Best investors of our time

TVC:SPX   S&P 500 Index
Here are the best. Under 10 years it's too luck based, and even up to 20 years. So all the people on the list will always be old.
Warren Buffet & Jesse Livermore started investing full time in their teens (Warren started at 8 but the track record starts later maybe late teens or twenties, Jesse started at 14 I began the track record estimate at 16), George Soros started in his 30s, Jim Simons started in his 40s and his monstruous medallion fund was launched on his 50th year.

For Jesse Livermore I looked at Dow Jones dividends reinvested returns from 1893 to 1930 which were about 11%, and he managed to grow to 10k in 1893, made 100 million in 1929 (so he had 100,000k + x) so he made at the very least 30% a year... Why I placed him at 18-19% over the stock market returns, but it is possible he made more than this. In any case he got better results than Soros.

Special mention: Carl Ihcan got returns of 26% from 1968 to 2011 versus Buffet 20% (or at least that's the book value of Berkshire), while the S&P with dividends reinvested over that period produced 9.5% so Buffet overperformed by a little over 10% and Ihcan by 16% putting him above Warren Buffet (but for less long) and close to Jesse Livermore & George Soros. But since then Ihcan has done terribly, so Warren Buffet is still numero uno .

Jim Simons secretive medallion fund made 66% a year over 30 years so that's an overperformance of pretty much 55%.
This is not where all his money is, and the fund is capped so there won't be growth futher (for medallion fund, but overall he'll still make lots of money via medaillion flat gains & his other funds).
The overrall perf is so off the charts anyway that in any case he is clearly number 1.

In the game we got:
- An overwhelming majority of sheep shadowing the stock market and making sure they perform same as the rest of the herd every quarter
- Alot of fundamental investors (including short sellers like Jim Chanos I guess)
- A couple of value investors
- A handful of speculators (why bother if you can't beat the stock market anyway? Investors that speculate on the side to reduce portfolio volatility not included)
- A herd of retail traders that look at oversold indicators, fight obvious trends, and think they'll beat Livermore that could read & write at 3 years old
- 1 secretive mathematician/geometrist/pattern recognition master (wink wink) that finds patterns in enormous amounts of data
- Hundreds of day trading educators that claim they can massively outperform a one in 100 million genius that gets his edge from seeing things others cannot
It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.


I love the "+500%" comment haha
Enjoyed the writeup mate nice work :)
+8 Reply
ReallyMe AlphaBotSystem
@AlphaBotSystem, It's missing the Y-axis in the negative direction. There on the chart you would enter with -500% all the (day)traders who finance the whole thing.
+5 Reply
@ReallyMe, Great addition, when v2?
+2 Reply
MrRenev ReallyMe
@ReallyMe, There are a few wall street bets players I could add there. Some made -10,000% or more! Guh.
Well the +500% of random youtubers is stupid of course but good traders still do 200-350% a year. The difference is the size of investment. You simply cannot day trade with millions or even billions of dollars. You push the price too much in either way. So a normal day trader just has a equity of 25k to 100k on his account to trade with. They do larger winnings percentage wise but still the absolute money made is still less than those big investors. And even less after taxes (big investors have their ways to either pay no or just little taxes and can move money easily all around the world). The biggest disadvantage those big investors have is, if they commit to an investment they are in it for months. They can't sell their positions in a few minutes. They would lose too much money, it takes weeks and months to enter or leave an investment.
+2 Reply
MrRenev avemex
@avemex, Looking at Jesse Livermore he turned $500 (a loan) into $50,000 in 1 year between 22 & 23 (he already had a good 7 years experience), that's 10,000% in a year, but he was reading the tape (not possible anymore since the 90s-2000s unless you work at citadel and have supercomputers plugged directly on the exchange) and yes it does not scale.
At 38-39 he turned 145,000 into at least 3 million in 1 year playing the market perfectly buy when it went up and shorted as it went down (1916), so that's a 2000% return via speculation.
In the years before 1916 he went broke and even got big debts, he said that this period was very bad "no money to be made" "flat markets".
We might have more markets now but everything is correlated, some periods there are plenty of easy pickings, some periods it's going to be buy & hold a low return asset at best.
avemex MrRenev
@MrRenev, Sure I agree with most things you say, although I mainly talked about every day traders. You do not have to get a millionaire in one year trading to be successful. There are plenty of traders doing well with less risk and solid returns. And regarding the flat markets. Sure there are volatile and not volatile parts of a market cycle, but one thing that really could spark volatility in the future is the fact that more and more people invest in ETFs and while ETFs are a low risk, low cost way to invest it is passive investing. These funds are not actively managed and thus more inefficient regarding supply/demand and price making of the underlying assets. If this trend continues there will be plenty of opportunities and higher volatility in the markets especially those assets that are heavily included in ETFs. There are more factors that could lead to higher market volatility in the coming decades, including tension between world powers like USA, China, Russia and the EU and things we can't foresee.
Since the inception of stock markets there are a lot of people saying it is impossible to make money anymore because of this and that. The thing is, it is nowadays easier than ever to learn finance and the markets for yourself using the internet and all it offers (and I do not mean those YouTube fake gurus). Knowledge is available everywhere at nearly no cost and trading platforms got so cheap to trade on everyone can try it. That means there are a lot more possible good traders to compete with you. Times change. You cannot compare the early 20th century or even the 60s, 70s, 80s to today. The digitization changed the world and thus the way people trade and the stock market behaves. That does not mean there won't be opportunities or it will be impossible to live off it. The only real problem I see (and that is not only valid for the stock markets) is AI. AI will be better in every fucking aspect of human life and labor including creative stuff like music and art. And I do not mean the current machine learning basic AIs. I mean Artificial General Intelligences which are still 2-3 decades away. That is the only possible problem I foresee for markets.
where zoinky
+1 Reply
66% anually over 30 years would be over 4 million TIMES profit
+1 Reply
MrRenev erwinkang
@erwinkang, The returns are not public in the past couple of years all we have is some unverifiable info by investors. It is estimated that $100 invested in 1988 would today be $400,000,000. Pretty good investment. N°1.
Home Stock Screener Forex Screener Crypto Screener Economic Calendar How It Works Chart Features Pricing Refer a friend House Rules Help Center Website & Broker Solutions Widgets Charting Solutions Lightweight Charting Library Blog & News Twitter
Profile Profile Settings Account and Billing Referred friends Coins My Support Tickets Help Center Ideas Published Followers Following Private Messages Chat Sign Out