/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>928826
You're swedish, it doesn't count when you invest with monopoly money that can only be used to buy cheap furniture and rotting fish carcasses.

>>928867

>>928867
kek

>>928826
Its pretty easy to make +80% with 10€ tard fuck. Show the numbers.
And pretty sure your portfolio isn't diversified at all and that you're gonna cry like a fucking bitch as soon as the market crashes. Have fun explaining to your family that passive investment is a meme after that tard.
I can also make +80% betting on football with 1 or 2 bets thats not hard Mr. Pro but I'll suck your cock if you can do it for 2 years straight on more than 1 (lucky) stock

>>928881

>>928826
>le I don't understand what random deviation is meme

>>928881
>implying the percentage is in any way affected by the capital investment
>passive investment is a meme
>statistically far more successful than active investing
>somehow a meme

just quit

>make thread 1 year after the dip in october 2014 which makes almost any investment look good 1 year later so people can feel good about themselves
>normies that shit on the thread are this buttmad that they bought high and sold low and so they have nothing to show for it

>>928892
Ofc it is trash tard if he invests 10€ in a penny stock its completely possible that this stock goes up 100% next year but this rarely happens with "normal priced" stocks for which he doesn't have the money to buy more than a small amount. Mongolian fuck

Passive > Active in the US market. No doubt.

Here's my performance for just this month. I can't show longer because I've added money to my account in previous months which skews the data. I traded for 5 years, then stopped for a while due to a job I had in investment banking, and started back up again recently. I've been at it for 3 months and have made $4.5k. Most of this money has been made by trading BAC.

>>928900
nicely done man keep it up

>>928826
how do you conduct stock market research

>>928910
>avoid the biggest multi-national corporations and the most popular stocks
these usually have very bloated stocks and little room for further growth. if they're already the top company in many countries, then they'll be suffering from diminishing returns. and if everyone has already bought the stocks, then who's left to buy them from you for a higher price later on?

>look at the long-term charts
it doesn't take an expert in technical analysis to recognize if the chart has a general downward trend or if it's basically standing still. if the chart doesn't indicate health in the company then it's probably not a great investment.

>understand the company's business idea (le warren buffett meme)
you need to know why it's supposedly a great company/stock. if their business plan seems really stupid or if you think its potential has been played out then stay away from the stock.

>gather all the information you can find
read press releases, news articles, earnings reports, forum posts and blogs about the company. try to make sense of the information. what kind of person is the CEO? does the management seem competent? do you think the company has potential?

i'm not very diversified but i'd rather have a few different stocks that i truly believe in than a whole bunch of stocks that look like shit to me.

>>928826
>>928954
>I can beat the market by using information that the market also knows
Please tell me more

>>928903

Thanks. I will probably continue to trade until the market makes up its mind on whether it wants to crash or recover from this dip. While it continues to trade sideways, and we see increased intraday volatility, I will keep trading because it's so easy to make money right now. You can practically buy stocks like BAC that trade in a set range almost every single day and at at least one point you will be up money.

>>929006
>can't do better than a mindless index of a bunch of decent, mediocre and crappy companies thrown together

>>928867
>>928868
>>928881
>>928889
>>928898
>>929006
OP #rekt

Not even a year of data. Tell me when you make a living from trading and live off more than a neet budget.

>>929010
The market portfolio satisfies the Markowitz problem :^)

>>929018

>>929018
>trying this hard to remain in denial

>>929027
topkek. the answer is no.

>>929027
>>929030
>>929031
OP #rekt

>>929024
>literally being this mad
what's your problem lel

pic related isn't mine and yeah trading the US market is pretty horrible with all the bots and stupid people but there are other markets beside the murrican one.

>>929033
>pic related isnt mine
Who gives a shit. You might as well link me to Buffet's fortune as a realistic aspiration. As if you cunt can match 10000% in 3 years. Youre delusional.

>>929041
when did i claim to be able to match 10000% in 3 years?

>>929048
You didn't claim but you certainly implied youll become well off from trading like your heroes. That's hubris and conceit and frankly i bid you failure or at least a life of modesty.

Get at me /biz/

I'm still brand new at this and have only been at it one month so far and still only using fairly conservative funds but I'm already up 1.24% !

I seem to make all my final decisions while semi drunk on Friday nights. It's proving to be quite fun. Have taken a small gamble today with a fund that has very high gains right at the moment and going to see where it takes me.

>>929066
nah i'm just saying that it's possible for some people to be successful traders. keep projecting your own failures and having this dogmatic, pessimistic mindset that makes you feel it's impossible to day trade successfully or even just "beat the market" with strategic investments.

