/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>846296
I think most everyone even outside of /biz/ knows STEM masterrace is a forced meme

Being smart, sociable, decently hard-working, with the odd few advantages (being born as a good minority, having rich parents, chance encounters with strangers who can help you, having a good mentor) are the ways to success

>>846296
>someone must have posted here a long time ago that stock markets can only go up in the long run
No one said that, nor is that among the many reasons why index investing is proven superior to stock picking and other investment strategies. If you're going to try to dispel common wisdom, let alone decades of academic study and research, maybe you could try using Google for a few minutes first.

>DOW has not closed above 1000 in real terms since 1960s
>Nikkei is half of what it was in '87 and still hasn't recovered
>FTSE 100 not even close to pre millennium levels
Misleading and highly selective statements like these aren't going to impress anyone. Wealth is relative, and what's important from a personal finance perspective is to grow your portfolio and your net worth relative to the consumers in your economy. This is what improves your standard of living, the quality of your life, and your financial longevity in retirement.

Not to mention, even if you had a valid criticism (which you don't) your critique is addressed to the broad strategy of investment in equity markets, not to index funds specifically. Indexing is a market investment strategy, not a market itself.

If you have some actual criticisms of index investing as an equity strategy, feel free to post them. You'll be blown out of the water because all the academic research of the last 20 years proves that indexing in the superior strategy, but please don't let that stop you. One of the best things about /biz/ is watching dumbasses like OP make fools of themselves.

>>846319
>If you're going to try to dispel common wisdom, let alone decades of academic study and research, maybe you could try using Google for a few minutes first.
Don't act like I'm the only one who thinks this way, or that there's not any academic research stating otherwise.
Off the top of my head, I know Robert Shiller, J. David Stein, and Frank Sortino are all people who don't think passive investing is the end-all be-all to investing as a whole. Shiller criticized it in every edition of Irrational Exuberance, J. David Stein pointed out how it causes ETF premiums to inflate, and Sortino obviously built on Sharpe's work and showed how only downside deviation matters in a portfolio.

>Misleading and highly selective statements like these aren't going to impress anyone. Wealth is relative, and what's important from a personal finance perspective is to grow your portfolio and your net worth relative to the consumers in your economy.
How is it misleading? Because you don't like it?

>If you have some actual criticisms of index investing as an equity strategy, feel free to post them. You'll be blown out of the water because all the academic research of the last 20 years proves that indexing in the superior strategy, but please don't let that stop you.
I know you're giddy to post your infographic on index funds, a link to a Markowitz quote, and probably that "Bill the Worst Market Timer" article. Go ahead and post them, because index idiots have nothing else to do besides flounder around while attempting to justify their annual return of 2.5% as "self control."

>>846338

>you have literaly no sources yourself
>index funds had 60-80% returns the last 5 years
>shit on superior index funds

So whats your strategy, smartass? Drawing lines with your crayon and predicting the future?

>>846338
>2.5% returns

Are you trolling or just ignorant?

>Programming and comp sci is the best of these majors
You have no idea what you're talking about, the main disciplines of engineering have higher salaries and lower unemployment. You're just spouting /biz/ memes like everyone else. I'm a CS major and I'm exited about job prospects but if you don't like coding enough to practice all the time then you'll never be anything more than a code monkey.

>>846319
Wow, you're really off your rocker.

>>846346
>no sources yourself
I just cited three sources, do you want them MLA style or something?

>what's your strategy?

Something else besides hoping to God that my investments are in line with what commercials are doing

>>846296

>index funds only

Well what are the alternatives when it comes to equity based investment. I don't see any.

>>846354

"something else" is your strategy.
You converted me, I just sold all my index funds and put everything on "something else"
Thank you so much you fucking retard

>>846350
I know chem engineers that are unemployed and depressed

It's really a regional thing

>>846363
Must be shitty at their jobs and networking. Good chem engs roll in dosh and job offers

Bitcoin hate is a meme

>>846358
Yeah I'd really like to go into detail about my methods of market analysis on an anonymous Hungarian origami board. I'm sure it will be a productive use of my time to describe what my HFT parameters are to someone who subscribes to the efficient markets hypothesis.

>>846367
Tbh they probably slacked off, got Cs and did no internship. The lesson here is an engineering degree is not a golden ticket.

