/biz/ - Business & Finance

you're buying boomer bags and WILL get rugpulled.

>>55680018
>i mean if everyone did this then they wouldn't have a goy underclass to work for them.
Less than half of people invest.
Less than half that invest wisely.
More than half that spend their investments early.
Very few people actually plan, and even those who plan life hits them with shit or they fuck their own shit up.
etc.
I haven't started yet but am opening an account soon. There's no reason not to. Only happening fags will tell you not to.

>i mean if everyone did this then they wouldn't have a goy underclass to work for them.
no, by buying index funds YOU ARE THE GOY working for them. you performed work, earned some money, then instead of starting your own business/operation you went and gave it right back and call it "investing"

Index funds one of the main reasons that poor people are poor voluntarily. Like hahaha nigga how can being poor be real, just delay gratification ahahhahaha

>>55680018
Because active management is a bitch and more then likely the computers that can parse datasets at a larger scale then the average human will outperform you. Outside of DCA'ing into a conglomerate like JNJ or microsoft you can't really outdo the indices over a decade. You can't just go
>oh look tech stocks going up go all in now
Then you get heemed in a year when tech falls again like 2022. When you should've been balancing with a safer sector. Vice versa hiding in boring sectors in 2022 and missing out on tech gains. You can beat the index in a year or two without even touching complicated trading but how do you keep beating the machines over 5 years?

>>55680031
this is my first thought but index funds track the whole stock market so in the case they get rugged the whole world will likely be fucked in which case it won't really matter either way

my other concern is that it will just flatline or track inflation in the future. things like declining birth rates, climate change, and the recent moves towards protectionism in many countries will make growth less achieveable or less of a priority than it was when warren buffet was growing up.

>>55680043
>>55680095
These guys get it.

>>55680155
>this is my first thought but index funds track the whole stock market so in the case they get rugged the whole world will likely be fucked in which case it won't really matter either way
What do you think the result of a declining birth rate and importation of somalian niggers is going to be, anon? Stock market is going down. I'm not sure when, but I assure you it isn't sustainable. These bags are held up by 401k's of a generation that's dying and literally being replaced by 70 IQ Somalians. Not too sure how long it will take, but young men aren't entering a workforce when the they can't have a family because women are too whorish. Unironically these "risk assets" like bitcoin are the only safe play (aside from metals I guess)

Case in point. I've been beating the indices YTD without anything other then simple buys and sells in a roth but this is walking through landmines. SMG is same as shitcoin biz. Buy and try to swing a trend but in reality you have to balance and counter trends and then you only get real % gains over indices if you get fairly decent timing on certain stocks like shitcoins. Its why you'd be better off holding bitcoin over the shitcoin casino or being a SPY stacker instead of playing poker with the next nvda. Your going to lose your shirt fast if you get just a little too greedy. Time lost versus letting the computers in an index do the work for you.

I'm going to open a vanguard account and no one on /biz/ can stop me

>>55680155
>this is my first thought but index funds track the whole stock market so in the case they get rugged the whole world will likely be fucked in which case it won't really matter either way
retarded

>>55680018
In a sense passive investing is becoming a bubble. There is some research in recent years that argues that increasing levels of passive investing relative to active management causes asset bubbles (see https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15140326.2023.2188634))

Right now its estimated that around half of the market is passive in nature. So what happens if less and less investors actually make decisions based on fundamentals and just ape into index funds? Nobody really knows. Some people believe that part of the reason that the US indices keep going up and valuations become higher and higher is because of passive; more and more of the market literally does not care about the valuations, or anything, just buying.

At some point people have to sell, but we've yet to see the passive side sell for more than a month in any given year, so it rarely causes problems. Even in 2020 they didn't sell and unemployment was above 10% (though there was a lot of fiscal spending so maybe thats why).

Imo the reason stocks went down in 2022 is that the active side sold as rates kept going up, and the reason we are almost back at all time highs is that they had to buy back in as stocks lifted off whether due to the AI bubble stocks, or that passive kept bidding, it doesn't really matter.

Some day the passive side of the market could crack, idk maybe baby boomers being deeper into retirement and drawing on savings? but for now stocks are up only.

Are dividend ETFs better in the sense that one doesn't have to sell shares to get cash flow? This would encourage investors to hold the shares correct?

>>55680031
You are a fucking retard. Go buy some more BBCinuranus coin you will surely make it.

>>55681000
Dividend investing is stupid for someone young. That is something you convert into when you are close to or are retired to use as income. Get good growth stock mutual funds and invest in them consistently and you will have a lot of money by retirement. At bare minimum 1mm+

The risk is the collapse of American hegemony.
If you think America is going to remain the undisputed top power for the next 100 years, just put all of your money into index funds.
Inflation will ensure the price of index funds will continue to go up over a long enough period of time. When the boomers start to sell off there might be a small dip, but long term it will be a small blip.

Low cost index funds that are easily investable are a recent phenomena. 10 years ago you needed $5,000 just to buy into VTSAX I believe it was $10,000 to get into the next, cheaper tier.

>>55680214
Why do you think in a world of declining birth rates BTC will continue to go up in real terms? Actually curious btw.

>>55680018
>i mean if everyone did this then they wouldn't have a goy underclass to work for them.
In America only about 60% of Americans hold stock, and that's specifically if you include things like a 401k or Roth IRA

If you take away 401k or Roth IRA, then only around 30% of Americans hold some kind of stock

If you talk specifically about things like ETFs, only about 12% of Americans hold those long term

The only real downsides are
>you have to be patient
>if America unironically, actually goes to shit within the next few decades compared to the rest of the world (not just a recession, I mean it goes completely downhill) then you lose in the long run, you're basically betting on the American economy being strong and resilient

>>55682301
>betting on the American economy being strong and resilient
Who bets against this, exactly? The dollar shit the bed and it still did better than the rest of the world on inflation

the rigged system is about to collapse, buy bbbyq

>>55680018
There’s no real catch. It’s a good and safe investment. It’s not going to do 1000% overnight and you won’t get rich unless you continuously buy for years and years and years.

>>55680043
>I haven't started yet but am opening an account soon.
why do you think you're qualified to talk on this topic, you don't even have account hahaha

>>55680018
the only risk is the economy completely imploding like 2008. which could definitely happen cause jews gonna jew but this is their newer, safer scheme for getting everyone to put all their money into stocks because number must go up no matter what. index funds especially the good ones are as safe as it gets with the stock market, everything else is 100% gambling. you're better off with shitcoins than individual stocks

>>55682401
You moonboi faggots are the worst. You are going to lose your ass on your gay ass reddit stock.

>>55680242
exactly this guy knows

>>55680214
> femoids ruined the market cause they dont give me poosi >>:(
lol. lmao

> goytkm

>>55680018
Index funds and ETFs are just a cheaper alternative to the classic mutual funds and you dont have to worry about your fund manager under performing. As for returns & compounding, theyre pretty weak but if you wait long enough you WILL make SOME money.
>>55680095
active portfolio management is where true chads get their alpha. with calculated risk, disciplined timing, and a little bit of leverage you can out perform the index with more upside and less downside. the best companies across each industry outperform the index most years, if you pick a diversified basket of single stocks at the right portfolio weight its easy. people fuck up when they're too leveraged & concentrated (tech & meme stonks)
>>55681309
imo its a weak doomer view because the US gov =/= US listed companies. The biggest and most essential private companies would far outlast a collapsing government. AAPL & JPM have more CASH than most countries do.

>>55682471
I've been beating the market simply by choosing a sector index instead of the whole market index. And that sector is tech. And it outperforms everything. My alpha? Tech goes up.

>>55682494
sounds like you're new to the market in 2023, if not then show your 2022 returns LOL

>>55680018
> goy underclass!!!

If you have a good job
And prioritise nothing but investing
And do so for 30 years
And do so in a tax advantaged account

You could expect to have 6 million dollars when you are 60. Honestly probably enough to retire comfortably on. But you have scrimped and saved your entire life to be "quite comfortable" for 15 years.

Also if you ever beat your autism, you'll find a nice girl and have kids. And that'll irreparably harm your investment strategy (if living like an autistic miser is a strategy)

>>55680242
this is my roth ytd from just holding leveraged index funds lol

>>55682537
Fuck off british subhuman

>>55682540
you're not supposed to hold leveraged ETFs long term because with the rebalance decay you get less than 3x upside with more than 3x downside.

>>55682536
I've only been in it since 2013
I got unlucky and a few months ago sold sole covered calls at $400 that got called and I lost about 5% buying back in at 400

>>55681309
>muh brics etc
what you fags fail to realise or see (because you take foreign propaganda at face value while believing nothing the west says as true) is the currency and economic manipulation in the brics/chuds/le saviour countries is at least as bad as it is here.