>>929086
>it's possible for some people to be successful traders
it's also possible for some people to win the lottery. That doesn't make buying lottery tickets a good strategy though.

>>929092
it's not the same thing. you're delusional if you think it's the same probability for these people to lose 10-100% as to gain 100-10000% over time.

buying stocks isn't the same as buying lottery tickets lmfao you fucking idiots

>>929096
It literally is. You have an expected return for both, negative in case of a lottery ticket and positive in case of the stock. The realized outcome will deviate at random from that expected return. Some people will get lucky, others won't. Drawing the right lottery ticket doesn't make you a lottery wizard and picking the right stock doesn't make you a stock picking wizard. Pointing at the winners in hindsight and stating that it "can be done" is a retarded. This is a concept a 12 year old child would understand.

>>929110
idiot

>>929110
>>929119
>idiot
well, yes and no. Depends. Technical trading alone doesn't get results unless you HFT with all the combined powers of an investment bank behind you. Investing in management alone doesn't get results until you're owning / running the company anyway. Over the course of several cycles, you can beat the market, through preservation of capital, portfolio reallocation at the appropriate times, and the like.

in short, you're both wrong, for the wrong reasons.

>>929125
>Technical trading alone doesn't get results
wrong,

>>929133

>>929119
Nice argument faggot. Why don't you point me to a study that shows that most money managers and hedge funds beat the market in statistically significant way? Oh right, there is none, only the ones proving the opposite.

>>929139
you're not worth my time seriously. it wouldn't surprise me if you aren't even old enough to own stocks. you're completely off-topic anyway.

>>929141
He is right though.
All serious academic research has proven that actively investing in the US equity market yields less return than going passive.

Buffet himself recommends that when he dies, "90% of his wealth is placed in a low-fee passive index fund and 10% in bonds." The returns he makes with BH is because he actually holds stuff that he understands over a long period and actively participates in management, which you cannot do at your level.

Mutual funds fail (even though they trade actively they usually get approximately the same returns as the S&P500 in average but you actually lose money because of the fees), hedge funds fail (even though they choose to report what they want and are allowed to do whatever they want they fail to beat the market in average + charge fees).

Why would YOU, as an individual investor, succeed where professionals have failed?

You can get lucky and "win the lottery", yes, that happens. But that doesn't mean you have superior stock-picking skills.

Also... HFT... Nuff said.

>>929139
Here you go, anon

>>929229
Jesus Christ, you're dense

>>929224
The reason the individual investor can outperform large money managers is risk tolerance. Your bit about Buffet has the same answer. What he has actually said is that the amount of money he now manages holds him back and if given $100k to invest, he could steadily beat the market by 50%, like he did in his younger years.

You see anon, once someone gives you their money, they expect you to not lose it. This limits very greatly the money managers ability to enter the same positions as the individual investor. So, yes. You are right in that an ETF or index fund is much better than going the actively managed fund route. But the same argument you are making cannot be applied to the individual investor, since the playing field is not level

>>929231
No. That anon set the bait by saying "all stock picking is random," then switched and equated individual investors with hedge funds. Its a typical /biz/ trick. Literally apples and oranges

>>929235
>the amount of money he now manages holds him back
absolutely. funds deal with huge amounts of money so because of liquidity issues they have to diversify a lot more than an individual investor has to, and so they have to put money in all sorts of stocks, including ones that are more or less crappy.

here is the new Nasdaq First North 25 vs OMX Nordic 40. both are indices but one has performed a lot better (this year). the stocks in First Nordic 25 have too low liquidity for there to be an index fund made out of it but an individual investor can still buy stocks according to First North 25 or pick out individual stocks that look good.

>>929229

How convenient you don't show all the people who under performed. How do you pick the right investor? Flip a coin?

>>929252
???

There are lots of football players that never go oro, anon. This doesn't mean Tom Brady just gets lucky every time he throws a football. I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

>>929259

My point is your graph is a complete farce because it doesn't show all the people out performed over a short period of time and then went under.

And your football comparison is just retarded sens there is no "market" option to which you can compare football players.

>>929265
So you are saying the investors who failed and didn't make that chart were exactly as savvy, knowledgable, money-smart, and put in just as much work as those who did?

>>929271

Yes, one year they would have been on that same chart. Then the next they are under.

>>929272
The chart starts at 10 years, anon.

Even if you posted +5% over 10 years, one bad year wouldnt knock you off the chart. Are you feeling alright today, anon? Buffet's had bad years. Everyone has bad years. Like, you, anon. You're having a bad day. It's ok. You'll get up and feel better tomorrow, I'm sure.

>>929276

damn you really are a idiot, the chart starts at 10 years but it ONLY shows the one who beat the market, hence all the investors that did good for years but then dropped under wont be show.

You can clearly see the number of investors over the market getting fewer over the years. It's also biased because very high early gains do not represent future gains.

You realize buffet hasn't beat the market in 5 years?

>>928867

#rekt

>>929278
Ok, anon. Then they didnt make the chart. Not everyone can make the hall of fame. Those are just a few who did and did really well. Not everyone who has done that well is listed, since they are too numerous to count, if that is what you are mad about.

I dont really understand what you are getting at. Its just a chart of really good investors. Im sure you dont think Buffet has just been lucky all these years.

>>929280

the problem is not even half the investors from the 10-20 mark are going to make it to the 30-40.

>>929285
Yes, anon. Most people die in their 70s. I still dont see what you are getting at

>>929289

So what happens to your money when they die.

>>929293
My money will be fine anon. It will be in my brokerage account and my savings account and my checking account and my safe.

You're having a really hard time explaining what it is you are trying to say. Are you feeling alright?

>>929295

No anyone with a normal level of reading comprehension would have figured it out already. Picking a random investor isn't any better than gambling, some may rise high but they all fall over time.

>>929229
>hundreds of academic articles proving that beating the market is a statistical improbability
>hundreds of academic articles proving that 90-95% of money managers fail to beat the markets after fees
>hundreds of academic articles proving that 90% of money managers who do beat the market over five years fail to do so in the subsequent five years

>fag posts one unsourced chart with no methodology and dismisses hundreds of academic studies
>fag doesn't know that chart fails to account for fees and investing expenses
>fag doesn't know that chart comes from a book, not an academic study
>fag doesn't know that book was written by ... wait for it ... a money manager
>fag doesn't know that the author only writes books and blog posts glorified celebrity money managers
>fag slurps up bogus data from author with a vested financial interest in distracting gullible investors from the truth
>fag ignores posts pointing out the facts
>fag is a fag

/biz/ never fails to disappoint

>>929297
>>929299
Im not arguing for managed money, anons. You both have to understand the difference between individual investing and hedge funds, right?

You both cant possibly think Warren Buffet has "just been getting lucky." Right? Tell me this isnt where this conversation is going.

>>929302

Warren Buffet may have made a bunch of money at one point, from skill luck or whatever. But YOU would have to be luck to make money from investing with buffet, because it is impossible to know the timing of his success.

>>929299
fund manager != individual investor

>>929302
>You both cant possibly think Warren Buffet has "just been getting lucky."
Warren Buffett engages in acquisition, strategic combinations, leveraged financing, and wholesale investing ... none of which is possible for the retail investor.

Stop being so stupid.

>>929306
That is not true at all. His best returns came in his earlier years when he was 100% in equities.

>>929304
>from skill or luck or whatever
Good bait anon. You had me going for awhile

>>929033
Lagsta?
Hogsta?
Madsta!
Memsta!

>>929308

It's not bait you idiot, how buffett made his money is irrelevant to the discussion because you are not warrent buffet. You have a different time frame for investing than he does, and your timeframe may not match up with his success. IE anyone who has invested with him in the last 5 years.

Let's say some stock only managed an average of 7% a year. You know that stock probably went up way past that at quite a few spots and way under it at others. If you short that motha fucka using some good chart analysis you can easily beat the market.

>>929229
>start a hedge fund
>luck out on some obscure biotech company in year 1 and make 10000%
>put money in drawer
>wait 10 years
>I'M A GENIUS INVESTOR, I BEAT THE MARKET BY 1000% ON AVERAGE EVERY YEAR FOR 10 YEARS!!!!

>>929302
Buffet heavily relies on inside information. Also the moment he mentions that he's taken a position in a stock it instantly jumps 5%. So he's not really playing by the rules.

>>929312
Who said anything about investing with Buffet?

I said in multiple previous posts that if you want to passively invest your money, ETFs and indexes are the way to go.

You're having a really hard time keeping up, anon. Really one of the worst posting sequences Ive seen on this board. You might just take the rest of the night off, anon.

i can kinda see why you'd say day trading can't be done, since S&P-500 sucks for day trading and most meaningful trading in the european markets gets done before the murrican market opens.

but to say that you can't "beat the market" with strategic investments... that's just fucking retarded. the criterias for adding/removing stocks to indices are dead simple. how could you think that those criterias are necessarily the most profitable?! -1,25% YTD on the S&P-500...

good night and good luck to you... i hope you come to your senses by the time you reach adulthood and don't blow all your parents money on lottery tickets.

>>929308
>in equities
Not the same as buying shares, moron. BH was never a trading firm. Their earliest deals were acquisitions of private companies (including the company from which the name was derived).