>>846373

Sure thing, you got your super secret method that totally works but you wont tell me. In your own thread you made to tell people index funds suck. After you claimed they returnb 2.5% a year.

Youre dumber than "that kid" in first grade and I implore you to leave and never return again for the sake of the little dignity you have left.

>>846363

>I know chem engineers that are unemployed and depressed

Anecdotal evidence does not trump genuine labor statistics.

http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/17-2041.00
http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/17-2199.01

Granted, chem engineers are one of the slowest-growing engineering disciplines. But they still have huge salaries and many projected openings.

Petroleum engineering is the real goldmine.

http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/17-2171.00

>>846373

>analysis
>hft parameters

1/10 for making me reply

>>846373
I'm sure you make mad gains with your secret stock analysis techniques lol

BO$$
O
$
$

>>846319
>decades of academic study and research
You do know that academia has been trying to discredit stock picking and trading for the better part of a century right? They've changed the reasoning why supposedly you'll have the same returns as randomly picking stocks numerous times over that time, but it just so happens to be that today their reasoning is because of the EMH.

>>846338
>annual return of 2.5%

>>846354
>Something else

I was actually prepared to treat your first response as a legitimate continuation of the discussion, despite its ridiculous logical flaws, then I read these quotes and realized that you're just a troll. Or retarded. Or both.

Enjoy poverty kid.

>>846392
>You do know that academia has been trying to discredit stock picking and trading for the better part of a century right? They've changed the reasoning why supposedly you'll have the same returns as randomly picking stocks numerous times over that time, but it just so happens to be that today their reasoning is because of the EMH.
I disagree with your characterization of the science and the academic results. A hundred years ago stock picking may well have been the superior strategy, because the level of market inefficiencies was substantially higher back then. Since olden times, a lot has changed and the markets are getting more and more efficient. This decreases the viability of stock picking and increases the viability of index investing.

Sure academics have been looking at this for years. Its what they do. Does that make their conclusions any less valid? Indeed, doesn't that make them even MORE valid because there's so much data behind it?

Also, you need to understand that EMH doesn't posit that all markets are perfectly efficient. Rather, EMH posits that in a market that is sufficiently efficient, it is impossible to beat the market (statistically speaking, in the long run). Proponent do contend (rightly so) that the US and major European and Asian markets are sufficiently efficient that EMH applies. There are some small and esoteric markets where it does not. Understanding this distinction is important, and its why your criticism is off base.

Keep doing your research. You sound like you've learned finance from a YouTube video. Do some real study and it'll open your eyes.

>>846429
I've seen academics inappropriately compare things such as the S&P 500 to "hedge funds" which is wholly inappropriate because hedge funds are so incredibly diverse in their strategies that it's difficult to compare even two hedge funds together. For example, there are a lot of hedge funds which exclusively engage in traditional arbitrage (a strategy which yields low to moderate returns with literally no risk), others engage in long/short strategies, etc. Comparing things like this to the S&P 500 is like comparing a government bond fund to a stock index. I've yet to see them compare returns on a risk-adjusted basis which is the only appropriate thing you can do.

As far as the EMH is concerned, markets are only efficient as it relates to arbitrage but it's really a function of arbitrage and not the EMH.

Also, there are a multitude of funds/strategies which rely on picking securities which regularly beat the market ("the market" being the S&P 500 in this case). For a few examples, you can look at the Nasdaq 100 (QQQ for a fund), RYLVX, SEQUX, BPAVX, TPLGX, the CBOE put-write index, the CBOE buy-write index, and VHCOX.

>>846441
>I've seen academics inappropriately compare...
Nice non-sequitur. No one seriously contends that you can compare investment strategies without making risk adjustments. While it is important to compare apples to apples, that doesn't mean that can dismiss the comparables altogether. The fact remains that higher risk strategies haven't proven to add alpha compared to the baseline model index portfolio, except in the case of small-cap value stocks.

Most of the criticism levelled against hedge funds has nothing to do with comparing them to the S&P 500. That's a strawman. The problem with hedge funds is that they can't beat competing strategies on a fee-adjusted basis. For every hedge fund goal, there's a model index portfolio with the same risk/reward characteristics that will beat the hedge fund on a fee-adjusted basis. 2/20 is a losers game.

