05-015 · EVIDENCE A · SOURCE-SENSITIVE
Infrequent stock trading
不频繁交易股票，行情暴涨暴跌的时候更要少动手
There are no monetary costs. The real challenge is resisting the urge to trade whenever you see market news.
Among investors who trade most frequently, the average annual return is only 11.4%, while the overall market average for the same period is 17.9%. This gap of over 6 percentage points is almost entirely caused by the transaction fees incurred with each trade. If these fees are excluded, the returns of frequent and infrequent traders end up being quite similar.
A
Move “Infrequent stock trading” to Future Me's calendar
The excuse
The routine already works until the day the source says it may not.
What feels good now
Today I keep a few minutes, a bit of persistence and avoid interrupting my default routine.
What the source says
The source summarizes the return this way: “Among investors who trade most frequently, the average annual return is only 11.4%, while the overall market average for the same period is 17.9%. This gap of over 6 percentage points is almost entirely caused by the transaction fees incurred with each trade. If these fees are excluded, the returns of frequent and infrequent traders end up being quite similar.” Evidence grade A. The original states the population, caveats, and sources; this is not a personal forecast.
Use the original facts and limits. For an urgent medical, safety, financial, or legal issue, contact a qualified local professional or service.
THE ENGLISH EDITION
Original recommendation and evidence
15. Infrequent stock trading
Cost: There are no monetary costs. The real challenge is resisting the urge to trade whenever you see market news.
In plain terms: Among investors who trade most frequently, the average annual return is only 11.4%, while the overall market average for the same period is 17.9%. This gap of over 6 percentage points is almost entirely caused by the transaction fees incurred with each trade. If these fees are excluded, the returns of frequent and infrequent traders end up being quite similar.
Benefit: This study analyzed 66,465 household accounts at US discount brokerage firms between 1991 and 1996. The group of investors who traded most often achieved an annualized return of 11.4%, while the overall market average was 17.9%, and the average return for all households was 16.4%. On average, these households turned over 75% of their stock holdings each year, swapping out three quarters of their portfolio annually. The gross returns (before transaction fees) of frequent and infrequent traders differed only slightly, meaning the performance gap is largely driven by trading costs (USA, 1991–1996).
Evidence grade: A
Sources: Barber BM, Odean T (2000). Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors. The Journal of Finance 55(2):773-806. <https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00226>; An L, Lou D, Shi D (2022). Wealth redistribution in bubbles and crashes. Journal of Monetary Economics 126:134-153. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2022.01.001>; Working paper draft published by the same author (October 2021, domestic figures are verified verbatim). <https://personal.lse.ac.uk/loud/AnLouShi.pdf>
Notes: These data are from the United States in the 1990s. While the commission and stamp duty structures for A-share markets differ, the core principle remains the same: higher trading frequency leads to lower net returns. This information is not intended as investment advice. 〔2014〕 〔2014〕 〔2014〕 〔2014〕 〔2014〕 〔85〕 〔85〕 〔85〕 〔250000000000〕 〔250000000000〕 〔40000000〕 〔150〕 〔5166.35〕 〔0.5〕 〔0.5〕 〔880000000000〕 〔808000000000〕 〔254000000000〕 〔2012〕
Source links
- Barber BM, Odean T (2000). Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors. The Journal of Finance 55(2):773-806. ↗
- An L, Lou D, Shi D (2022). Wealth redistribution in bubbles and crashes. Journal of Monetary Economics 126:134-153. ↗
- 同文作者公开的工作论文稿（2021 年 10 月，国内数字按它逐字核对）. ↗
- Pinned original chapter on GitHub ↗
Read the complete Chinese source and notes
15. 不频繁交易股票，行情暴涨暴跌的时候更要少动手
成本: 不花钱。难的是看到消息就想动手，别人都在赚钱时想跟着加码，要忍住。
说人话: 买卖最频繁的美国家庭，每年只赚 11.4%，同期整个市场是 17.9%，差距几乎全是手续费。国内 2014 到 2015 年那轮暴涨暴跌里，账户最小的 85% 家庭买卖太勤。他们比一直拿着不动少赚 2500 亿元，约是本金的三成。
收益: 这项研究看的是 66,465 个美国折扣券商的家庭账户，时间是 1991 到 1996 年。交易最频繁的那一组，年化收益 11.4%，也就是平均每年赚 11.4%。同期整个市场是 17.9%，平均一个家庭是 16.4%。平均一个家庭一年的换手率是 75%，一年里把手上的股票换掉了四分之三。频繁交易的那组和不频繁的那组，毛收益（扣手续费前赚的钱）差别很小，所以差距主要来自买卖时付掉的交易成本（美国，1991 到 1996 年）。国内的数据：研究用的是上海证券交易所的逐日账户数据，覆盖全部约 4000 万个账户。样本期是 2014 年 7 月到 2015 年 12 月，共 18 个月。这 18 个月里上证综指先涨了 150% 以上。它在 2015 年 6 月 12 日见顶 5166.35 点，到 12 月底又跌了 40%。家庭账户按期初市值分成四档。最小的一档占全部家庭账户的 85%，最大的一档占 0.5%。两档期初的股票总市值差不多，分别是 8800 亿元和 8080 亿元。结果是最小的那 85% 因为主动交易损失 2500 亿元，最大的那 0.5% 赚到 2540 亿元。这里的「损失」是和同一段行情里一直持有不动、什么都不做相比。两个数各约相当于本组期初股票市值的三成，前者 28%，后者 31%。作为对照，2014 年 6 月之前的两年半市场较平静。那段时间任取 18 个月，同类差额只有期初市值的 1% 到 3%。这轮行情里，家庭账户平均约三周就把手上的股票换一遍，一年近 18 次（中国上海，2014 到 2015 年；对照期 2012 到 2014 年）
证据等级: A
来源: Barber BM, Odean T (2000). Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors. The Journal of Finance 55(2):773-806. <https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00226>；An L, Lou D, Shi D (2022). Wealth redistribution in bubbles and crashes. Journal of Monetary Economics 126:134-153. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2022.01.001>；同文作者公开的工作论文稿（2021 年 10 月，国内数字按它逐字核对）. <https://personal.lse.ac.uk/loud/AnLouShi.pdf>
备注: 美国那份数据是 1990 年代的，A 股的佣金和印花税结构和它不一样，但「换手越高、到手收益越低」这个道理是一样的。国内那项研究没有说别买股票。它算的是同一段行情里，账户小的那一头越主动交易，钱越往对手盘走。赚走这笔钱的也不是机构，是账户最大的那一批个人：这段时间上交所约九成成交量来自散户账户。网上流传的「九成散户亏钱」找不到可核对的官方统计，本条不用这个数字。换手率可以对照着看：这轮行情里国内家庭账户一年换近 18 次，美国那批家庭一年只换掉四分之三。平静的年份里国内这个差距只有百分之一到三，所以最该忍住的是行情最热的时候。不构成投资建议。
YOUR PRIVATE LIST