>>55682056
It would go up along with the downfall of a trusted government and fiat.
It's decentralized currency. So governments and countries could adopt it like we've seen some of the 3rd world countries doing causing it to go up.

>>55682573
Your random guesses backed by 100% confidence are why you lose all the time.

Give me a single piece of evidence I am from the UK

>>55682631
I read what you said twice but it seems founded on a few prepositions:
>Govt fiat will have a downfall in our lifetimes and won't be replaced with more fiat that we use
>Govt fiat failing will result in more purchasing power in real terms going to BTC
>BTC is truly decentralized
>More governments/countries will adopt it like El Salvador
Maybe? Maybe not? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions. I haven't even touched on the second order effects of those assumptions.

>>55682442
>Well you aren't a particle physicist so I guess that means the universe isn't 13.6 Billion years old.

Checkmate.

>>55682602
>VGT
crazy that people pay vanguard to put 45% of their money in AAPL MSFT and take their shareholder voting rights

>>55680018
>surely there has to be some risk or downside they're not telling us about
The risks are due to systemic flows that take a long time to revert: imagine the stock market like a container or water with one pipe leading in, and one pipe leading out. The water level is roughly the trading price.
When there's more water coming in, over a long period, than there's going out, the water level will rise; conversely, when more water is flowing out on average, it tends to drop.
The 401(k) mechanism was established in 1978, and caused the then working-age baby boomers to pile money into mostly the S&P500. This has created around 40 years of systemic buying pressure, since passive investors would just contribute each month to buy the S&P500 (technically ^SPY, which is not the same thing; GSPC is the ticker for the index, ^SPY is design to mirror its returns) in a price-insensitive manner. When people try to cash out en masse, you get the same effect in reverse.
The liquid portion of shares on the stock market is mostly owned by boomers, so by buying shares that are held in indexes, you're providing them with exit liquidity. This isn't bad as such, depending on what you think these shares are worth, though younger people are also unlikely to be more than a proverbial drop of water on a hot stone, because they don't have even $10T in cash, let alone $20T or $30T. Disregarding even that liquidity-issue when boomers try to "cash out": those vaunted "7% p.a. returns" that everyone like citing as the "historical average" were, in significant part, due to said systemic buying pressure of boomers buying shares every month for 40 years. It's thus unrealistic to expect the same "return" that people had when tens of millions were "paying in" instead of "cashing out" (they obviously didn't "pay into" anything and you can't "cash out" anything from the stock market: the problem is simply that boomers want, to simplify, $40T from people who have maybe $2T of disposable income).

>>55682808
So what do

>>55682601
yea thats why i sold most and put it back in normal etfs

>>55682776
I wouldn't have bet on Nvidia, they did for me.

>>55680018
Why not both? I have about 100k cash to play with actively trading and I'm going to dca my salary and trading profits into spy (about 5k/month). Plus I put a little into my 401k which I consider my normie hedge.

>>55682900
This doesn't necessarily mean cashing out at 5 cents on the dollar (we sure painted ourselves into a corner there, didn't we? Many such cases), since there could be countervailing systemic flows (like people fleeing into the USD), or they could print the money up, which is what is usually done in such situations. It'd socialize the losses somewhat, but it would not, fundamentally, matter, since isn't so much that young people don't have enough money - it's that there's not enough goods and services to go around (I include "labor" in the category of "services" here), thus the real purchasing power of, yes, even "our precious Bitcoin" will go down, modulo countervailing systemic flows in terms of purchasing power (i.e. it becoming more widely used). While this could well lead, in sum, to a increase in the purchasing power of each BTC when compared to today, the sum total of purchasing power in the overall economy would still decrease: we would, as a whole, become poorer, even though some would become richer in money-terms. However, even the in-money-terms rich would still become poorer, since they would have to live in a more dysfunctional society.
Applied practically, this means, roughly: "you can maybe get more than just X% ROI, or maybe not, but the loss will express itself somehow so that the 'total loss in society on every level' would be upper-bounded by X, and it'd likely be even less" - despite, categorically, all financial schemes, no matter how good they might be mechanically/ethically, etc. It'd frankly be best to - as that ubiquitous British propaganda poster that's been parodied to death says- keep calm and carry on (obviously not in the sense of ignoring the fact that the financial system keeps crashing apparently weekly nowadays).

>>55682900
It keeps crashing due to mechanical reasons, but - also due to mechanical reasons - each crash looks unexpected.

>>55680018
Also vanguard sector funds start bordering on the same as picking individual stocks. You should be buying spy, vti, voo, vt or some other broad sector fund. Not healthcare or tech or whatever

>>55682442
>why do you think you're qualified to talk on this topic
Because i don't need one to. OP asked a couple of questions and i answered them to the best of my knowledge while admitting my actual inexperience.
What makes you qualified to question my qualifications to answer simple questions that were asked?
Quit learnshaming me faggot. I'm allowed to learn things when i learn them. Why didn't you become a bitcoin billionaire in 2013/2018/2021?

>>55682631
>It's decentralized currency. So governments and countries could adopt it
What happens when it needs to scale to billions of transactions per day?

>>55683016
You don't need to send an L1 transaction for every individual payment.

>>55682471
>weak doomer view because the US gov =/= US listed companies. The biggest and most essential private companies would far outlast a collapsing government. AAPL & JPM have more CASH than most countries do.
>AAPL & JPM have more CASH than most countries do.
>more CASH than most countries do.
What cash? Gold?
Or is it US treasuries and USD?
Also with a country falling apart usually also the reach of their companies implodes or they change their identity and might not be "the same" for any shareholders.

I mean how is that Russia business going currently for most US companies?
Russia is not so important? Ok, how about China in the future?

>>55682951
So what do you think will happen to BTC in such an environment?

>>55680018
Index funds just trend up with inflation (actual inflation, not the rigged CPI that excludes housing and everything else people need to survive). It's a decent way to preserve purchasing power but that's all it is, you won't gain purchasing power holding an index long term.

>>55683237
Will be less effected by this since Boomers own very little of it.

Those assets that boomers own a lot of and millennials and zoomers don't care at all about will be hit hardest.

>>55683275
>decent way to preserve purchasing power
How about assets that can't be easily taxed away?

>>55682471
>The biggest and most essential private companies would far outlast a collapsing government.
They'd incorporate somewhere else if the government was/is collapsing.

>>55680018
>there has to be some risk or downside they're not telling us about

The downside is that when you support these gigacorps by buying their bags, you are making yourself poorer in the long run. They will collect a debt from you in the future... whether it's monetary in nature, or something else. And they retain full control of the companies whose shares they bundle into ETFs. You received zero voting power.

The risk is that the ETF issuers will achieve enough wealth to overthrow Western governments and drag their populations into the Soviet-style global slave plantation that they lust for.

>>55680018
I do
my index fund's ticker is LINK
its the index for defi oracle growth

>>55683237
In monetary terms, there are no stable solutions that I know of, i.e. it could be banned (as much as feasible, i.e. not very much), shoot up to some ridiculous number, stay depressed for years, etc.
This is so because concrete outcomes depend on decisions that are dependent on information we don't have access to, e.g. some bullshit behind-the-scenes scheme, someone's mood, the timing of events, etc.
While the intuitively most "high-quality" prediction I'd have is that BTC will go past $1M (while I do hold some BTC almost by virtue of being on a crypto-forum, I'd welcome it if we could ignore the usual argumentation over how "reasonably" any given price prediction is), and, depending on how much of a "kerfuffle" develops (due to what is actually a failure of 2nd-grade mathematics. I mean this is a fact: in second grade, a child could probably be made to understand the problem, if not the calculations themselves), we might see the usual "ridiculous, unbelievable, unprecedented, etc." numbers like "$20M".
In any case, such predictions mean almost nothing because they are systematically misinterpreted. E.g. even if someone ended up panic-buying BTC for $20M/BTC, that wouldn't mean that everyone had transacted at price - in fact, such a price would only exist because no one would transact - the higher any given trading price, the less meaningful it becomes. A bit like with "fine art".
BlackRock and friends have the goal of owning - to throw a number out there - 5M BTC, and then they'd be happy with that. A model that they run might even recommend a 84.9% (>>55674718) allocation to BTC, but that is (a) obviously impossible at current BTC spot price, even if no one but they were buying it, (b) obviously impossible to achieve at current BTC spot price, since they'd need well over 21M BTC to reallocate 84.9% of their market cap, and (c) obviously impossible, since there's only maybe 2-3M BTC available for trading.

>>55683237
Thus what is most likely given the assumed natural trajectory of events is that they'll, in effect if not consciously so, try to buy some idiotic number like "30M BTC", and there will be some needless "market collapse".

>>55680043
This is the only reason I believe in it. It's like working out or flossing your teeth. Everyone agrees it's a good idea, it's a question of who actually does.

