I have come across such articles on luck vs skill before as well in. In portals and mags. Interestingly few things are common
Typical examples of game of dice and 1 in 1000 players standing out as 10 on 10
Articles don’t clearly state is it with trading or investing
Success or failure is cyclical and can’t be repeated
However long term stock prices are governed by identified parameters and influenced by macro factors. These are fairly predictable thus it qualifies as risk but not uncertainty . Still believe in long term investing is thus risky but not uncertain. Investment is thus not luck or skill it’s rather risk and risk management with commensurate returns
I really liked this article too, but I don’t think the author would be very thrilled that you copied and pasted the entire piece here. It is certainly a violation of The Ken’s T&C and probably violates Valuepickr’s T&C as well.
Most of the attention around automation focuses on how factory robots and self-driving cars may fundamentally change our workforce, potentially eliminating millions of jobs. But AI that can handle knowledge-based, white-collar work are also becoming increasingly competent.
“The key to investment success isn’t hitting home runs; it’s avoiding strikeouts and inning-ending double plays.”
At Oaktree, on the other hand, we believe firmly that “if we avoid the losers, the winners will take care of themselves.”
Charley’s article described the perceptive analysis of tennis contained in “Extraordinary Tennis for the Ordinary Tennis Player” by Dr. Simon Ramo, the “R” in TRW. Ramo pointed out that professional tennis is a “winner’s game,” in which the match goes to the player who’s able to hit the most winners: fast-paced, well-placed shots that his opponent can’t return. But the tennis the rest of us play is a “loser’s game,” with the match going to the player who hits the fewest losers. The winner just keeps the ball in play until the loser hits it into the net or off the court. In other words, in amateur tennis, points aren’t won; they’re lost. I recognized in Ramo’s loss-avoidance strategy the version of tennis I try to play.
Charley took Ramo’s idea a step further, applying it to investments. His views on market efficiency and the high cost of trading led him to conclude that the pursuit of winners is unlikely to pay off. Instead, you should try to avoid hitting losers. I found this view of investing absolutely compelling. I can’t remember saying, “Eureka; that’s the approach for me,” but the developments over the last three decades certainly suggest his article was an important source of my inspiration.
The leadership team at ING Netherlands had examined its business model and come to an interesting conclusion: their bank was no longer a financial services company, it was a technology company in the financial services business. The days of segmenting customers by channel were over. The days of push marketing were over. Thinking forward, they understood that winning companies would use technology to provide simple, attractive customer journeys across multiple channels. This was true for companies in the media business, the search business, most retail businesses, and it was certainly true for companies in the financial services business. Moreover, expectations for engaging customer interactions were not being set by banks – they were being set by media and search and retail companies. Banks had to meet these expectations just to stay in the online game.
Some of you might have seen this trend already but this article offered me a “I have never thought this way moment”. That every company is simply a technology company in their respective fields. Netflix, Uber, Amazon, Facebook(News Company), all are simply technology companies. Sooner or later this trend will start developing in India as well. This might have some serious implications on traditional IT services companies. And the barriers among different industries are simply disappearing. It seems in future, if you have technology and workforce to solve problems, you can enter into any industry.