Stop buying stupid. Please.

>>929308
>in equities
Not the same as buying shares, moron. BH was never a trading firm. Their earliest deals were acquisitions of private companies (including the company from which the name was derived).

Stop being stupid. Please.

>>929316
Not true at all, anon. Buffet made his best gains on undervalued growth companies like Coca Cola. We really need a sticky on this board. The ideas that float around some of these threads are very strange

>>929318
>-1,25% YTD on the S&P-500
S&P 500 is positive for year with dividends. Or did you just forget that dividends were a thing?

You're just as dumb as the other guy.

>>929321
Do you understand what equities are, anon? Is this entire thread a bait thread?

>>929327
The SP is up 2% with dividends this year, anon.

If you are happy with those returns, you probably shouldnt be calling other people dumb

>>929335

and buffet is negative. But I'm sure you're a better money manager than warren buffett right?

>>929335
Why would anyone care about 1-year returns? Is there a comet on the way?

For fucks sake man, I'm not gonna bother if you don't up your game.

>>929340
So you completely missed the individual vs fund investing part of our conversation, anon? This board really needs that sticky.

The amount of money an investor like Buffet manages holds him back. This is fairly basic stuff, anon.

At this point, for you, I think your best bet is to put your money with Vanguard and forget it. You clearly dont have the attention span for becoming a succesful individual investor. Theres nothing wrong with that at all. Equities arent for everyone.

>>929343
Just out of curiosity, why are you in an equity thread if you dont have any interest in equities? I understand why the Bogleheads invest passively. It makes a lot of sense for some people. I dont understand why you guys stray outside your comfort zone, though

>>929348
>The amount of money an investor like Buffet manages holds him back. This is fairly basic stuff, anon.
Yes, and no. It prevents him from doing the same kind of easy, quick retail investments made everyday by individual investors.

But it also (much more importantly) opens the door to acquisitions, leveraged financing, and strategic combinations. All of these are potentially far more profitable than retail trading.

>You clearly
You're truly retarded. Why are Vanguard and equities mutually exclusive? And you do know that Vanguard has brokerage accounts, right? Jesus, you get dumber with every post.

>This board really needs that sticky.
No it doesn't, because I can't be bothered to write it. And people like you are just too stupid.

>>929354
>doesn't even know what equities are
>thinks mutual funds aren't equities
Now I'm just laughing. You're a pretty good troll. No one is actually this dumb.

>>929360
I never said that, anon. We all understand the difference between an individual equity and an ETF

>>929010
Nobody says that an individual can't do better than index funds, you idiot. The fact of the matter is simply that in the past 20 years index funds have done better than active-managed funds.

>>929324
Buffet had some skill but he also was in the right country at the right time.

There were other "Warren Buffets" before him, in other countries but most of them were wiped out due too circumstances beyond their control.

>>929390
>Buffet had some skill
Lol this fucking board

>>928900
Now that is some ball slapping investo donger action just swinging about all mandingo style. >>929390

>>929390

Warren Buffett bought land and leased it when he was 16 years old. With cash he earned from pin ball machines and need paper delivery routes. He was a multimillionaire before 20 and then after all that shit, then he went into stocks. Country and time were irrelevant, because he already owned factories and a newspaper company before he even touched stocks.

>>929406

>implying you can buy and lease land with pinball and paper delivery money today.

>people on here conflating hedge funds with individual investors
>people in here not realizing the amount of retards in the market that drags down the averages
>people in here getting mad because they're bears and have never and will never profit off the market
>people in here getting mad because that 1000 dollars they dropped on a penny stock disappeared

>>928954
So it's all luck then?

You literally have no strategy, and just spout off random platitudes and investment memes anyone who reads the front page of the WSJ knows

>>929096
With your "strategy," I'm not so sure there's a difference

>>929406
LOL

>>929406
>he already owned factories and a newspaper company before he even touched stocks.
>Place and time irrelevant

>Be Russian Warren Buffet 1917
>Own Land, factories and Newspapers
>Suddenly you own nothing and get killed by Bolsheviks
>>Place and time irrelevant

>Be German Warren Buffet in 1945
>Own Land, factories and Newspapers
>Land is now Poland and you told to fuck off
>factories bombed to shit,
>get thrown into prison because your newspapers printed Nazi propaganda
>You were smart ass and bought some US stocks since you thought they might win : USA: lol no, we seize all foreign assets and keep them as reparations
>At least you invested in IP and got the patent for magnetic tape recording. USA: U what m8? ;)
>Place and time irrelevant

>Be Somalian Warren Buffet at any time
>Own Land, factories and Newspapers
>le ebin value investor
>Nobody gives a shit ever
>Best value companies in your country never blow up on a global scale
>No rigged banking system to drive up land prices
>No biggest industrial expansion man has ever seen
>Place and time irrelevant

>>929553
The place and time is irrelevant. He might have been at a disadvantage but his clear thinking would have still given him an advantage. Take his compatriot George Soros for example, the entire nazi state was attempting to holocaust him yet he managed to escape with the help of some likeminded people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Early_life

So.
The whole point of this conversation is whether individual investors can beat the market or not. Until now, not a SINGLE of you has dared to post his results. OP posted what he claims to be his but did not show all the numbers. If he truly beat the market, he would have posted the whole story by now.