>>55680018
Returns will probably be lower than expected. I am banking on about 5-6% instead of the 8-10 that gets hyped.

I think the best arguments show it's easy and good. Don't let anyone tell you it's God's one and only way to make money in markets.

>>55682471
you realize its been proven multiple times that when taking active management fees into consideration, index funds vastly out-perform active management over time, right?

>>55684709
They outperform some other funds by virtue of, if due to entirely mechanical reasons, not FOMOing or panic-selling - in the degenerate case, price charts do not reflect their performance, but simply show their buying activity.

>>55684709
Are you arguing there are no funds which best index funds long term? That's absolutely wrong.

The argument is just that the vast majority of them underperform. Now consider who they are including. Every dumb fuck advisor who works for etrade or whatever. Investing is basically super competitive with top 20% taking all the gains.

Once again, you are confusing "pretty good" with "impossible to beat".

BOIL chads are the best. They cannot be defeated.

>>55684729
The profits of those outperformers tend to converge towards relatively 0 over time, though. Every arbitrage-opportunity gets almost instantly arbitraged away now, if for no other reason than that even Uber drivers are day-trading.

>>55684729
Who's your investment broker let me in on that 1 in 5 kind of guy
I'm going to guess hes pretty exclusive.

>>55682631
>It would go up along with the downfall of a tru

schizophrenic

>>55682631
They all have more or less enough BTC to facilitate international trade with. The "absolute" price of BTC wouldn't be important if it simply served as an account balance, other than for the ability of retail sellers to inflate e.g. the USD by selling BTC for USD at random times into the market, thereby effectively disturbing balance sheets.

>>55681387
I think admiral shares like vtsax were the $10k
shit minimum buy-in on any mutual fund was like $3.5k
in either case, then, just like now, very few people have $3.5k to throw around into mutual funds in the first place and even fewer have the discipline to do it

>>55682639
americans spell prioritize with a z

>>55682808
Why are we acting like there arent WAY more people now who invest than there were 40 years ago? Not only are we close to the height of our population, but we cant rely on pensions anymore which makes even more people buy in to index funds their their 401ks. To use your analogy, there is more water coming in the container than there ever was before.

Also, keep in mind you dont have to invest 100% in an SP500 or Total Market index. There are other asset classes to spread the risk out (see: diversification) and keep you relatively safe from a dooms day scenario of massive stock index sell off, while still allowing you to capture most of the upside.

Here is a simple, sample portfolio to DCA into for the slower folks; it will not only mitigate risk, but also almost certainly beat expensive active management over time:

30% VTI (Total US Stock Market Index ETF)
25% VXUS (Total Intl Stock Market Index ETF)
10% FTEC (Tech Sector Index ETF to add some alpha)
35% BND (Aggregate Bond Market Index ETF)

Its boring. Its simple. Its also extremely inexpensive and like I said, will outperform active management 99% of the time over a 10+ year time horizon.

>>55684809
But there's no money "in" index funds. What boomers have is, let's say, 100T shares (that happen to have been issued by companies that are in index funds). Let's say that, somehow, boomers want $40T of cash for these from millennials, who have, say, $2T of cash to spend. They can therefore only get $2T from millennials for those 100T shares at most - and it wouldn't matter whether it were 50T or 200T either. They want more cash than is available, thus, at the end of the day, if we cut out the intermediary steps: it has to be printed up.

>>55684729
Nope, I'm not. Please show me one actively managed mutual fund that has a better track record than the SP500 over the course of 15-20 years. Of course active management can outperform the market 1, 2 or even overn5 years. But its mostly luck to get that consistency (and luck that you, the investor, picked that fund to dump all your money in to) and after that point, many top 5% performing funds end up being the worst performers in the long run.

>>55684809
none of this reasoning matters to the average failure on /biz/

they are so deep in the hole that the only way to remotely vindicate themselves is to see all asset values across the board crater,
and by crater I mean to say in a reversion to the mean so pronounced that the only two points on that line are the comet that killed the dinosaurs and atilla's invasion

>>55684842
how did you learn so much about all this anon? thanks for your BTC analysis btw.

>>55684858
That depends entirely on how unorthodox an explanation you are willing to consider.

>>55682808
Would dividend etfs negate this? Dividends encourage the investor to hold rather than liquidate.

>>55682301
You ever considered getting exposed to emerging markets? They make ETFs for that you mongoloid

>>55684842
But the fund provider owns the underlying stock of the index fund. So in theory, if boomers are selling, price of the stock is dropping, the indexes would be dropping, non-boomers will find index fund prices attractive and buy more shares of the index, and therefore the fund providers will be scooping up those boomer shares providing them liquidity.

>>55680018

Its a momentum trade. Use it to hedge part of your overall portfolio.

>>55684789
I remember Fidelity's version (wasn't called FSKAX back then) was $5,000 and if you sold within 60 days they charged a 2% fee

>>55684874
Dividends are actually the only "real" use of shares. Share buybacks are like an unreliable exchange: they may give you cash, maybe not. The only "orthodox" reason (in the Adam Smith sense, I suppose) for owning shares in a company is for the cashflows (which are 0 if there are no dividends). The "orthodox explanation" means "according to 'full' economic rationality", i.e. the belief that "one's only criterion should be that of monetary profit". It is not correct in practice because people also own shares because they "like its values" or "believe in it", or maybe because they think it's "the next big thing". These are sentimental reasons, essentially, though there's nothing wrong with that - it's the superimposition of this alleged "economic rationale" that leads people to make up what are, when it comes down to it, make-believe, fairy-tale models. E.g. Tesla's market cap has to be justified via some "projected forward earnings"-nonsense, whereas the straightforward explanation is simply that people like feeling like they own a piece of Tesla (in that sense, shares are very much like NFTs). There's no economic rationale to own the shares, not really: they do nothing.
And despite there being some liquidity available around certain price levels, there aren't people queueing up to give Tesla $600B for free in exchange for shares. The secondary market is also largely irrelevant for Tesla, since the prices at which shares are traded essentially P2P (though brokers obscure this fact) doesn't influence the company's finances or operations.

>>55684874
No anon. Dividend ETFs are going to be largely a smaller basket of stocks that are already in the S&P. A dividend ETF more or less just adjusts the weights of the companies and you’re not going to get violent changes in prices

>>55684908
Ok, but let me ask you this way: let's say, the boomers, to really simplify it, need $40T in cash for their retirement expenses. Millennials have $2T of cash in total. Let's say the millennials do find the prices attractive and spend the entirety of their $2T budget on stocks, which they buy from the boomers. Who's giving the boomers the other $38T?

>>55684940
I promise you the CFO of Tesla cares what the stock price of Tesla is. If for nothing else, his own gains. It will influence WACC and future growth of Tesla.

>>55684862
lay it on me

>>55684948
Wouldn’t happen. Let’s assume a pure fire sale: there are trading halts put in place to prevent stocks from bottoming out. There also comes a point where they won’t sell as they’d take a massive hit. In the case of the boomers, their bond portfolios would soar and offset that risk. Boomers have far more in bonds now than etfs if their money manager was doing their job

>>55684709
>>55684844
I was assuming that you are the chad active manager instead of getting scammed by an actively managed mutual fund. idk if you've ever looked inside a mutual fund but its a bunch of stocks, etfs, treasuries, and cash. you can buy all of these things yourself with a self directed brokerage account. and you can do it for CENTS per year since trading stock is essentially free on most platforms.
theres tons of free portfolio back testers. its brain dead simple to buy stocks and hold *forever* like index funds tell you to do

>>55684964
Yes, but what benefit does he really derive from the share price being up?
>>55684966
While I write in English, the words I write have, in a sense, a non-human structure, to express it somewhat metaphorically. This would obviously mean nothing to you, and that's fine. I'm not so much asking to do believe me or disbelieve me, but to consider the possibility that you might not have understood their full meaning yet.
What I say is fairly simple: a child could understand the idea of exchanging a quantity of objects of one type for a quantity of objects of another. The simplicity is a feature (that I can't always maintain and which is also a function of the "complexity" of the content I'm trying to convey): the underlying problem actually IS extremely simple. What causes practical issues is that it's too simple: the whole financial system around the very simple fact that there is only finitely many of anything (shares, cash, BTC, etc.) is, indeed complex, but while it, for some undefined reason, "induces" or "suggests", shall we say, a belief in infinite *infinite liquidity* (i.e. that there's just tens of millions of BTC, or that one can cash out CDSs for 20 times the market cap of the real estate market).
It's why people are upset about Robinhood halting trading, etc.: in the case of Robinhood specifically, they don't quite understand that it's a small-time broker that only had a pretty limited amount of cash.
As a result of working out the system with the correct assumption (finite vs. infinite liquidity/supply/demand everywhere), one can write out what seem to be "amazing conclusions" in a fairly straightforward manner - like reading from a book (and then writing it down. You get the idea).

