fund-based   strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk   control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal.  That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and ""autopilotness"" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio." "I read the book, and I'm willing to believe you'd have a good chance of beating the market with this strategy - it is a reasonable, rational, and mechanical investment discipline. I doubt it's overplayed and overused to the point that it won't ever work again. But only IF you stick to it, and doing so would be very hard (behaviorally). Which is probably why it isn't overplayed and overused already. This strategy makes you place trades in companies you often won't have heard of, with volatile prices. The best way to use the strategy would be to try to get it automated somehow and avoid looking at the individual stocks, I bet, to take your behavior out of it. There may well be some risk factors in this strategy that you don't have in an S&P 500 fund, and those could explain some of the higher returns; for example, a basket of sketchier companies could be more vulnerable to economic events. The strategy won't beat the market every year, either, so that can test your behavior. Strategies tend to work and then stop working (as the book even mentions). This is related to  whether other investors are piling in to the strategy and pushing up prices, in part.  But also, outside events can just happen to line up poorly for a given strategy; for example a bunch of the ""fundamental index"" ETFs that looked at dividend yield launched right before all the high-dividend financials cratered. Investing in high-dividend stocks probably is and was a reasonable strategy in general, but it wasn't a great strategy for a couple years there. Anytime you don't buy the whole market, you risk both positive and negative deviations from it. Here's maybe a bigger-picture point, though. I happen to think ""beating the market"" is a big old distraction for individual investors; what you really want is predictable, adequate returns, who cares if the market returns 20% as long as your returns are adequate, and who cares if you beat the market by 5% if the market cratered 40%. So I'm not a huge fan of investment books that are structured around the topic of beating the market. Whether it's index fund advocates saying ""you can't beat the market so buy the index"" or Greenblatt saying ""here's how to beat the market with this strategy,"" it's still all about beating the market. And to me, beating the market is just irrelevant. Nobody ever bought their food in retirement because they did or did not beat the market. To me, beating the market is a game for the kind of actively-managed mutual fund that has a 90%-plus R-squared correlation with the index; often called an ""index hugger,"" these funds are just trying to eke out a little bit better result than the market, and often get a little bit worse result, and overall are a lot of effort with no purpose. Just get the index fund rather than these. If you're getting active management involved, I'd rather see a big deviation from the index, and I'd like that deviation to be related to risk control: hedging, or pulling back to cash when valuations get rich, or avoiding companies without a ""moat"" and margin of safety, or whatever kind of risk control, but something. In a fund like this, you aren't trying to beat the market, you're trying to increase the chances of adequate returns - you're optimizing for predictability. I'm not sure the magic formula is the best way to do that, focused as it is on beating the market rather than on risk control. Sorry for the extra digression but I hope I answered the question a bit, too. ;-)" The market is efficient, but it is not perfectly efficient. There are entities out there that consistently, legitimately, and significantly outperform the market because of asymmetric information (not necessarily insider trading) and their competitive advantage (access to data and proprietary, highly sophisticated models)*. I say this despite most hedge funds performing worse than their respective benchmarks. For most people (even very smart people) it makes a lot of sense to invest in index funds with a reasonable asset allocation (based on desired volatility, tax situation, rebalancing methods etc.).   * The usual example that is cited is RT's  Medallion Fund because it has enjoyed quite dramatic returns. Other groups that have been successful include Citadel and Soros Fund Management. "The success rate is terrible.  At the same time, what are the success rate for any business endeavor?  Isn't it something like 80% of startups fail in the first 5 years?  That's not far off for the success of traders.  Just like all the success cliches say, it comes down to how bad you want it.  What will you sacrifice to be a successful trader?  How much will you work to be a successful trader?  Will you accept the pain and failure it takes to be a trader?  Who cares if ""soandso"" can do it?  If you want it, you should be saying, ""I will do it because I say so"".  Only you know if you're willing to take the risk.  At the same time, you're a college student, what's the worst that will happen if it doesn't work out?  Check out /r/getmotivated..." By definition, actively managed funds will underperform passive index funds as a whole. Or more specifically: The aggregate performance of all actively managed portfolio of publicly-tradable assets will have equal performance to those of passively managed portfolios. Which taken with premise two: Actively managed funds will charge higher fees than passively managed funds Results in: In general, lower-fee investment vehicles (e.g. passive index investments) with broad enough diversification to the desired risk exposure will outperform higher-fee options But don't take my wonkish approach, from a more practical perspective consider: