/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.1114500]

you guys don't actually put your money into individual stocks, right?

[Anonymous No.1114502]

>>1114500
Nope. Index Funds here.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1114518]

OP, you should know that the individual stock pickers, the daytrading wonders, the forex heroes, the swing magicians, the robinhood magnates, and the options wizards don't post in unfriendly threads like this. They only emerge deep in the depths of seldom visited shitposts where they can lie to each other about their "gainz" without the bright scrutiny of rational thinkers.

By calling them out directly, you've simply triggered the self-defence mechanisms that keep them tightly ensconced in a bubble of denial about their speculative strategies. At best, we'll get a couple of daring hit-and-run meme posts from the speculative crowd before they quickly dash off to safer climes.

[Anonymous No.1114522]

>>1114500
yea, i have. 10% of my portfolio is in individual stocks. fightme

[Anonymous No.1114525]

>>1114518
How the good life, iHaz? Also, what car do you currently have?

[Anonymous No.1114530]

Yes, I put $100 total into individual stocks, for fun

[Anonymous No.1114531]

>>1114500

No. I'm not an idiot.

I put it in ethereum.

[Anonymous No.1114533]

>daytrading cryptocurrency is bs gambling for neckbeards
>2-3 day pattern trading on SPY is legit srs bsns

[Anonymous No.1114534]

>>1114531
>not an idiot
>put it in Ethereum
Wahahahahahah

[Anonymous No.1114537]

>>1114518
iHaz help me not get cucked.

I've just been buying VFV so far(VOO denominated in Canadian dollars). I can't tell if this is a good idea anymore. Should I start buying CAD-hedged ETFs?

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1114545]

>>1114525
>How the good life, iHaz?
No complaints, other than that I'm dreading tax day. I've got a six-figure tax bill coming due. That's going to be painful.

#MillionaireProblems

>>1114537
It's worth looking into, but only IF you're not going to get murdered on the fees. I don't know much about hedging personal investments, admittedly, but a quick read on the Canadian bogleheads site doesn't sound encouraging.

http://www.finiki.org/wiki/Currency_hedging

[Anonymous No.1114561]

>>1114545
>It's worth looking into, but only IF you're not going to get murdered on the fees

I would be buying
https://www.vanguardcanada.ca/individual/mvc/detail/etf/overview?portId=9562&assetCode=EQUITY##overview

Instead of VFV. MER is the same unless I'm missing something. Reading through the link you posted right now btw.

Tbh I'm not sure I should really do it. I don't have much hope in Canada and it for everything that says it's going to get better there appears to be equal or more saying it won't for a long time, if ever.

I dunno. Ontario keeps making really shitty financial decisions and seems to only be falling further in debt, in combination with it being the most indebt subnational.

[Anonymous No.1114562]

no i only put my money on things like Doge coins and that scam robinhood


nah, im not that fucking stupid. I have stock in NUGT, WLC.to, and SYN

[Anonymous No.1114564]

>>1114537
We are being led by a drama teacher and are being slaughtered by oil prices.

I would not throw money into Canada atm unless you want to play guess what oil company will survive the bust.

[Anonymous No.1114568]

>>1114564
Good point man.

Have you heard the latest news of their plans in Ontario to make tuition FREE for students whose parents earn less than $50k/yr combined?

This can only end up disastrous...

[Anonymous No.1114574]

>>1114518

Is it worth saving up for admiral shares compared to just buying investor shares right now for Vanguard funds?

[Anonymous No.1114599]

>>1114518
I agreed with you at first but now you just come off as a faggot. All you do is complain and shitpost on this fucking board. Everytime I come on here I see you whining. This board is shit but your constant bitching about this board is pathetic.

You realize you can leave? You aren't like the other tripfags who actually contribute shit. Nobody is stopping you.

[Anonymous No.1114608]

>>1114599
But iHaz is one of the more knowledgeable users and gives great advice.

Of course he's annoyed as anyone would be about the "How do i daytrade guize" "How do I pick a winner I have $1321.43"

[Anonymous No.1114650]

>>1114500
>he didn't buy Cheniere (LNG) a week ago right before their first export ship left Sabine Pass
It's like you don't want to profit 20% in a week

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1114670]

>>1114574
>Is it worth saving up for admiral shares compared to just buying investor shares right now for Vanguard funds?
No. Time in market is too important to put off investing. Admiral shares are a perk of having higher balances, not a threshold for getting started. Start now, and then convert (for free, tax free too) to Admiral shares later.

>>1114599
Like >>1114608 said, I'm not complaining about the board. I'm just pointing out the strange habits of a small minority of shitposters.

Lighten up Francis. Not everything I post has to be straight out of an academic journal.

[Anonymous No.1114673]

>>1114670
Pls chime in on >>1114561

I can't make my mind up.

[Anonymous No.1114683]

>>1114568
Ontario is already a disaster, at this point their just bailing water into their sinking ship while drilling more holes in it.

>>1114650
>20%
>not buying Chesapeake for 1.60 and selling for 2.70 two weeks later.

[Anonymous No.1114685]

>>1114673
not him.. but it sounds like a good deal to me. stay away from the currency hedged funds tho canada currency is absolutely in the shitter and you actually want the currency exposure at this point (there is large upside in the long run). the sp500 is also cheap now and has big upside with an oil rebound same as canada.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1114687]

>>1114673
I learned long ago not to give advice on something unless I'm sure about it. Unfortunately, currency hedging is just not within my wheelhouse.

I will note that what most caught my eye on the finiki page was the section on volatility. If currency hedging in Canada really does increase volatility, then its entirely counter-productive.

[Anonymous No.1114690]

>>1114683
>Ontario is already a disaster, at this point their just bailing water into their sinking ship while drilling more holes in it.

That's why I believe it's safe to bet against it in the foreseeable future, is it not?

Trudeau and Wynne are a walking disaster. Really no optimism on my part in any of this at all.

>>1114685
>stay away from the currency hedged funds tho canada currency is absolutely in the shitter and you actually want the currency exposure at this point (there is large upside in the long run)

Yep. THat's what I'm doing right now.

I just figured the CAD had already bottomed more or less and is on it's way up and was getting worried i was making the wrong choice by continuing to buy VFV.

[Anonymous No.1114692]

>>1114687
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.1114693]

>>1114500
>>1114500
>>1114500

Suck me, OP. That's all I own.

[Anonymous No.1114694]

>>1114693
>He uses Windows

Don't you know it spies on you?

Come on over to Memeux masterrace.

[Anonymous No.1114703]

>>1114693
the meme is that's why you have lost a couple grand and only made 1 winning investment with a gain under $200.

[Anonymous No.1114722]

>>1114703
You can meme me what ever you want, It's been a rough start to this quarter.

In the first 50 something days of this year I've had $1,300+ in realized gains and dividends.

[Anonymous No.1114755]

>>1114722
you still lost money and you don't even have exposure to every market sector.

kek you don't seem to realize what the issue is.

[Anonymous No.1114758]

>>1114703
>>1114755
Job well done bro. You rekt this pleb winfag

Pic related it's me using Debian with XFCE

>MFW winfags lose money not only on their shitty operating spyware system but also on their stockpicks

[Anonymous No.1114781]

>>1114755
You do have fair points. I am down overall for the year. And I'm not as well diversified as I would like to be.

But that said, I'm very confident my picks will rebound, maybe sooner than later, and I won't incur and real losses. In the mean time I soak up those sweet dividends even when my portfolio is down.

[Anonymous No.1114804]

I put a whopping $100 into individual penny stocks and made $4.

Get rekt OP

[Anonymous No.1114818]

Hey Ihaz, what vanguard investor shares would you recommend currently? Is it even worth to put money in while we are in a bear economy?

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1114855]

>>1114818
>we are in a bear economy
Huh? We haven't had negative GDP growth since 2009. Stop watching so much Fox News.

[Anonymous No.1114871]

>>1114855
>>1114855
kek was about to post this exact comment

cheers

[Anonymous No.1114879]

>>1114531
LOOOOOOOOOOOL

[Anonymous No.1114881]

Bumpy

[Anonymous No.1115074]

I don't even participate in my employer's ESPP

not even baby boomers hold shares of procter and gamble anymore

[Anonymous No.1115106]

>>1114500
The whole question is ridiculous. I guess you are talking about stock pickers vs indexers. So individual stocks vs an index. Newsflash, an index consist of individual stocks. Basically what you are asking is:

>Why buy shares of stock ABC with this pile of money?
>Instead, you should put 3.01% of your cash in Apple, 1.95% in Google, 1.75% in Microsoft, 1.52% in Exxon, 1.26% in General Electric, 1.25% in Johnson & Johnson, 1.14% in Wells Fargo, 1.11% in Amazon, 1.10% in Berkshire Hathaway, 1.10% in JPMorgan Chase, 1.00% in Facebook,”


...and on and on it goes. SPY consist of individual stocks. The whole reason to index is, diversifaction and being satisfied with the return the market provides.