>>55684972
Why would their bond portfolios soar?

>>55684844
Google “renaissance medallion fund”

>>55685082
Well money managers don’t want to lose money and they don’t want to let cash just sit there because you earn basically nothing. So they’d go buy Treasuries or what have you while the market tanks. Bonds are less risky so in a high risk environment they do well

>>55685073
You can sell bonds for cheap if your stock price soars, which is really the preferred method of financing for any business.

>>55685111
>So they’d go buy Treasuries or what have you while the market tanks.
Who gives them the $38T to buy bonds with?

>>55685122
I'll ask the fairly obvious question, and I'm not being facetious: why would the share price affect the interest rate Tesla has to pay on its bonds?

>>55685073
thanks for taking the time to explain anon, I'm going to reread what you said a few times

>>55685123
Anon are you aware the bond market is bigger than the equities market?

>>55685142
Yes. But they'd logically have to buy bonds with cash (or cash-equivalents).

>>55685134
You welcome. I hope it was helpful (and hopefully also true, obviously).

>>55685133
It’s all about risk and return. Equities are riskier due to their volatility and lesser claim on assets if Tesla goes bankrupt.
>inb4 Reddit spacing: deal with it

Suppose Tesla didn’t have the cash on hand to build a new giga factory. They can either sell stock or sell bonds. Sure they could get a loan or whatever but that’s essentially what a bond is: debt. If investors are seeing their Tesla stock increase 30% year over year, they will probably be satisfied. However when you sell stock, you dilute returns to investors. So long run, it gets hard to consistently sell treasury stock and keep up the exponential returns. If you could do that, you wouldn’t need to sell the stock in the first place. So since we don’t want to mess with stocks we go to bonds. Share price going up consistently is indicative of a good well managed company, investors feel like their money is safe with them, so they don’t require as much of a coupon payment. Let’s say Tesla sold 10 year bonds and were graded AA. The US 10yr yield is about 4%, little more risk than Uncle Sam so more return required; Tesla can sell a bond at say 7% yield at AA. They have to grow far less quickly to break even on this.

Tesla isn’t the best example of this because their beta is fucking ridiculous and they have a cult following. Boomer tier companies (or at least not social Media influences meme stocks like Tesla) illustrate this better

>>55685167
Cash. And there are other players in the market. Pensions funds, insurance companies, etc.

>>55684800
(((Australia)))

>>55685197
The initial assumption was that the money would be flowing out of pension funds, though, and the question was where it'd come from.
As long as there wasn't also an acute bond-shortage, if yields went e.g. from 5% to 0%, that'd only cause an on-the-run 1Y treasury to increase in price by 5.26%, because it's a contract for $105.

>>55684948
This is a silly scenario. Just as more boomers are retiring, more boomers are also dying leaving inheritance to millennials. As prices drop from boomers selling, institutional money (i.e. funds, endowments, etc) will be scooping it up on sale, thus stabilizing the prices back to equilibrium.

>>55685386
That's also correct, but the two descriptions are not contradictory. You described a different complex of factors. Though it's also true that, on average, we expect people to first retire and then die some number of years later, so we should expect attempts to cash out for retirement to be the dominant factor in the equation. Eventually, people also die, but that could be 10, 20 years later.

>>55685431
you write, like, a, faggot (like a faggot). We should expect such faggotry from a faggot (i.e butt buddy, etc)

>>55684809
> Total international.

No thanks. I don't want my money in India or whatever other places the international monetary fund Jews want to set up shop.

The only international worth it is Europe and Japan.

> BND

I do not understand why bond funds make any sense vs bond. Bond funds have principal risk.

>>55684750
Yep. One of them is called BRK.a thank me later.

>>55685098
So a hedge fund that’s been closed since 1993 that retail investors can’t buy in to. So essentially a moot point.

Let me rephrase: show me an actively managed fund a normal retail investor could buy in to that has outperformed the market over 15-20 years

>>55680214
Stop browsing pol bro

>>55685499
>thank me later.
Great, once I get the $531,650 necessary to join I will send you a personalized thank you

>>55684844
FSELX

>>55680018
I'm investing in some, but I prefer to diversify and also invest in crypto projects like RIO, NXRA, and some others with promising potential

>>55680018
the vast majority of market participants are fucking retards. people who day trade, people who short, people who buy individual stocks. you are not smarter than the market, its made up of millions of people who are smarter, faster, richer and more corrupt than you. when you buy, someone sold you that asset, when you sell, someones buying it. in every trade there is a winner and a loser, do you really think you are always smarter (and the winner) in every transaction?

you cannot market time. look at all the bears that have been heemed in the last 2 years. you dont know enough about sectors, countries, companies, currencies, alternative assets, to invest in them. there is always someone smarter than you

active managers trade and build the index, it is simply the most effective long term way to buy all their hard work and research for 0.03 basis points and get the markets average return

>97% of Active managers fail to beat the index

>>55680834
>>At some point people have to sell, but we've yet to see the passive side sell for more than a month in any given year, so it rarely causes problems.
indeed it's the only drawback of passive investing

>>55682301
Are you sure this isn't "bought" instead of "hold" that's the words i'm seeing used. Which is a key difference.
E.G 60% of americans have bought a stock like 30% of americans have bought crypto. But that does not mean 60%/30% do not hold stock/crypto.

>>55686659
If you pick 11 stocks you also get roughly the market average return but without paying and fee or giving your voting rights to BlackCock

>>55686701
market leaders change all the time though. if you own AT&T and Ford, you are now heemed. picking the next Apple and Tesla is the part that's nigh impossible, let wall street find it

>>55686709
That's if you pick 11 stocks near-randomly. 11 is the number you need to diversify away unsystemic risk.
Active managers performing poorly is kind of a meme for a few reasons:
>hedge funds, by definition, exist to reduce volatility, not to outperform the market, so including them is unreasonable
>fund managers can beat the market, but capture all the alpha for themselves/their employers through fees, while pricing information in that actuallt benefits passive investors; active funds are essentially a scam. The stats that say 90% of active managers underperform their benchmarks are comparing the return to the investor being fleeced rather than the manager.
>active managers have to be active, i.e. constantly buying and selling, to justify their fee; ironically this means they perform less well than if they just bought and held

>>55680018
There's risk in every form of investment Chad. I have a few there but also invest in emerging tech like Holoride which is changing the narrative of in-car entertainment.

>>55686819
>form of investment Chad. I have a few there but also invest in emerging tech like Holoride which is changing the narrative of in-car entertainment
>changing the narrative
Lol anon, are you getting scammed by a SPAC?

>>55686614
These are also on my list because they are the good ones that are working on RWA narrative

The downside to index fund DCAing is that you have to wait until youre 60+ years old to make it

>>55680018
Imagine investing in anything other than bullets in current year
lmao

>>55680018
Index investing is the easiest way to get money from the stock market (in the long run). Most people don't do it because:
>they want to get rich and get rich quickly
>can't afford to invest, either because they're in debt, poor and/or retarded with their spending
>think they're Buffet and start picking stocks they don't know the fundamentals of
>get spooked out of investing too early in a market downturn
>they don't know about indexes
Anon, if you want to build a nest egg in the future, buying Index etfs early and often is the way to go.

>>55686887
Depends on how much you start with from what i understand. You can include index in an early retirement plan. If you don't have any plan at all you might aswell go to the casino or roll lotteries.

>>55680018
Have it in your 401k/IRAs but don't be a cuck and put most of your net worth in boring index funds. You only have one life, remember that

>>55682959
well I'm more qualified because... I HAVE A FUCKING ACCOUNT.

>>55687547
Yet you contributed nothing to the thread.

>>55687568
there are over a hundred posts in the thread.
is there some missing context you want me to clear up?

>>55685581
He's right but like most doomers he thinks it's habbening right now and will fuck himself. Numba go up until demographic collapse and even then the ship can continue to sail for a while. Gen y will see 401k equity taxes to make whites subsidize spics with no retirement plan. Zoomies will live in a FAGMAN pod until they die. They don't get to "retire".

>>55687578
>is there some missing context you want me to clear up?
Why you care.

>>55680018
You ain't missing no shit Faggot. DYOR is best and you'll get some pussy experience from projects with solid fundamentals and good use cases like XRP which is about to take the market by storm or Holoride which is changing the narrative of in-car entertainment.

This strikes fear into the native.

>>55687151
If there's an industry that you believe you understand (e.g. one you work in), and you're willing to learn basic accounting (which takes a few hours at most) you can pick stocks in that industry and use sector ETFs to diversify. Which ones depend on your industry e.g. as a tech worker, I pick semiconductor stocks; since semis are cyclical I also invest in healthcare and energy stocks, which are less cyclical.