>>846441
>markets are only efficient as it relates to arbitrage but it's really a function of arbitrage and not the EMH
This is a meaningless statement.

>>846441
>there are a multitude of funds/strategies
But none of them have been proven to beat the standard portfolio model on a risk-adjusted basis, other than small-call value index funds. Remember your caution about inappropriate comparisons? You just violated that rule in your own post.

>>846296
tough to get safer returns than the SPY, QQQ, VGK, and VPU

i dollar coast average those and few individual stocks such as SAVE, D, SAFT

also STEM is still a good option for those who can do math

>>846535
>No one seriously contends that you can compare investment strategies without making risk adjustments
Except that their data is non-risk adjusted. Pic related is one such example of people trying to discredit hedge funds by making false comparisons between long/short hedge funds and the s&p 500. This is of course non-risk adjusted and conveniently leaves out 2007-2009 when long/short strategies vastly outperformed the S&P.

> that doesn't mean that can dismiss the comparables altogether
That's then thing, they don't compare similar things in their studies. Using the above example, long/short strategies are lower risk than all-long strategies which is what the S&P is and the risk profile of bother are starkly different.

>The fact remains that higher risk strategies haven't proven to add alpha
I don't know of any portfolio out there where the manager intentionally tries to add more risk to their portfolio. I do, however, know of managers trying to minimize portfolio drawdowns and overall risk without sacrificing much return.

>Most of the criticism levelled against hedge funds has nothing to do with comparing them to the S&P 500
See pic.

>The problem with hedge funds is that they can't beat competing strategies on a fee-adjusted basis.
The reason why I bring up hedge funds is not so much to compare investing in the fund itself vs. the S&P, I'm trying to convey running the *strategy* that a hedge fund might use (such as long/short, traditional or risk arbitrage, etc. (also noting that individuals can mimic the same strategies)) and noting how academia is comparing totally different strategies with vastly different risk profiles together and not risk-adjusting.

>This is a meaningless statement.
Not so. The argument's that academia makes for the EMH actually has nothing to do with the EMH, it has everything to do with arbitrage.

[1/2]

>>846535
>>846584

>But none of them have been proven to beat the standard portfolio model on a risk-adjusted basis
Well they have. Pic related.

> Remember your caution about inappropriate comparisons?
An all-long equity portfolio is a perfect comparison to another all-long equity portfolio. When they're too different, you have to adjust for risk.

>>846319
iHaz detected

how's it going, old chap?

>>846584
>This is of course non-risk adjusted and conveniently leaves out 2007-2009 when long/short strategies vastly outperforme
Most hedge funds don't hedge anymore. Your argument is bullsshit.

>>846732
"hedge fund" is a misnomer considering the starkly differing strategies from fund to fund. However, in context of what you quoted, they do hedge. You literally cannot have a long/short fund if you aren't both long and short in your portfolio simultaneously.

>>846296
The whole Index Fund only concept most likely came from a Warren Buffet fanatic.

Buffet stated that the lowest performing Index fund would still outperform your average hedge fund in a decade.

He was right, but he never said that "its all you should invest in".

Diversification of your portfolio is always a great think to do.

>>846737
My point was that very few do that anymore. They chase returns like every other Wall Street schlock. Stop drinking the Kool Aid. Fund managers are just highly paid equity advisors, and have been for years.

>>846584
>I do, however, know of managers trying to minimize portfolio drawdowns and overall risk without sacrificing much return.
Reducing drawdown is a horrible marketing meme sold to scared rubes by unscrupulous managers. Seriously, who gives a fuck what the interim data points may be if you have a long-term perspective (like pretty much everyone on this board)?

You sound and write like someone in-house at a wealth management firm. While that may make you more educated than most on this board, the reality is that you're the least credible source of information and advice possible (OP included). I hope you have your emergency fund well funded, because the index revolution is going to put your kind on unemployment. The sooner the better.

>>846771
>My point was that very few do that anymore.
Plenty do. Hedge funds in general do employ risk management techniques (some try and time it as well). That's the primary reason why a hedge fund would underperform the S&P in a bull market. Although, some don't hedge and act more like a managed account.

>Fund managers are just highly paid equity advisors
Fund managers don't give advice to clients, they invest on behalf of them and do not need a client's permission to enter a position.