I laughed everytime someone said "you can't compare institutional investors with individual investors": that's 100% true. Because the institutional investors ALWAYS have advantages over individuals. It is really funny how you guys still think that making one good trade with 1 stock makes you a very skilled trader. You could also play the lottery and win, that is exactly the same. Or bet $10k on a shitty football team that actually wins that day. But, one day, that ONE stock that you bought will be fucked. If you do not diversify, yes, you get higher returns. But the day that stock goes down, you lose everything. You can be +80% this year, you might be -90% next year. I don't see how that is an advantage of individual investors over institutions. Concerning the graph with the "outperforming managers":
1. No source (apparently someone found out that it came from a book written by.... An active manager! How surprising)
2. As said before, the longer the time period, the less investors you find. You can get lucky for 10 years and just screw up in the next 10. And there's, what, 20 investors on this graph? How does that prove that YOU can do it?
3. Buffet isn't a "normal" individual investor. He doesn't just pick stocks, he actually has the power to influence the companies he invests in (and that's why one of his rule is "buy the whole company or at least a significant stake"). Moreover, because of the Buffet hype, stocks he invests in instantly rise after he buys them. That makes the job way easier.

At least we agreed that daytrading is a huge joke, thank you for that. Now, post ALL your results with ALL the numbers and show us how skilled you are.

>>929580

>>929139
>index funds are better
>implying that it's not because of QE

How the fuck would you know in 2003 about Fed policies, which were implemented 10 years later. If you would take a look on index funds in 2009 it would have looked the other way around, after all these huge dips in late 2008.

>>929582
>Forex meme...
Again, doesn't prove that you're gonna be persistent, you traded once and got lucky.

Next please?

>>929580
Underrated post.

>>929639
you're a dense faggot that's lost a lot of money apparently and that's why you're so butthurt. you're just disputing shit by classifying everything as a meme. 3% cuckslave.

>>929139
Let's talk index funds.

First, there's no guarantee a market grows forever. Although Siegel's stocks for the long run says otherwise, the U.S. has only had 5 unique 30 year runs since the formation of the NYSE. 5 variables is not enough to make judgements on

The Jap Nikkei crashed in 89 and today has not recovered to even half of previous levels and the DAXX continues to suffer horrendous crashes that undo 20 years of growth that take years to recover, only to form bigger bubbles with bigger crashes. Unless you're a huge nationalist that assumes the U.S. market is too good to do that then be more cautious

If you're saving for retirement, you have to be thinking in 20 year terms or you'll be fucked. What I mean is that you need to have a 20 year window to retire or there's a chaise you'll retire and "cash out" during a bust. Indexing is fine in small scale settings and with a large enough window.

>>929389
>active-managed funds
nice strawman

>>929451
>everyone who "knows" these "memes" will apply them with the same amount of skill and effort
idiot

>>929426
this

>>929299
>articles proving shit
Get off Random Walk's cock and stop sucking the Efficient Market cock syrup

There's just as much evidence that the market in controlled by irrational exuberance, animal spirits and over participation as there is prospect theory and law of averages you numbskull

>>929451
how about you do your research on this stock:
https://www.avanza.se/aktier/om-aktien.html/488679/next-biometrics-group

you'll probably be like "ermagerd it's gone up so fast, i'm so scared it's gonna crash" and you probably can't even read the languages without google translate. then in 6 months or something when the company has really proven itself you might be interested in it when the stock is several times more expensive.

>>929689
>everyone who "knows" these "memes" will apply them with the same amount of skill and effort

Yup, guess I can use Aristotelian physics in a very, very smart (with excess skill and effort) way to make correct postulations about the nature of the universe

Regardless of what you may think, you're not using Buffet's maymay strategy anyway. You're picking stocks more or less at random by the looks of it, trying to retroactively justify your picks by using a bunch of buzzwords. This would be analogous to someone winning at roulette, then claiming they had a "system." None of your success (however little you had, since you're not sharing the figures) doesn't reflect on you, it reflects on your luck

>>929580
Even OP is a boasting liar and doesn't posts his starting and current account balance.

