Does Joel Greenblatt's “Magic Formula Investing” really beat the market?
While it is true that this formula may have historically outperformed the market you have to keep one important thing in mind: once the formula is out in the open, the market inefficiency will disappear. Here is what I mean. Historically there have always been various inefficiencies in the market structure. Some people were able to find these and make good money off them. Invariably these people tend to write books about how they did it. What happens next is that lots of people get in on the game and now you have lots of buyers going after positions that used to be under-priced, raising demand and thus prices for these positions. This is how inter-exchange arbitrage disappeared. Its how high frequency trading is running itself into the ground. If enough demand is generated for an inefficiency, the said inefficiency disappears or the gains get so small that you can only make money off it with large amounts of capital. Keep in mind, as Graham said, there is no silver bullet in the stock market since you do not hold any data that is unavailable to everyone else. "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. ;-)" Probably not.  Once the formula is out there, and if it actually seems to work, more and more investors chase the same stocks, drive the price up, and poof!  The advantage is gone. This is the very reason why Warren Buffett doesn't announce his intentions when he's buying.  If people know that BRK is buying, lots of others will follow. In addition to other answers consider the following idea. That guy could have invented say one thousand formulas many years ago and been watching how they all perform then select the one that happened to be beat the market. GENIX was started by Joel Greenblatt back in 2013, so it is a real life test of the strategy. GENIX got off to a great start in 2013 and 2014 (probably because investors were pumping money into the fund) but had a terrible 2015, and lagging in 2016. Since inception it has under-performed an S&P 500 index fund by about 1.90% per year. The expense ratio of the fund is 2.15%, so before expenses GENIX still has a slight edge, but Greenbatt is doing much better the fund's investors. I think GENIX could be an OK investment if the expense ratio were reduced from 2.15% to around 0.50%, but I doubt the fund will ever do that.
Somebody is getting really addicted to Dow highs and needs another hit. Damn it is going to hurt them when the Dow corrects like a motherfucker.  Invest in the value of a company, invest for the long haul. Don't chase a magical index value. The Dow can actually tank and smart investors can win *at the same time*. "Your graph does no such thing.  1. They're displaying percentages of income spent, so even with the minor decreases in percentage of money spent they're still spending more than low income families. 2. The percentage ""saved for retirement"" increases in higher income percentiles. How exactly does that occur? Do they send their money to magic fairy land where it's tended by nymphs who return a percentage return? No, it's invested in stocks, bonds, ownerships of businesses, venture capital and other forms of INVESTMENT which means that wealth is not sitting in a mattress, it's being used by others to generate more wealth." No. You're lucky, maybe, but not really a successful investor. Warren Buffet is, you're not him. Sometimes it is easier to pick stocks to bid on, sometimes its harder. I got my successes too. It is easier on a raising market, especially when it is recovering after a deep fall, like now. But generally it is very hard to beat the market. You need to remember that an individual investor, not backed by deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts, is in a disadvantage on the market by definition. So what can you do? Get the deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts. How? By pooling with others - investing through funds. The general concept is that your money will grow at an accelerating rate because you start getting interest paid on your returns in addition to the original investment.  As a simple example, assume you invest $100 and get 10% interest per year paid annually.   -At the end of the first year you have your $100 + $10 interest for a total of $110. -So you start the second year with $110 and so 10% would be $11 for a total of $121. -The third year you start with $121 so 10% would be $12.10 for a total of $133.10 See how the amount it goes up each year increases? If we were talking a higher initial amount or a larger number of years that can really add up. That is essence is compound interest. Most of the complicated looking formulas you see out there for compound interest are just shortcuts so you don't have to iteratively go through the above exercise a bunch of times to find out how much you would have after some number of years. This formula tells you how much you would have(A) after a certain number of years(t)  at a given interest rate(r) assuming they pay interest n times per year, for example you would use 12 for n if it paid interest monthly instead of yearly. P represents the  amount you started out with.   If you keep investing monthly (as shown in your example) instead of just depositing it and letting it sit, you have to use a more complicated formula. Finance people refer to this as calculating the future value of an annuity.  That formula looks like this: A = PMT [((1 + r)N - 1) / r] x (1+r)  A : Is the amount you would have at the end of the time period.   