>>846882
>Reducing drawdown is a horrible marketing meme
Well, you say that but pic related.

>Seriously, who gives a fuck what the interim data points may be if you have a long-term perspective
Large drawdowns impede returns over time. Also, you can't assume that everyone's investment goals, risk tolerance, objectives are the same. For example, I would never suggest to someone who's saving up for the down-payment on a house and wants more that 1 basis point from their bank to put those savings in a stock index. Someone like that should put it in higher rated debt securities, CD's, or at most preferred stock from a large and stable company.

>You sound and write like someone in-house at a wealth management firm.
No.

>>847498
>Hedge funds in general do employ risk management techniques (some try and time it as well). That's the primary reason why a hedge fund would underperform the S&P in a bull market.
You can do all that with index funds, and save yourself the outrageous fees. You haven't started a single compelling reason why anyone should pick a hedge fund over indexing.

>Large drawdowns impede returns over time.
No they don't. Your own data refutes this. Stop spewing industry memes.

>>847498
>I would never suggest to someone who's saving up for the down-payment on a house and wants more that 1 basis point from their bank to put those savings in a stock index
Duh. Using an indexing strategy doesn't mean you turn off your brain. There are indeed strategies for short and long term goals. For risk takers and risk avoiders. For all kinds of tax strategies.

Have you made a valid point in this entire thread? I see a lot of bad logic and defeated strawmen .... and not a single independent thought. Biz never fails to disappoint.

>>847601
>You can do all that with index funds,
Why yes, you can, by using strategies which hedge funds also use to hedge risk.

>You haven't started a single compelling reason why anyone should pick a hedge fund over indexing
Please cite exactly where I said people should invest in hedge funds.

I'm just explaining how things work and what the fund managers are actually doing.

>No they don't. Your own data refutes this.
I think you need to review the pic (>>847498) again. (Timing strategy of SPY end balance: $100k. Buy and hold SPY end balance: $67k)
If you need the simplistic strategy used to be explained, just say so.

>Buying and holding and index doesn't mean you turn off your brain
FTFY and yes, it does.

>Have you made a valid point in this entire thread?
I suppose if you don't have the education to understand my points, I get why you'd be confused.

>not a single independent thought
Because shilling for indexing is so original?

>>847664
>Because shilling for indexing is so original?
Kek. You finally said something funny. Unintentionally, but funny nonetheless.

>yes, it does
Citation fucking missing.

>>847668
>Citation fucking missing.

>you can't beat the market! Buy and hold the index!
>you can't time the market! Buy and hold the index!
>Picking stocks based on anything will yield results no different than picking stocks out at random! Buy and hold the index!
>Never invest in anything other than the stock index, you will always get lower returns! Buy and hold the index!

Takes some serious brainpower there. Am I missing any of the /biz/ index shill rhetoric?

>>846595

Tell me more about comparing stuff by properly adjusting for risk. I just graduated with a finance degree and the whole of my education boiled down to 'lol buy the market'.

>>847694
Risk adjusting is just where you gauge how much risk is involved in producing a certain return.

Arguably the most popular way to adjust for risk is with the Sharpe Ratio but I give more weight to the Sortino ratio (which is a modified Sharpe ratio) because it makes a distinction between harmful and beneficial volatility. Aside from those, off the top of my head, there's beta, standard deviation, and R-Squared (which is usually just used for funds).

>>847498
What method of timing did you use here?

>>847812
Nevermind, I'm retarded. Just saw that it was stated at the top of the image.

I guess the second question is if you adjusted for the increased taxes and courtages for buying and selling.

>>847815
No, the system doesn't include that - one of its limitations. However, commissions would be negligible over the period amounting to what would likely be around $200-300 vs. the unadjusted ending balance of ~$100k. Taxes would reduce your overall gain, sure, but assuming you're under the 15% capital gains rate, over the period you would incur taxes in the area of ~$6244 reducing your end-period value from ~$100k depicted to about $94k (It's worth noting that as you reenter the position your cost basis would change with which would affect future taxation).

>>847868
One thing that is unclear in the image is the part where it says "... the moving average is greater than or equal to the 10-month moving average"

What is the first moving average you're talking about? The current ETF price? The 1-month moving average?

>>847868
Oh wait, I thought the ending balance of $94k seemed oddly high so I ran the numbers again and realized I forgot something. While yes, the total taxes incurred would be about $6k, the effect on your overall returns would reduce your ending balance to ~$76k (although that seems a bit low, it's kind of late for me right now), still beating the S&P buy and hold method though. One could enhance the results by investing in a tax advantaged account certainly.

>>847907
I'm thinking it could be a typo where they mean "price."

I didn't create the backtesting system or write the text at the top by the way. It just spits out general information about methodology for the test you're running and puts it above the results.

>>847934
Is it a publicly available system? I've been looking for something so I can run simulations of different investing strategies, but I haven't found anything yet.

I also wonder why the B&H method is so popular on /biz/, and why it's so widely recommended by for example Buffet and Bogle if stuff like this beats it, even in larger time frames.

>>846296
>hurtful financial advice
>first line
>>index funds only
fuck off
in the off chance your actively managed funds beat the market the e.r. will kill you
there is no reason not to use passive investment for your tax advantaged accounts

>>847678
>Takes some serious brainpower there. Am I missing any of the /biz/ index shill rhetoric?
Yes, you're missing the decades of academic science that proves the "index shill rhetoric" is proven fact. You've got a serious case of denial.

Also, stop misrepresenting the index strategy. Its clear that you can't articulate a single cogent critique, but instead rely on oversimplifications and generalities. Quite pleb of you.

>>846296

>Starts thread about dispelling /biz/ memes
>Posts blue pilled disinfo and memes

Sage and report

>>847981
Although doesn't the image he posted refute that B&H is better than the timing used in the image?

Even Buffet didn't Buy and Hold forever, regardless of market movements.

>>847969
That system in particular is free but it is pretty limited in its capabilities. Outside of a basic 'timing' strategy, you will be unable to test specific or complicated strategies. However, I use it mostly to test general portfolio allocations because of how intuitive it is compared to some of the other backtesters out there. A word of advice though, it's unwise to test specific stocks when you're backtesting. The results will be very misleading. Anyway, here's the link:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio

>>847981
>academic science that
Oh yeah, it's about as scientific as the methodology behind the 'gender pay gap' (which is lauded by academics).

>stop misrepresenting the index strategy
How am I doing that? Showing risk ratios among different funds and their respective returns using 1-2 decades of market data?

>Its clear that you can't articulate a single cogent critique
So what, are debating me with your feelings now or something?

>instead rely on oversimplifications and generalities
In context of what you quoted, I virtually just copy and pasted what index shills actually say across /biz/.

>>848011
>Oh yeah, it's about as scientific as the methodology behind the 'gender pay gap' (which is lauded by academics).
Oh, you're one of those tin-foil freaks. This explains a lot. Are you off your meds?

>So what, are debating me with your feelings now or something?
Since when does mentioning scientific and academic research equate to debating with my feelings?

>>848011
>In context of what you quoted, I virtually just copy and pasted what index shills actually say across /biz/.
No you don't. Index advocates are aware that its possible to beat the market, just as they are aware that its highly improbable. Index advocates are aware that its possible to time the markets, just as they aware that the successor failure of such an undertaking is entirely random. Index advocates are aware that some people successfully employ a stock picking strategy, just as they are aware that 90% who do underperform the markets. And index advocates do not counsel to only invest in equity markets. Diversification is the hallmark of the model portfolio, and that includes fixed income and real estate at a minimum

So stop. Stop with the fake arguments. Stop with the meme posts. Stop with the hyperbole. Stop with the mischaracterizations. Stop with the lies. You're an asshole trying to mislead people on a chinese pottery message board. I can't imagine anything more sad.

Is Econ a good major? What about marketing?

>>846296

Sadly, many index-funders have their statistics skewed due to boom/bust cycles.

The last 7 years have been a bull market so many indexers are pointing to solid 1,3,5 year returns.

So while the 1,3,5 year returns are ~15% annually the 10 year return is 7% annually.

Honestly, any good trader worth his or her salt can get around 10% a year, if they really know what they're doing.

And when i point this out to index funders they pretty much fall back to

>muh dollar cost averaging

But whatever, cause i'm always getting into fights with bogleheads, index funders, and other passive investors

While i understand the importance of managing risk and protecting against losses, it's my personal opinion that many of these types of passive investors simply lack the skill, knowledge, or time to make truly wise investment choices.

