>> Someone who merely bought and held tech stocks, like Apple & Nvidia, beat virtually all funds since 2009.
This is both absolutely correct, and entirely in-actionable since it uses hindsight. The question would be...what are the two stocks to buy to beat the market for the next 13yrs.
Saturation of markets picked up pace across the 2nd half of the 20th century. Postwar, with transistors, electronic goods went to saturation over decades. Since mobile phones, a localized saturation can happen in 1-2 years. The rate Americans bought washing machines and microwaves changed to the rate americans bought iPods and phones. White goods manufacturers stopped looking like profit machines.
Apple has a huge problem now: it's eating it's own market. Believing there is an endless belt of profit owning Apple shares is to ignore the risks of consumers changing their minds about "I need this years iPhone" and sales tanking. I read more people saying "my iPhone 12/13 is still fine" than I read people saying "I want to spend $1500 on an iPhone 15"
The cost of being Apple never gets better. They now have exposure to costs they didn't have in 2009. They will have exposure to more costs (s/w complexity, VLSI in-house) and they will have exposure to more market entrants. They are also at risk of supply chain dynamics which could erode profits multi-year if bad enough: imagine if TSMC's yield drops on complex must-have chips? It's force majeure stuff.
I certainly wish I'd bought apple in the 2000s or before. I would hesitate to assume its worth owning FAANG stock now, rather than other things (including EFT)
The long-term rate of return on investment across markets is 6-7% and being above that for periods is unusual and begs questions.
It does not have to be as cherrypicked as individual stocks. Even something as broad as 'buying and holding an index fund' beats almost all funds and strategies. Doesn't quant funds also rely on hindsight? There are no guarantees that strategies will keep working.
> Even something as broad as 'buying and holding an index fund' beats almost all funds and strategies.
How do you come to believe something so blatantly false and naive? Is this due to the proliferation of the (good) advice that most Americans are best off saving for retirement in index funds?
This is both absolutely correct, and entirely in-actionable since it uses hindsight. The question would be...what are the two stocks to buy to beat the market for the next 13yrs.