>>929691
>Random Market
>Efficient Market

>>929688
>the U.S. has only had 5 unique 30 year runs since the formation of the NYSE
There's literally no reason that testing periods can't overlap. While I don't counsel putting too much emphasis on back-testing anyway, it's just stupid to contend that only "unique" periods are testable. Every statistician in the world is laughing at you.

>Jap Nikkei
The Nikkei is one market, and one subject to some unique factors. You don't judge global markets by looking at one country, just as you don't judge equities by looking at one stock. The Nikkei is a strawman.

>Indexing is fine in small scale settings and with a large enough window
There's no issue of scale with indexing. Its successfully used by millionaires and thousandaires alike.

Yes, indexing is a strategy best suited to long-term investing. Because it produces to best and most reliable gains. Every person on this board has 20 or more years before they retire. Every person on this board can and should have long-term investing goals.

>>929691
>Get off Random Walk's cock and stop sucking the Efficient Market cock syrup
You seem to have a childish obsession with cock. I'm not sure that makes you the most reliable source for financial advice.

>There's just as much evidence that the market in controlled by irrational exuberance, animal spirits and over participation as there is prospect theory and law of averages you numbskull
No. No there's not.

For some of us, "evidence" means academic studies and compiled statistics. For you, it seems to mean Youtube videos and frog memes.

>>929730

>>929749
>indexing is a strategy best suited to long-term investing. Because it produces to best and most reliable gains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S%26P_500_companies

you're dumb as hell if you can't find at least a few stocks that you could remove from your portfolio if you put even a modest amount of thought into it

>>929763
>you're dumb as hell if you can't find at least a few stocks that you could remove from your portfolio if you put even a modest amount of thought into it
Then do it, faggot. If you're truly smarter than the markets, then simply open a mutual fund that kicks out the dogs you don't like. If you can actually beat the index on a fee-adjusted basis year after year, you'll literally make millions of dollars.

>inb4 the excuses and backtracking

Would an index investor please explain this:

If you began dollar cost averaging into the S&P 500 in early 2000, today, 15 years later, you would only be up 30%. Thats awful. Horrible. And seeing as we're at an all time high, it wouldnt look good for you if you were going to start needing your money out anytime soon. I thought the whole point of index investing was you didnt have to try to time markets

Also, you guys say that it is impossible to know what markets will do in the future, but seem to have a lot riding on them always going up. Explain this too, please. Thanks

>>929767
/biz/ has got to be one of the worst boards on 4chan. there are many reasons why i won't start some mediocre murrican mutual fund and i shouldn't have to list them, especially since you won't listen anyway.

>>929770
It really is one of the worst boards

Individual investing != sticking your money in a mutual fund

It's the worst /biz/ meme to conflate the two

>>929769
>If you began dollar cost averaging into the S&P 500 in early 2000, today, 15 years later, you would only be up 30%. Thats awful. Horrible. And seeing as we're at an all time high, it wouldnt look good for you if you were going to start needing your money out anytime soon. I thought the whole point of index investing was you didnt have to try to time markets
That's one test case, and hardly a damning one. Even if your calculation is correct (which I strongly doubt given your post history), your conclusion is 100% wrong. Investment results can't be judged in the abstract, and calling an investment "awful" or "horrible" on ts own is simply retarded. All investments have to be judged by comparison to available alternatives, on a risk-adjusted basis. For all you know, 30% for that time period under those (artificial) facts, on a risk-adjusted basis, makes it the best investment available to a retail investor.

>Also, you guys say that it is impossible to know what markets will do in the future, but seem to have a lot riding on them always going up. Explain this too, please. Thanks
Global markets grow due to external factors that have nothing to do with the securities listed on those markets. Technology, population growth, and social and economic change all push markets in a positive direction, given sufficient time to smooth over the random walk.

Is it a foregone conclusion that these factors will always be positive? No, I guess not. We could have a Luddite revolution and smash all our computers, plus ISIS might take over and kick women out of the workforce, plus people might suddenly stop having sex and making new babies. But I'm betting that things will mostly stay the same.

>>929770
If you were right, you'd literally make millions of dollars. Why wouldn't you want that?

You insult the entire board, but when someone points out that you have a million dollar idea if you have the courage of your convictions, you act like a giant pussy.

So yes, /biz/ is indeed one of the worst boards, thanks to you and >>929772. The rest of us are tired of explaining simple shit to you over and over.

>>929784
A MUTUAL FUND IS NOT THE SAME THING AS AN INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR
HOLY SHIT
If I have to explain to you the differences between the two to you, please fucking leave this board forever.