But on the other hand I recognize that some people may not just be cut out for it, and an index fund or some other kind of passive investment is certainly preferable to

>muh savings account

Not that anyone really cares what I think, because let's face it, I don't care what you think either

>>848021
>Oh, you're one of those tin-foil freaks.
I suggest you look into how they come up with the 'gender pay gap.' :^)

(spoiler: it's raw wage data, not accounting for differences in jobs, experience, or really anything whatsoever)

>Since when does mentioning scientific and academic research equate to debating with my feelings?
Throwing out insults is the equivalent of trying to debate with your feelings.

>Index advocates are aware that its possible to beat the market, just as they are aware that its highly improbable
Not at all. You could even just throw your money at the nasdaq 100 and beat the market very consistently.

>Index advocates are aware that its possible to time the markets, just as they aware that the successor failure of such an undertaking is entirely random
Not at all. See: >>847498

>Index advocates are aware that some people successfully employ a stock picking strategy, just as they are aware that 90% who do underperform the markets
Many people and funds actually outperform the market pretty consistently.

However, if you look at academia's research and note their methodology, they set the bar unrealistically high in that they will set a target period of time (generally 1-3 decades) and then require that the observed funds beat the market every single year over the period. If you do not beat the market in even one year then you're not included as "beating the market", regardless of your cumulative returns. That even flies in the face of other academia's creations such as the idea of Beta or even probability distribution.

The other way they do it is by cherrypicking actively managed funds and netting them after fees.

>So stop. Stop with the fake arguments. Stop with the meme posts. Stop with the hyperbole. Stop with the...
Are you having a breakdown?

>>848028
>Honestly, any good trader worth his or her salt can get around 10% a year, if they really know what they're doing.
Then go do it and prove it. Or stop lying. Pick one.

>it's my personal opinion that many of these types of passive investors simply lack the skill, knowledge, or time to make truly wise investment choices
Too bad a Nobel laureate proved that none of these things (skill, knowledge, or time) have any effect on investment returns. Sucks to be you.

>>848045
>You could even just throw your money at the nasdaq 100 and beat the market very consistently.
>You can pick an index and beat another index
You're done kid. Out of ammo. This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

>>848045
>they set the bar unrealistically high in that they will set a target period of time (generally 1-3 decades)
A 10-30 year investment horizon is "unrealistically high"? I'll have whatever you're smoking.

>>848045
>If you do not beat the market in even one year then you're not included as "beating the market"
No shit Sherlock. That's the definition of not beating the market.

You should consolidate your posts in the future.

>>848050
>You're done kid. Out of ammo.
Except the nasdaq, unlike the S&P 500, isn't 'the market'

>A 10-30 year investment horizon is "unrealistically high"?
Try reading the rest. :^)

>>848054
>apparently VHCOX (for example) beating the S&P 500 14/19 years since 1996 and having more than double the cumulative return as the S&P isn't beating the market
hue

>>848066
>Except the nasdaq, unlike the S&P 500, isn't 'the market'
Seriously? Neither are "the market." Both are major indices and major benchmarks. How do you not know this?

>>848066
>VHCOX
Standard portfolio model incorporates anywhere from 0-40% managed funds. You're so ignorant about Boglehead principles that you don't even know what you don't like anymore.

>>848074
Actually the S&P *is* the proxy for 'the market'

>>848075
Way to stray away from the point.

>>848079
>Actually the S&P *is* the proxy for 'the market'
S&P 500 is the most commonly cited index, but it is most certainly not "the market." Its a programmatically selected group of 500 U.S. large cap stocks published by a private finance company. Anyone who thinks 500 large cap US stocks represents the "market" is an idiot. I guess that's you.

>>848085
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market_index
>A 'national' index represents the performance of the stock market of a given nation—and by proxy, reflects investor sentiment on the state of its economy. The most regularly quoted market indices are national indices composed of the stocks of large companies listed on a nation's largest stock exchanges, such as the American S&P 500,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500

>It is one of the most commonly followed equity indices, and many consider it one of the best representations of the U.S. stock market

>>848088
>the stocks of large companies
>the stocks of large companies
>the stocks of large companies
Jesus man, do you even read? Anything?

>citing Wikipedia as a source...kek^2