>>55680018
don't ask for actual advice here, these guys are all retards

Investment is inherently risky. It's just that this is the last risky and most dependable way of investing baaed in historical trends

>>55680043
>Less than half of people invest
This can't be true, how can you have any hope of not waging till you die if you don't invest a portion of your income as a wagie

>>55682601
>rebalance decay
Explain this concept to me, I've been DCA'ing into TQQQ every month since Sept 2022

>>55688284
https://youtu.be/WoYVmlOxwbA
https://youtu.be/Ll3TCEz4g1k

>>55685499

>No thanks. I dont want my money in India...

Okay, then buy VEA ?? just find a developed intl market index ETF to replace VXUS if you dont like emerging markets exposure. There have been decades where international markets have outperformed US markets (see 1999-2009ish), so its worth having exposure.

>I do not understand why bond funds make any sense vs bond. Bond funds have principal risk

I'd be happy to help shed some light, kiddo! An individual bond has concentration risk (i.e. if the company defaults, no return of principal 4 u). Bond funds are generally well diversified across multiple ratings and maturities...and in turn, yields. This allows the average retail investor to have that kind of bond diversification/exposure without needing $1MM+ to achieve the same exposure with individual bonds. Individual bonds trade by the $1000 increments, and to get a better price, you usually want to buy them in $5k lots.

>>55685499
>>55688829
That being said, if you have the money to buy a well put together portfolio of individual bonds, I 100% agree with you. Individual bonds are generally the better way to go.

>>55680018
I look for companies 30% below Intrinsic value out side of the main indexes.

Companies in the index get bought up regardless of their value by index funds.

Mutual funds get stuck with large companies because when you manage billions of dollars buying small and mid companies is too much work. Also there's laws that prevent them buying too much of a single company so they can't really buy cheap mid caps at a scale to move the needle.

Once a company is back to intrinsic value I sell it again and look for something below value. Unless there a case for holding it longer.

>>55688859
> Individual bonds are generally the better way to go.
Not true just buy an index fund let the economists and computers do all the work for you. You don’t need to go through the hassle of compulsively checking your stocks to see if it’s doing well or not.

An index fund also benefits from individual stocks raising. Ones like VTI

>>55685479
Haha, yeah, fair enough. But I have to write down the information somehow and it's not of the completely normal sort, so it's going to sound pretty weird in the best of cases. Save for making a bunch of weird tangents and "talking like a faggot", I'd say it's at least ok in terms of readability.

>>55680018
My boomer strategy, copy at your own risk:
40% VYM
40% BRKB
20% BTC

I have my own house so if everything goes to shit Id just have to cut down some expenses

>>55688978
we are talking about bonds and the return of principal (barring default) with individual bonds vs funds, you ass hat.

>>55688256
Most wagies don't earn enough to invest, or are stupid and just spend it all on shit. Then aome that do invest invest poorly

>>55689004
In that case just buy bond funds

>>55680492
I love Vanguard, /pol/ thinks they are some evil jewish conspiracy like BlackRock is.

>>55686741
It's only worth it to pick 11 stocks if you have 7 figures.

>>55689183
How many would you pick with 5 or 6 figs?

>>55681000
Dividend investing is based on flawed logic. You need to account for capital gains and losses too. A total return approach is superior. Dividends do not account for stock returns in any meaningful way that is not explained by other factors.

>>55689123
Imagine wearing a Vanguard shirt around lol

>>55689579
I would if they made them, they are my financial partners after all and are making me monies.

>>55688284
you pay a fee for them to manage the portfolio. Since it's leveraged that fee compounds. I think I read somewhere it comes out to like 7% a year basically. So holding for years a time isn't a great idea

>>55688256
You almost never see hope. Everyone is either miserable - even the guy who only has a job because his parents make him - or they're happy because they're fucking stupid, but not often do you see someone with hope. I am a wagie with just a little hope left only because I used to have a shitton

>>55689123
Vanguard is just old NY money. Their entire philosophy is to be the Walmart of investment managers since most of them can’t beat the market anyways, they just buy and hold diversified baskets of stock and charge only a few bps because they really don’t do that much

>>55680018
>does /biz/ into index funds? how long have you been doing it and how has it gone so far?
only about a year, had some things to pay off but its slowly growing, only VT in roth ira/hsa and VTI/VXUS in taxable

if real yields go over 2% I might buy the TIPS market index

>>55682942
>However, even the in-money-terms rich would still become poorer, since they would have to live in a more dysfunctional society.
We are about here. It only gets worse in mad max world.

>>55680018
>surely there has to be some risk or downside they're not telling us about, i mean if everyone did this then they wouldn't have a goy underclass to work for them.
Most everyone lives pay check to pay check with bad spending habits or shit like a mortage or new car getting them stuck in a debt trap

>>55690043
really you should only be buying VTI until you can sell them and afford to buy SPY

>>55680492
Open an account on AstraDao too. It offers dope rewards and allows you to create your own winning indices.

>>55683275
Index funds may keep pace with inflation, but to truly gain purchasing power long term, you need something more. That's where AstraDao index platform shines.

>>55680018
>>55682301

>>55680242
this guy fucks

>>55689853
yes, goy! we are your (((financial partners))) !

>>55689895
I dont think its the fee as much as it is the contango. If the fund returns 60% a year, I will gladly pay a 7% fee. Google "leveraged ETF contango".

>>55688964
>I look for companies 30% below Intrinsic value out side of the main indexes.
So you read balance sheets and income statements? Any tricks you are willing to share? I've dived into the books at finviz and most of the companies I've found at a discount have a negative p/e ratio, so I've stayed away. I've learned that there is no bottom for unprofitable companies.

>>55691140
Plus it's difficult to know what is going on in an industry that you aren't familiar with. There could be a huge lawsuit coming that you have no idea about that explains why insiders have been selling, for instance.

>>55689003
>VYM
why? if you want dividends there are better funds

>>55691158
Anon you are looking for 10-K reports. If you’re not willing to google general trends for an industry then I’m not sure if 10-K reports will do you any good

>>55690989
>dumb nazi larper

Biz is always the top.

It is always exit liquidity.

If biz is talking about entering stocks or mutual funds, then basically, the top for those things are coming extremely soon. Overall, the unsustainable spic immigration scheme of 90 IQ people isn't enough to maintain 50s, 60s and 70s white infrastructure, not for long. That bubble will pop and boomers will croak and their debts, swirled up in the wind only to leave non-payments across the board. If that is, we have a peaceful transition of power in 2024 (we won't).

This is the problem with investors and economists and arm-chair debaters here, your heads are all, so far up your asses, you don't realize the stock market is a lagging indicator for the real economy. Everyone is fucking struggling, I hear horror stories of what's happening back home, all the time.

The point is, experienced biz investors, leave, after they've made money or only come here to glance, at best. I'm no expert, but I'm not long america, at all. Any fucking idiot advising anyone to put any money for the next two years into any stocks, for any reasons is a SIDF (stock internet defense force) or a boomer of some sort. With a yield curve that makes a skateboard ramp look comical, we're about to go off a cliff, a 30% drop is the best case scenario, 50% is reasonable, could be 70%. The final fucking boomer stroke that strikes America comes within the next 18 months, max.

I know I'll get some screeching but the reasoning is simple, you don't fucking have near zero interest rates for fifteen years, unless you're in a depression of some sort (we were). You don't fucking invest when Americans, retail/consumer have more credit card debt than ever, student loans are about to be re-activated in September, the country itself has massive debt, entitlements (I assume) are going up and the long liquidity has been built up for over a decade.

All of this clown economy, all of these fucking shenanigans are about to be fucking yanked, when something, soon, eventually fucking snaps.

FIFTEEN, FIFTEEN FUCKING YEARS OF NEAR ZERO INTEREST RATES and we're up to FIVE fucking percent or whatever it is?

Who THE FUCK doesn't think a global, horrendous recession is about to hit? And you want to sit and buy stocks, you niggers DESERVE each other, buy more stocks, go ahead, be exit liquidity.

>>55691922
I can only get so erect

>>55691959
So should I buy shares in China or...?

>>55682959
Well BTC would still make a lot of chads millionaires in the next cycle. I'd keep accumulating while storing in self custodial wallets for security.

>>55685479
>faggot
https://youtu.be/B_obeR1OIm8
We are there folks!
OH MY PROGRESS!!!

>>55691140
Use a stock screener to find them and stick to your circle of competence. I also like a service like simply wall st it gives you alot of useful info about finances other information about the management team, insiders buying or selling etc.

Generally speaking if you buy companies with low or no debt that increase revenue and free cash flow year or on year you can't go wrong.

I'd also learn how to do a DCF model.
Also I reccomend Peter Lynchs books it has good principals for thought processes.