>>929784
literally being this underage b&

>>929784
almost any serious business can make millions of dollars. but there's a lot of work behind any serious business. starting and managing a mutual fund is more complicated than "pick stocks" -> $$$

>>929770
It's the worst board because all the traders never post their real balance and returns yet they constantly deceive noobs who come here about making it big with their foolproof palm reading.

>>929786
Listen spaz, if you don't calm down you're gonna get put in the corner.

Now use your words. If you think your point is, in any way, relevant to the discussion here, try to explain it. Take your time. No one is going to rush you, and we don't expect much anyway.

>>929788
>underage b&
Kek, if you only knew.

>>929790
Being this triggered that you make serial posts. Slow down splurge lord. Decide what you want to say before opening your mouth. /biz/ is a slow board. The thread isn't going to disappear before you have a chance to post more stupid comments.

But thanks for your insightful comment that serious business requires work. Wow, my eyes are opened. Apparently millions of dollars isn't worth a little effort to you. Most of us would gladly leap at the prospect of earning that much money, no matter how much effort was required. But not you! What a shining example of financial acumen you're turning out to be!

>>929793
It's the worst board because all the index investors never post their real balance and returns yet they constantly deceive noobs who come here about making it big with their foolproof investment "strategy".

>>929772
>>929786
You're right. Being an individual investor is way harder as you can't rely on a team of MIT educated quants, multi-million dollar technical equipment and inside information.
The stocks you buy also don't instantly jump 5% the moment you announce your position.

>>929797
So show us your tax return and balance then? You seem to have it all figured out.

>>929801
So show us your tax return and balance then? You seem to have it all figured out.

>>929803
Im not a trader and you're the one trying to tell me you're the hotshit.

>>929797
>What is iHaz
>What is MMM
>What is literally every person who let their retirement money sit in a vanguard fund for the last 30 years

>>929795
>mutual funds are moving massive amounts of capital
>individual investors don't
>mutual funds have a direct impact on the stocks they pursue
>individual investors don't
>mutual funds have large amounts of people to answer too and must adjust their strategies to this
>individual investors don't
>mutual funds have significant added regulations
>individual investors don't
>mutual funds have to diversify to the point of diminishing returns in order to prevent risk
>individual investors don't
>mutual funds prevent having to pay exorbitant commissions
>individual investors no longer have to pay commissions
>mutual funds are themselves traded on the NYSE
>individual investors are not
Do I have to fucking keep going or no?

>>929798
This is what index "investors" actually believe

>>929805
>ITT: show off your gainzz
i'm not saying i'm the hotshit. this thread was supposed to have you post your 1-year returns (or whatever returns you feel like postings) because of the october 2014 dip that makes the 1-year percent gain looks better than usual. and most of my gains aren't even from trading you dipshit.

>>929808
mutual funds have huge costs for complying with SEC regulations too

>>929810
The funny thing is, you dont have to post great gains to beat the index guys. Im only up 5% on the year, due to a couple longterm oil plays, but Im still destroying their 2% S&P return

And no, do not ever post a picture of your portfolio on this site. Exact $ figures can be used to locate your account

>>929006

Stop sprouting EMH memes.

If you find a cyclical such as a mining company out of favour with The market right now but a good company nonetheless based on its business and financial profile, you can make money.

Basic contrarianism right there. Markets overbuy and oversell all the time on various companies.

>>929808
Meh, irrelevant. >>929763 claims to be smart enough to pull the dogs out of the S&P 500 and beat the index. If he could actually do that, then people would throw money at his feet to manage a mutual fund, hedge fund, trading desk, or investment company. People would hire him as an investment advisor.

The point, sparky, is that if >>929763 could actually do what he claims, he'd be one of the most valuable investment minds in the world.

Either that, or he's a delusional faggot.

Place your bets on which is correct.

>So stop spewing investopedia nonsense and pay attention to the discussion.

>>929817
Nice job cherrypicking that timeframe.
Were you up 11.4% in 2014? 30% in 2013? 13.5% in 2012? Were you up 25% in 2009?
Are you on average up 8% per year all without wasting more than 100$ on commission and wasting a single second on trying to "predict" the next FED decision?
No, because you probably just got into the market, made a couple lucky trades an now try to delude yourself into thinking your the next Buffet.

>>929822

as if you know when the markets are going to shift back to demand for that mining company, you could be going very long and still not beat the market.

>>929824
>No, because you probably just got into the market, made a couple lucky trades an now try to delude yourself into thinking your the next Buffet.

