Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Comment | Bio/Vote History |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MIT | Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Yale | Strongly Agree | 9 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Berkeley | Strongly Agree | 9 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
MIT | Strongly Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Harvard | Agree | 3 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
MIT | Strongly Agree | 9 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Chicago | Strongly Agree | 3 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Princeton | Agree | 9 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Harvard | Strongly Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | Strongly Agree | 9 |
Stock picker bears a lot of idiosyncratic risk |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Princeton | Strongly Agree | 9 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Harvard | Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Princeton | Agree | 7 |
"Better" is delightfully vague. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Stanford | Strongly Agree | 10 |
Sounds like a trick question! This one is obvious: diversification is a big benefit, even putting aside fee savings. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | Strongly Agree | 10 |
The typical investor is certainly best off buying a low-cost indexed fund. That said, money may be makable without inside information. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | Disagree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | Agree | 5 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
MIT | Strongly Agree | 10 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | Agree | 6 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Chicago | Strongly Agree | 10 |
(DUH) |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Chicago | Strongly Agree | 7 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Harvard | Strongly Agree | 10 |
In equilibrium the typical investor cannot beat the market. Thus a well-diversified buy and hold strategy is best for such an investor |
Bio/Vote History |
|
MIT | Strongly Agree | 9 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | Agree | 9 |
There is ample empirical evidence for this claim. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | Strongly Agree | 10 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | Strongly Agree | 10 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Chicago | Strongly Agree | 9 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Chicago | Strongly Agree | 7 |
Almost everyone should be investing in this way and ignoring tips from friends and experts on particular stocks. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Stanford | Strongly Agree | 10 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Stanford | Agree | 5 |
Key words here are "in general" - most people are unlikely to replicate Warren Buffett's performance. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Harvard | Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | Strongly Agree | 8 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Berkeley | Uncertain | 10 |
Literally, "expected" return may be higher than for diversfied basket, despite higher variance. Does "do better" include pain of variance? |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | Agree | 3 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
Yale | Agree | 8 |
Picking a few stocks makes sense only if one has better information than the market, which is unlikely without inside information. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Princeton | Strongly Agree | 9 | Bio/Vote History | |
|
MIT | Agree | 7 |
Not a great question: "a few stocks" might hit it big, "do better than" and "in general" are not well-defined. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Berkeley | Strongly Agree | 8 |
Diversification rocks. Perhaps there are some exceptions for some investors, e.g., based on a tax angle. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Chicago | Strongly Agree | 9 |
Aggregate stock returns have some forecastibility, but this is a question about individual stocks |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Princeton | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Chicago | Strongly Agree | 10 |
You could do the diversification and periodic rebalancing yourself, and perhaps save a few dollars in transaction costs, but why bother? |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Chicago | Strongly Agree | 10 |
The annual test to see whether panelists are awake. |
Bio/Vote History |
|
Yale | Strongly Agree | 9 |
Unless, of course, you *like* the thrill of gambling. |
Bio/Vote History |