Also there's a few YouTube channels for value investing that teach alot of the same concepts.

>>55691922
we saw a 30% drop in 2022 so... ???

>>55690220
Based plan bizfag, although I for one would diversify into both stocks and crypto. With hands on MultiversX gems like Zcash, Ride and Egld which have shown potential alongside Spy and Tesla for future gains.

>>55680018
I like the boat vroom vroom beep beep honkkkkk

>>55685431
I think you’re over calculating how much equity boomers actually have and giving them way too much credit. Most of their net worth comes from owning and having a paid off house. Also 1% of all boomers own almost half of what’s reported of net worth. Your average boomer owns real estate as investments for passive income. Otherwise, it’s fixed instruments. Keep in mind most buy fucking CDs and keep the rest in saving accounts.

>>55695196
Also 10% of boomers own 75% of their generations wealth. Those 1% guys i mentioned earlier, that’s the Warren Buffett, Nancy Pelosi types. They aren’t going to sell off their holdings even if they die. The guys in the 2-10% might sell some stock but it’s likely one position from a company they founded or sat on the BOD for. Nothing that will make mutual funds have liquidity issues.

>>55680018
>if everyone did this
I'd say even less than 0.1% of humanity can even muster the foresight to put money in ETFs, an overwhelming amount of people are cattle only here to feed the markets.

>>55691922
>>55691959
/pol/tard doomer that I'm shocked did put "buy gold" at the end of that load of shit.

>>55680018
>what am i missing here?
Nothing. A whole thread of shit for what is basically:
>low risk, low return

>>55680018
Half of my networth is in SXR8, European VOO/SPY SP500 ETF, I'm up 12% this year (started dca'ing this year) and I don't have to think much about rebalancing, allocation, etc.
Headache free investing and over time does better than almoat anyone
..
What's not to like?

>>55691922
>>55691959
It's fair analysis: the dollar is a dirty shirt. However, it's also the least dirty shirt in the whole laundry basket. Any problem that the US economy and the financial markets have are real enough, but take a look at other places like China, Russia, North Africa, Europe, South American (where Argentina is on the way to hyperinflating again), etc.

>>55691959
It will be oil that breaks our back
>t. legacy oil rights owner
I get printouts of oil production for the next 50 years it's private info I can't share it without getting in trouble but I can tell you it will be oil that breaks our back as a country.

And it will be soon.
>t. force by the government to reinvest our money for the last 15 years
and just so happens our debts about paid.

>>55696188
When oil readjusts for inflation you will see a massive spike that made 2022 look weak.
2022 oil spike also correlated with crypto tanking hard, although I can't prove that as I was working at the time but it seemed to be that way.

The government tapped into our reserves multiple times forcing the buy back lower to keep prices down, presidents do this a fucking ton I know it's been their chewtoy and ruined my families life because we were depending on that and haven't seen a dime from it now since Obama took office and began fucking it over.

But it's a long con plan most these green energy cats bought into oil as it hit low because they know there's no stopping oil it will run until oils depleted.
Which comes by 2064

>>55696227
>>55696188
Also oil spikes during times of war which this whole europeon war is orchestrated, the whole point of attacking Syria was to go after Russia
>What bullshit gas wasn't high
go see gas prices post 9/11 it was getting dangerously close to these levels.

>>55680834
>Passive investing makes up 14% of the global market
>By being passive, it opens up opportunities for active managers to find unrealised value
>Majority of active managers still get BTFOd by passive funds.
Passive funds are nowhere near significant enough to affect the global market in a meaningful way, yet.

>>55691922
>>55691959
this is your brain on /pol/ lmao

>>55680018
the only reason to buy any stock or etf is dividend income. if you seriously think you can outsmart AI and all the other trading bots out there then you are a fool. you buy this shit and hold it and collect the payouts quarterly and that's it. there is no other reason to invest in it. if you want immediate gains then you just play the shitcoin market and try to time the pump and dumps.

>>55680018
Vanguard is an excellent choice - very low fees.

>>55696782
Also the CEO is Catholic

why would I invest money in this POZi scheme when I can buy assets that have tangible value?

how about instead of buying a piece of the fake paper economy you buy property or cars or guns or jewelry?

>>55682601
No the real problem is volatility drag: in 3x etf, -5% and your down -15%. +5% from there and your at 0.85*1.15 = 0.98, down 2%, despite % netting to 0.

>>55680018
boomer here, I'll chip in
>how long have you been doing it and how has it gone so far?
around 10 years now, very much a "set it and forget it" strategy. made solid gains over time.
>surely there has to be some risk or downside they're not telling us about
a few things: slower gains than the shitcoin casino, panic selling will fuck you up, and the risk of a large scale financial crisis fucking everything up.
key is patience and to unironically buy into the premise of whatever index fund you're investing in, that'll keep you grounded during crashes

>>55680018
>>55697133

Oldfag here (36). Been doing it for 5 years. I have about 20% of my money in vanguard, the rest in 401ks and individual stocks.

>surely there has to be some risk or downside they're not telling us about
Only downside is you won't moon like you could if you do individual stocks or shitcoins. I have mooned on individual stocks a few times but it pales in comparison to making 10-20% every year for 20-30 years investing.

TLDR: big dum dum made big money with VTSAX and chilll.

>>55696839
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO VANGUARD IS JEWISH LIKE BLACKROCK AND WANT TO GENOCIDE THE WHITE RACE!

>>55695437
>muh /pol/
Kill yourself shitskin

>>55688256
>This can't be true
More than 80% of the global population probably don't have any investments. That 1% that lefties hammer on about are probably top earners.

>>55697337

>>55680214
>Stock market is going down. I'm not sure when, but
heh heh thanks nostradamus

>>55698430
>>55698430
https://youtu.be/Mi22suEHQfs

>>55691959
wow zoomers really want the world to end so everyone can be as broke and hopeless as them lol
tough shit zoom zoom pay your student loans like a good little wage slave

>>55699588
notredame=nostradamus=our lady

reference to Mary, mother of Jesus

>>55699612
Holy shit my mind just broke.

>>55680018
>surely there has to be some risk
The whole point is that they have built-in diversity, so you have diversified yourself by buying in.

>downside they're not telling us about
If the economy crashes, your investment can go down for 10 years before recovering.

>>55680018
It barely keeps up with inflation to literally give Jews your money to fuck you with. Plus the risk of price crashing and the minimal return you were looking at in the beginning. The juice aint worth the squeeze when there are far better plays to be made.

>>55691140


Things I personally look for in an individual stock purchase

>Has to have a "MOAT" or have little competition

>Has to have manageable debt

>consistent increase in revenue over a ten year period

>Market cap has to be at a 5-10 year low

>Have to be able to at least double my money within a couple of years

>The comany/sector has to be in alignment with the Developing macro trends

>>55700289
Curious how would one buy BBBY?

What's stopping me from just yoloing into only Telcom stock that payout dividends?

>>55686709
>heemed
what?

>>55701236
T and VZ? Have you zoomed out son? They have high debt and low growth. Basically a dead sector that only old people buy. If you want income, there are better options. BDCs/REITs (not the office/mortgage kind) or income-focused ETFs like JEPI/JEPQ. They easily yield 10% a year and even higher in a bear market. Just avoid any of the *YLD.

>>55680018
Index funds exist for people who do not want to work for more. Simple as, any retard can take 20 minutes to add and subtract and realize apple is going to constantly beat the sp500. Most people wont, many will be scared etc.

In short index funds are for pussies and retards and the reason active funds suck is because managers need to return to buyers monthly at least. Vs an individual who can wait basically forever if you really want to value play.

>>55701629
it becomes a full time job to become the companies accountant and auditor. it doesnt just take 20 minutes and you are set for life. if you applied this same logic 20 years ago and just bought one of the biggest stocks by market cap you would have bough GE or CSCO and you still wouldnt have even made your money back.

>>55701587
thanks for the insight!
Any insight of Index funds, everyone says they yield 8%-10% but all I see if 2%-5% yeilds.

>>55682601
there's nothing wrong with holding leveraged ETFs long term if you buy/sell extra units to keep the allocation at the same percentage of your total portfolio over time

every midwit finfluencer who talks about this does not understand the actual math

>>55683016
do you need billions of transactions a day for gold or real estate to be worth trillions?

Where can we reach this thread in 2years ?
Do I need to copy/paste everything myself ?
I'd like to keep it as a reminder.

>>55701988
bookmark the archive after the thread dies

The issue with the generic advice of "just DCA into the SP500 bro" is that it is not a one-size-fits-all approach to investing. Everyone has different risk tolerances, investment horizons, and objectives. The indices might be good for long-term but too many people will ignore the "long-term" part and panic when things go bonkers (like I suspect they will near the end of the election season).