N : The number of compounding periods (months if you get interest calculated monthly)   PMT : The total amount you are putting in each period (N)    r: Just like before, the interest rate you are getting paid. Be sure to adjust this to a monthly number if N represents months (divide APR by 12)* *Most interest rates are quoted as APR, which is the annualized interest rate not counting compounding. Don't confuse this with APY, which has compounding built into it and is not appropriate for use in this formula. Inserting your example: r (monthly interest rate) = 15% APR / 12 = .0125 n = 30 years * 12 months/year = 360 months   A = $150 x [((1 + .0125)360 - 1) / .0125] x (1+.0125) A = $1,051,473.09 (rounded) "Not going to pretend to know what any of that actually means mate, haha! But if it involves Brownian Motion/Ito then you might find something relatable in that paper. Plenty of stuff outside that, but most not as ""mathematically clean"" (ie will involve hacks to fit observed data), or on the flipside closer to philosophical stuff like Mandelbrot and (sigh) Taleb, who more or less do a great job of explaining why the gospel models are all crap (which is reasonable), and that real world markets can't be bunged into a nice cookie-cutter model." "There is only one book worth reading in my opinion: One Up on Wall Street. It's short and no other book even comes close to it for honesty, correctness and good sense. Also, it is written by the second most successful investor of all time, Peter Lynch. The Intelligent Investor has some good technical content, but the book is dated and a lot of it is irrelevant to the modern investment environment. When I was younger I used to ready books like this and when a friend of mine asked for investment advice. I said ""Look at stocks with a PE ratio of 5-10"". A few days later he comes back to me and says ""There are none"". Right. That pretty much sums up the problem with the I.I. Graham himself in interviews during the 1970s said that his book was obsolete and he no longer recommended those methods." "Warren Buffet isn't using any special sauce. He looks for value and ignores hype, greed, and fear. He buys what he knows and looks for companies that generate cash and/or are available for a discount of their true value. He explains what he looks for in a company and his reasons for buying it. He has said on numerous occasions, ""I look for intrinsic value."" (So there's your formula.) Human nature is often  irrational and investing seems to bring out the fear and greed. I've always been a bit surprised when people ascribe some sort of sixth sense to Warren Buffet's success. He just works hard and doesn't deviate from a sound strategy. ""Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful."" And of course, rule one: ""Don't lose money."" It's not a joke. How many people buy high and sell low because of fear and greed? When the market tanks, buy more. Finally, anyone can invest with Buffet without all the work. Just buy a few shares of BRK.A or BRK.B." "Ah ok, I can appreciate that. I'm fluent in English and Mr. Graham's command of English can be intimidating (even for me). The edition I have has commentary by Mr. Jason Zweig who effectively rewrites the chapters into simpler English and updates the data (some of the firms listed by Mr. Graham don't exist either due to bankruptcy or due to consolidation). But I digress.  Let's start with the topics you took; they're all very relevant, you'd be surprised, the firm I work for require marketing for certain functions. But not being good at Marketing doesn't block you from a career in Finance. Let's look at the other subjects.  You took high level Maths, as such I think a read through Harry Markowitz's ""Portfolio Selection"" would be beneficial, here's a link to the paper:  https://www.math.ust.hk/~maykwok/courses/ma362/07F/markowitz_JF.pdf  Investopedia also has a good summary:  http://www.investopedia.com/walkthrough/fund-guide/introduction/1/modern-portfolio-theory-mpt.aspx  This is Mr. Markowitz's seminal work; while it's logical to diversify your portfolio (remember the saying ""don't put all your eggs in one basket""), Mr. Markwotiz presented the relationship of return, risk and the effects of diversification via mathematical representation. The concepts presented in this paper are taught at every introductory Finance course at University. Again a run through the actual paper might be intimidating (Lord knows I never read the paper from start to finish, but rather read text books which explained the concepts instead), so if you can find another source which explains the concepts in a way you understand, go for it. I consider this paper to be a foundation for other papers.  Business economics is very important and while it may seem like it has a weak link to Finance at this stage; you have to grasp the concepts. Mr. Michael Porter's ""Five Forces"" is an excellent link between industry structure (introduced in Microeconomics) and profit potential (I work in Private Equity, and you'd be surprised how much I use this framework):  https://hbr.org/2008/01/the-five-competitive-forces-that-shape-strategy  There's another text I used in University which links the economic concept of utility and investment decision making; unfortunately I can't seem to remember the title. I'm asking my ex-classmates so if they respond I'll directly send you the author/title.  To finish I want to give you some advice; a lot of subjects are intimidating at first, and you might feel like you're not good enough but keep at it. You're not dumber than the next guy, but nothing will come for free. I wasn't good at accounting, I risked failing my first year of University because of it, I ended up passing that year with distinction because I focused (my second highest grade was Accounting). I wasn't good in economics in High School, but it was my best grades in University. I wasn't good in financial mathematics in University but I aced it in the CFA. English is your second language, but you have to remember a lot of your peers (regardless of their command of the language) are being introduced to the new concepts just as you are. Buckle down and you'll find that none of it is impossible."