![[legendary_vs_benchmarks_simple.png]] ### 超额回报 - 纵轴为相对标普500的年化超额收益（%），零线即“跟指数打平”。 - 每位传奇投资者对应图中的一个点——数十年如一日、如履薄冰，磨一个数据点。数据摘自Excess Returns (2014) by Frederik Vanhaverbeke，AI抓取，可能稍有出入。 - 1980年代以来，政策松绑， 低息环境，平台垄断经济，致使美股投资者回报丰厚；多倍杠杆的激进投资者(SPXL, TQQQ)碾压一切策略，然趋势是否持续未可知。 - 除动量因子外，一些小众板块如royalty trust, serial acquirer, catastrophe reinsurer有它们独特的商业模式，长期回报或可比肩标普500。 - 各类 ETF 与花样策略在组合里或许有一席之位，但就绝对收益而言，多数跑不赢标普500。 - 未作税调整。数据对应不同年份，其实并不直接可比。仅供历史讨论，不作投资建议。 --- ### Excess Return - The plot shows each investor's annualized outperformance over the S&P 500 and the length of their track record. The zero line is the bar: clear it and you've added real value; fall short and a simple index fund would have done the job better. - Each legendary name on this chart is just one dot — the product of decades of grinding, self-doubt, and staying the course. Data from *Excess Returns* (2014) by Frederik Vanhaverbeke, compiled with AI assistance; minor errors may exist. - Since the 1980s, a powerful tailwind — deregulation, cheap money, and the dominance of platform companies — has made U.S. stocks exceptionally rewarding. Leveraged ETFs like SPXL and TQQQ have ridden that wave to beat almost every active strategy over this period. Whether the tailwind holds is anyone's guess. - A few overlooked corners of the market — royalty trusts, serial acquirers, catastrophe reinsurers — have built genuinely distinctive business models and delivered long-term returns that hold up against the S&P 500, all without ever making the front page. - Most ETFs and factor strategies may have a role to play in a portfolio. But on raw returns alone, most of them can't outrun a plain index fund. - Not tax-adjusted. The data covers different time periods, so direct comparisons are imperfect. For context only — not investment advice.