>>55697514
seething /pol/tard reveals himself

>>55701988

Just keep this thread open in a separate tab for the rest of time

>>55680095
Hell even the quants and computer trade programs can't consistently beat the S&P 500.
Anyone can beat the index for a couple years. Many do. But, all the data says 90-95% of investors lose to their benchmark index over 15-20 years.

That includes Ivy educated Wall Street insiders who get paid millions to try. They can't fucking do it over a long time horizon. THEY lose. Johnny Chud in his basement will definitely lose.

This is just fucking math. Remember this anytime anyone shills you some retarded half-baked strategy "guaranteed to smash SPY"

>>55680018
These big asset management firms are massively exposed to toxic debts and fantasy valuations of companies that have never made a profit based on the idea that if they someday figure out how to profit from what they do they will be worth a lot of money.

They won't.

Blackrock has lost at least a trillion dollars in value managed over the last year, nobody even mentions it.

The way most people invest is via workplace 401ks. These plans work via giving you a tax break upfront in exchange for you not touching that money till your 59 1/2 (60). But you don't have to touch it then. You can let it grow till your 75 (thanks congress) then your forced to take out some of it. How much is dependent on total value of the account and other factors. Point is this; No one's getting the shaft via these plans cause no one is just going "oh I'm pulling all 5 million out now" when they're hitting 60. The tax hit on that would be insane. Same applies when they hit 75. Again you only pay tax on how much you take out a year. The rest stays tax free.

>>55703077
why does it have to be 60 though. Some people don't make it til then ff.

>>55703093
Cause that's the plan rules. You have to leave it in till you hit that age. Now you could take it out sooner but your hit with a 10% fee. Do you want to let 10% just vanish? That's up to you.

>>55702819
This is why you don’t hold a position for the long run, use short term individual stock picks to beat the SPY just to increase your SPY holdings. I use shitcoins for this as well, just did a 30x on $500 in PEPEF and cycled it back in to index funds

>>55703077
So example lets say dude works till he's 65. His 401k is 5 million. The RMD (amount he's forced to take out year) is $40,000 (Dunno for sure I'm just making this up,lol). His total tax hit is just for that 40,000. The rest of his money stays tax free till the next year when he takes out another 40,000 and pays tax on that. Cycle keeps on till all the money is gone.

>>55701988
Remeber this thread when the stock market was two times higher than it will be.

>>55680095
Based heembiz fren. Did you enjoy the card last night?

>>55701988
ctrl-shift-s

>>55703169
This can work to some extent, but all those people who lose to the indexes are not staying in their positions long-term. They are moving in and out in response to market/business developments. And they are still losing. Every kind of strategy is being used to do this.

I am not going to lie and say I have not been tempted to roll the dice on 3xETFs or even QQQ. When I have rolled the dice in the past, I have won big a few times, but I am still bagholding a couple of my losers hoping they pump. The loss was significant enough that it would take probably 10 years with standard SPY returns to recoup the loss if I just dropped the bag and bought SPY.

>>55703323
If the markets go down no strategy will help either way

>buy my bags
>seriously buy them
>our employees are screeching for more bonuses
the most retarded thing to do is buying index funds, etfs and other fee scams

>>55704458
lol

>>55704464
If a gambler is too lazy to do his own research and pick stocks, commodities and exotic products he isn't cut out for this game. The last thing I am going to do is give some shit fee scammers like Vanguard and co a dime

>>55701863
>Any insight of Index funds, everyone says they yield 8%-10% but all I see if 2%-5% yeilds.

There are 8% - 10% yield bearing index funds but they are certainly not traditional stocks.

>>55705507
>index funds but they are certainly not traditional stocks.

Not traditional stocks? Which other options are out there? ETFs or Bonds?

>>55706388
How often do you change your VPN to bump this stupid thread?

>>55692887
>I'd keep accumulating while storing in self custodial wallets for security.

Is this even an option? Based on lessons learnt from FTX and the likes this is certainly a no-brainer
>>55696839
>Also the CEO is Catholic
What does this even have to do with the discussions on Biz??

>>55707106
A new VPN? How often will you bump this thread?

>>55703189
we call this deferred income and in the uk after pension age it attracts no ni so saves 12%. boomers win again.

>>55682903
>yea thats why i sold most and put it back in normal etfs

Do normal etfs offer better?

>>55706388
>Which other options are out there?
There are crypto based index funds like Nasdaq, Etoro and Galaxy asides this ones i recently read about Staking rewards ETH index fund in partnership with SpoolFi.

>>55707139
>>55706392
You're both bumping it desu
Now I just did.

>>55680031
You're right, niggacoin is the way to make it. Intrinsic value and decentralized utility.

>>55691922
>implying I won't keep DCAing after a 70% crash
Man I would really like to buy dirt cheap.

>>55682056
lost coins for one

Index funds are based.

The Fed will always be printing money and some companies will do exceptionally well because of the Fed or because of their own merits. Instead of guessing the stock that's going to 2000x you own the index and the index captures a small portion of those gains automatically. And the companies that go bust fall off the index automatically, so you just hold forever, never need to take tax loss by rebalancing, and you just chill indefinitely. Stock pickers always get blown out eventually and only exceedingly rare blind luck outperforms the index on a long time frame.

> But I need more than 7% annual gains bro, show me the next 1000x shitcoin!

That's because you're a wagie faggot. 7% on 100k of savings every year is plenty to retire in a very short period of time.

>>55701629
> index funds are for pussies and retards
> who can wait basically forever if you really want to value play.

You're the fucking idiot here, cuck. Value has done exceptionally poorly over the past decade and owning the index has vastly outperformed value strategies. Even if value were to start suddenly outperforming, indexing is still better because all of the market cap weight would shift over and you'd be exposed to it without having to take a taxable event to restructure your portfolio.

Holy fuck you're so fucking dumb, how do you manage to breathe?

>>55708528
>>55708540
the top is in

>>55708546
Yup. And you're the genius who not only sold the top, but is going to miraculously pick the bottom and tell us the bottom is in too.

Spoiler: you won't do either because you're a cuck troll

>>55708574
keep bumping your stupid thread because stuff always goes up, right?

If you get paid a large lump sum, i.e. $100k or something and want to invest it into some s&p index fund, whats the best way to do it? all at once, in intervals? how many intervals?

>>55708578
Why are you obsessed with bumping when you're bumping?

>>55680031
Pretty much this. When you trade, you've got to know the playing field. Vangaurd, mutual funds, index funds, all that. They make money off of your money and have an angle to fill their pockets. Trading is a multifaceted game, and the lazy / stupid are the ones who lose.

They'll literally take funds similar to the aforementioned and buy up properties to inflate housing, rents and cause a slew of other issues. Demons work in angles.

>>55708612
interval vs all at once, go all at once. stocks generally go up, cash generally goes down. if you already have all the cash you need (down payment, emergency fund, business), better stock than cash

>>55682056
It only needs to take over 1% of FX for a 10x. It's great for dealing between any shit fiat, or even as a local currency where it's not trusted. It's a good bet if you think the international economy will get more chaotic.

>>55708528
>Stock pickers always get blown out eventually and only exceedingly rare blind luck outperforms the index on a long time frame.
Complete bullshit, it only takes 11 sufficiently different stocks to hedge unsystemic risk.

>>55708612
Not at all, you could just take the capital and burn it. Index funds and etfs only exist to scam retards

>>55680018
>Everyone is telling you to just buy index funds bro
>Everyone tells you to avoid crypto
Guess which pumped harder in the last 10 years lmao

why is this one faggot crying when this is the best 200+ reply thread for weeks

>>55680018
>what am i missing here?
There is a fee on these funds and that is charged as a percentile whether or not the fund raises in value. Then there may be separate brokerage fees attached to them as well. That's what you are missing.
>>55680031
>you're buying boomer bags and WILL get rugpulled.
You're just stupid. Sorry it is what it is.

>>55709804
Why not both? However for 8 years even when things were mooning I SOLD some of my crypto and moved that money into other things like art, gold, antiques, 401Ks, stawks, real estate. There used be a lot more bigbrains on this board but they are all gone now. For me it died then it hosted the gme general but the animal coin spam had already killed it really. Now it has cancer generals on stocks complete with namefags and is basically a reddit scam board that pumps out Russian 'economic' doom conspiracy at retards

>>55680018
Here’s what happens when you DCA into vanguard over 14 years

>>55709804
>Buy my scam bags
>Don't buy the other scam bags
How about not buying into any ponzified scams baggies

>>55682724
you might've spoken too early anon
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/07/14/universe-may-older-than-thought-study-shows/70411343007/

>>55710014
>linking to a jewrnalist outlet with shitter addicted monkey writers
Even in an ironic way that is no go.

>>55709951
No where there does it mention vanguard which even for an index fund has a high fee

>>55710025
Imagine making that post in rabid polpuke vatnigger speak. Imagine being that stale.