Dozen times this

All I see is one faggot who got lucky with no strategy, and is now trying to sell off on the idea that "guise, guise, I totally knew what I was doing!!! muh gainzzz"

Show me a coherent, justifiable, defensible strategy. You know what, I'm going to be even lenient and not even ask for a track record, because I'm that sure that you simply have no strategy beyond "I looked at the numbers and felt that it was a good stock"

>>929826

Metals prices wont stay depressed forever. Even if China cuts growth, there are other countries elsewhere ready to grow. There are 1st world nations needing to upgrade infrastructure.

See how we do it? That time the market is putting sell recommendations on these because they can't get any short term profit out.

There's 10 baggers and 100 baggers out there and you are sitting around with 2-5% Total market growth.

>>929874

Going long on undervalued stocks isn't guaranteed to beat the market. But you sould line one of those full of yourself investors that think you have everything figured out when you haven't even been trading for a year. So have fun ignoring any good advice.

>>929879
>guarunteed
Nothing is ever guarunteed, anon.

>>928826
posta portfölj, din nybög!

Have some numbers still learningkski

There was some get your shit together moments in the beginning. But beating the S+P500 as first time options trader.

>>928900
>>929403

You can see in my 1 year chart how things have been playing out. I slowly added money to my account. Then in the beginning of 2015 when the volatility began, I saw some losses due to my exposure to Europe and oil. I added $10k to my account and made those losses us when I began trading. I'm mostly cash now, only waiting to see what happens and doing some small trades daily aiming for a few hundred dollars in profit each day. Like I mentioned, I don't really want to trade long term. I just think that right now it's a good bet because I don't like being in the market over night and there's a ton of volatility to take advantage of.

>bitcoin in 2010
>SEO in 2010
What's something going on now that will be big in 5 years?

>>930223
>>930340
someone steps up and all the 3% roi fags disappear

>>930343
biometrics

https://www.avanza.se/aktier/om-aktien.html/488679/next-biometrics-group

perfect time to buy today. might dip a tiny bit more but don't worry. get in before 1 pm CEST since the CEO is going to have a webinar then. i'm not saying it's going to go through the roof at 1-2 pm CEST but there's some really exciting stuff coming in the next few weeks.

>>929808
all your points can be refuted pretty easily..

>mutual funds are moving massive amounts of capital
>mutual funds have a direct impact on the stocks they pursue
>mutual funds have large amounts of people to answer to and must adjust their strategies to this
depends on the size of the fund, ofc there is one point where it happens but before that being a mutual fund only has ADVANTAGES over an individual investor

>mutual funds have significant added regulations
i don't see how regulations on mutual funds change anything for individual investors. ANYWAYS, you are not able to do what they are not allowed to do. hedge funds never beat the market even though they were allowed to do everything and COULD actually do everything. if you are allowed to do stuff but you can't do it, it doesn't change anything.

>mutual funds have to diversify to the point of diminishing returns in order to prevent risk
which is normal because you don't wanna lose all your money like an idiot just because one stock crashes. that is the WHOLE point of this thread. beating the market with a nondiversified portfolio is NORMAL in the short term but in the long term you will get fucked

>mutual funds prevent having to pay exorbitant commissions
>individual investors no longer have to pay commissions
??? you pay management/load fees instead, and "only" robinhood offers no commission trading..... don't see how you can generalize that
>mutual funds are themselves traded on the NYSE
don't see how that changes anything?

>>929817
we'll see how you'll do next year. again, you "beat the market" superficially by accepting more risk, and most likely that risk will fuck you over one day

>>929824
says it all

>>930223
again proving our point. you are +8.8% in excess return of the S&P with ONE stock... let's see what happens when shit hits the fan in your company

>>930340
again we don't have all the numbers. day-trading is a fucking meme it's like playing fucking casino

>>930579
>replying to myself because i'm a fucking God

you also need to understand that if the stocks you've invested in go wrong, it will most likely be during a "financial crisis" or a period of recession which are the times where you need your money the most. you might lose your job, get a lower salary, etc. and you will need the money you've invested in. what will you do? sell low like a short term trash fag.

>>930562
>biometrics
just look at this shit

>>930579
That's a single period mouseover. I'm not in one stock at all. I invest in Options my man. My risk is limited to only extreme up days in which case I may lose some defined risk money

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/10/19/oprah-winfrey-weight-watchers/74206132/

dayum the weight watchers stock is really hot right now. i probably won't buy into it but from an intra-day perspective you could have had a quick 26%+ gain today and from a long-term perspective it could still be a good buy since oprah might help promote weight watchers.

>>930732
i like the part where gjewgle says the lowest today was 10,00 when it was actually around 10,76 or 10,77

>>930562
microsoft might be NEXT's first major client to be announced this week or next week. if not, then dell is the most likely alternative.