I don't know. If you've ever seen a movie - well, there are lots of movies that do this; one of the first movies that did this was "Who Killed Roger Rabbit?"
我不知道,如果你们看过那部电影,当然,有很多电影都描写过这一点,其中一部较早的,电影表现了这一手法--《谁谋杀了兔子罗杰》
Roger Ibbotson took a look at a larger group of funds -3,500--funds over a ten-year period and found survivorship bias at 2.9% per year and backfill bias at 4.6% per year.
罗杰·伊博森研究了更大的样本组,3500支基金10年间的表现,算出其生存偏差是每年2.9%,回填偏差是每年4.6%
Another observation?Roger?
还有别的意见吗?,罗杰?
In the case of Burt Malkiel's data, more than 11% per year and in the case of Roger Ibbotson's data between 7% and 8% per year of those returns can be explained either by backfill bias or survivorship bias.
在伯特·麦基尔的数据中,超过11%的年平均收益,在罗杰·伊博森的数据中,7%到8%的年平均收益,可以用生存偏差或回填偏差来解释
Anything else? Roger?
还有什么,罗杰?
应用推荐