>>55710050
Is this your brain on incompetent propaganda? Russian propaganda is in no way better, same as the jewrnalist propaganda by any other nation. Though the most incompetent propaganda comes from Beijing. Those idiots are truely the worst PR producer that ever walked the earth

>>55710043
Everything except crypto and cash is 90% into vanguard low cost index funds

>>55680018
if everyone does it it means its probably not a good bet

>>55710748
You are, like the jewrnalists advertising the bags of their financiers, a sell signal

Should you diversify against funds themselves going under?

If Vanguard was to collapse overnight, what would happen? What if you had a Nick Leeson who decides to do some terrible shorts in the fund and completely drains it?

>>55680018
1_____IT'S AN ILLIQUID PONZI SCHEME

2_____NO VOTING RIGHTS ON YOUR STOCKS (for what it matters...)

3_____INEFFICIENT WAY OF INVESTING (anything above the 14 titles is inefficient)

4_____FULL OF ILLIQUID RAT POISON (you buy things you would have never dreamt of buying, because the fund firms owns some stocks but too illiquid because no deamand)

5_____COMMISIONS (if you buy stock, 1 time fee, if you buy index CFA + management fees roughly 2-4% yearly)

6_____BARELY COVERS THE INFLATION (is easy to outperform the market if you do due diligence... IF BUT THE MAJORITY DOESN'T)

7_____DEPENDS ON YOUR SIZE!!!!!!!! (beating the index with 1k, kid play, beating the index with 1M, easy, beating the index with 1B, different story)


WHOEVER TELLS YOU THE OPPOSITE EITHER CAN'T INVEST/READ A BALANCE SHEET, OR HAS SOME CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
DYOR

>>55680018
8_________________________
JUST BUY BITCOIN AND WAIT
_________________________

>>55682808
> boomers inflating a ponzi for 40 years
> millenials giga-poor
> the exit door is only so thin
THIS

>>55680834
>Right now its estimated that around half of the market is passive in nature.
So we are the first passive generation in history.
By the time we retire and pull our funds we have 3 next generations slopping up our bags. After that it's entirely possible a status quo is achieved where the markets go up or down based partially on demographics, as this is directly linked to people buying into the market. But if we are the first generation massively slurping up ETFs and holding for the long run, then there's no better place to be.

>>55680018
if anything goes wrong they get unlimited 0% emergency loans. its like buying in at the floor level of the usa government ponzi scheme. that being said i wouldn’t invest in the future prospects of the usa. that place will be brazil 2.0 in a few decades at best.

>>55710836
>if Vanguard was to collapse overnight

i wont because it has direct access to guaranteed government loans from the NY fed trading desk. in the fall of 2019 vanguard alone received around two trillion in short term loans at 0% then thankfully a few months later covid happened so the short term federal reserve programs that had assisted vanguard could be made permanent. whew close one.

>>55709860
>fees are high
>on vanguard funds
retard detected

I like how index funds make midwits seethe and screech. They tell you everything but their own portfolio and its performance over the past decade.

It's not that you won't "make" money with index funds, it's more about that you're missing out on making even more money.

>>55684697
I haven’t flossed my teeth in 8 years.

>>55711412
elaborate

>>55711384
I started with 500€ 13 years ago, haven't worked a regular job since 10 years and my liquid capital that was used for crapto speculation, not anymore, and is still used for commodities and option gambling is now at 5.6 M

>>55709860
Probably why they keep shilling this thread
Totally "organic" every few hours someone makes a post to keep it from falling off the page

>>55708638
Hitting to close to home, right?

>>55710810
The top is in, when vanguard needs to shill for bagholders on /biz/

>>55711806
I'm still kind of baffled that they found the amount of retards giving them liquidity to drive the bag distribution pump to 4600. I mean January futures sit at a retarded 4800. The parallels to summer '08 are too blatant

>>55711855
That was when Lehman imploded, right?

>>55711935
Yes. And the months before the happening every normal faggot was buying the "dip" and investing in real estate for "passive" income

>>55711639
if you sum up every investment that makes money, index investment funds are below average

>>55711796
Bump.

Here we go, end game. And this time, as predicted by many for the past 6 months, its
*drum roll*
commercial real estate this time

>>55680018
>i mean if everyone did this then they wouldn't have a goy underclass to work for them.
Most people don't invest, and most people who do significantly underperform the market by buying when a stock is ballooning and then panic selling when it drops back down. The average yearly return for index funds is 8%, but the average yearly return for retail investors is a whopping 4%. And average means half of them are making even less than that.

Telling investors to go long on index funds is like telling people to exercise, eat healthy, meditate, or floss their teeth. The payoff is massive in the long run, but no one does it because the average person is a brainlet who can't properly assess risk and reward over the long term. Why would people put a portion of every paycheck into VOOG for slow and consistent gains, when gambling on cryptocurrencies, memestocks, and options is so much more exciting?

The stock market is reliable, but it's not retard-proof.

Listen to this guy
>>55686659
>>55686709

>>55713629
>vanguard retard has taken his advertising to the next thread
gtfo fee scammer

>>55713629
based schwab poster

We could crab like Japan for 40 years or you could buy before a 40% drop and it’ll take 10 years to break even , always risk involved

>>55680018
I love using their money market funds giving 5+% as a savings account. Got six figures sitting in there.

>>55713799
you underestimate the amount of retarded boomers that bought the fee scammer line of muah index fee scams being their retirement. If Vangscam and co fail to sell that line to the next generation of speculators and investors, their heads are on the chopping block, literally. Imagine an occupy wallstreet not just with 20 somethings, but radicalized 30+, Boomers with rifles and basically the 99% on the street screaming to hang bankers and politicians

And the nest generation of speculators and investors come from crapto, means way higher risk tolerance and no need for fee scams

>>55713799
Exactly
>>55713507
What does this mean?

>>55713904
It means that banks are not """"printing"""" so much anymore while the demand for commercial real estate loans (and others) are toast, same as the fee scams like vangscam, blackcock and others that used real estate for the past decade as their (((save))) collateral. Just one aspect though, this goes deeper, the tightening is here, Powells rate hike rapes are starting to be felt in the scamconomy
the chart related probably shows the best how fucked blackcock and vangscam are

>>55713943
thanks

>>55713995
here is the link. read it and prepare for the worst, the can was kicked to dead, and that just 3 years after it was nearly kicked to dead and bailed out with a (((narrative))) about a flue
https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/documents/sloos-202307-charts.pdf

>>55714006
Looks bad
Not even zerohedge is reporting about this

>>55714694
why should they? Zerohedge is a glow nigger propaganda outlet. If they start to report on real news, their pension funds are going to 0

>>55713629
I have to agree.
Index investing is a sure way to make it but it is slow, boring and demands human qualities few have such as patience, delaying gratification, discipline, being persistent etc ...
Bogle was a great man.

This board is full of get rich quick schemers, they'll never learn.
But this board is also full of poors and it's understandable that they don't like index investing as it requires a salary, monthly investing and putting in a big capital over the years.

>>55715005
>samefag reseted IP again trying to advertise fee scams
retard, go back to shitter

>>55715042
case in point, this anon exhibits bad human qualities, this is why he doesn't invest in VT (total Stock Market) etf.
He will never make it.

I think most anons here start with crypto here when they're poor/students/neets and then transition to ETF when they earn a salary.

>>55715073
As explained above, Vangscam and Blackcock, with their collateral melting away and boomers looking forward to cash out need to sell their scams to the next batch of victims. Good luck, nobody of the new gen is buying fee scams

>>55715073
and your retarded assumption about crapto. Somebody coming from crapto with that risk tolerance and risk management abilities is certainly not giving profits to a fee scam company

>>55715217
vt fee is 0.07%
4 dollars on a 10 000 dollars investment

might be too expensive for you, but not for most of us

>>55715273
Its not about expensive, its about having on average less potential profits than picking stock oneself and managing the risk. etfs are boomer and genx scams, millenials didnt forgive vanguard and blackrock, they are not giving them capital. forget it

>>55715273
*7 dollars not 4

>>55715278
that includes of course all other fund managing companies as well. That scam dies with Boomers

>>55715278
as stated itt before, no active fund beats the market on a long enough time frame 15-20 years +
they make their money on fees so they dont mind, but investors shouldn't be fooled

I have beaten every index fund and shit now for 13 years straight. There is no reason for me to ever "invest" a dime in an etf scam

>>55715305
your pitches suck. Go try to sell your product in some old folks home. oops, you killed them with the flu and a jab, and we got their capital

>>55715311
then you are part of the 5% that do, the 95% don't
congratz
most anons here know they're aren't buffet (or you)

>>55715327
Go fuck yourself advertiser. Your products die with boomers retiring