The reason someone doesn't want to index is because maybe someone doesn't his or her portfolio to be waighted towards big tech stocks.

BTW, I'm an indexer, I'm 100% in SPY, but to claim that I don't own individual stocks is ridiculous. I own individual stocks, 500 of them, and they are being weithed by market cap, put together by some commitee, so I don't have to dig through financial statements to see what businesses are good to invest in. I accept the returns the market provides.

[Anonymous No.1115123]

>>1115106
Go back to Investopedia! This is a forum for ignoratant people only!!!!

[Anonymous No.1115134]

>>1114531

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1115167]

>>1115106
>an index consist of individual stocks
True, of course, but there's two very important distinctions that need to be made.

First, the individual stocks in an index are selected by secular criteria, i.e., for reasons other than speculation about future performance. These criteria may be entirely objective (as in the case of a "total market" fund) or subjective (as in the S&P 500 or DJIA). But even in the case of subjective benchmarks, the publisher of the index is looking at thing like market capitalization, or sector representation, and isn't trying to predict how the stocks will perform.

By contrast, the individual stock picker is making selections based on his guesses, hunches, and predictions about the performance of his selections. Even when using seemingly "objective" criteria (whether TA or FA), the stock picker is still making a speculative prediction about future stock movements. To give the simplest example, a stock picker buys Apple, but passes on Google, because he predicts (guesses, gambles) that Apple will perform better going forward.

Unfortunately for the stock picker, studies prove time and time again the folly of trying to predict the future price movements of individual stocks. Thus, the stock picker fails to beat the index.

Second, an index doesn't make timing decisions to buy or sell its individual components. While the constituent stocks in an index do occasionally change, for the most part an index is pure "buy and hold" in the sense that the stocks in the index don't change based on market conditions.

(cont.)

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1115170]

By contrast, the individual stock picker is constantly buying and selling based on his guess, prediction, hunch about the future prospects of the stock and the markets as a whole. The individual stock picker tries to "buy low, sell high" and tries to "buy the dips" and sets price targets and stop losses and worries about "market sentiment" and trend lines and price support and moving averages.

All this noise leads to suboptimal timing decisions, according to the Dalbar studies. It feeds into the stock picker making speculative -- and more often than not -- emotion-driven financial decisions. Consequently, in 90+% of cases, the stock picker fails to beat the index.

So when we talk about the futility of individual stock picking, we're not dismissing stocks in general. Stocks are wonderful, and enjoy collectively a strong positive bias from outside influences that historically drive markets higher. As the saying goes: a rising tide lifts all boats.

[Anonymous No.1115177]

>>1115167
>>1115170

Most indexers use value-weighted indices such as the S&P500. This does seem subobtimal though (see Fama & French three factor model, outperformance of smaller stocks). You would think that it would be better for most retail investors to just invest in equal weighted ETFs.

[Anonymous No.1115237]

>>1115167
Look at the ETF/mutual fund you would like to own. GO through and buy each of the stocks that is in the ETF. You now have your own fund and have cut out the middle man, thus increasing your gains. I currently have around 8k invested in many stock from all sectors, including foreign. Works fine for me.

[Anonymous No.1115271]

>indexes only ever go up

[Anonymous No.1115276]

>>1115170
So how do you think I should invest my money?

[Anonymous No.1115278]

[Anonymous No.1115279]

[Anonymous No.1115282]

[Anonymous No.1115283]

[Anonymous No.1115288]

And fiiinaly... the SP500
>the only reason you guys are so in love with index funds is you started investing somewhere in the biggest 5 year bullrun for indexes ever

Someone who started buying indexes in the 60s retired with ZERO gains in the 90s

[Anonymous No.1115294]

>>1115271
>>1115278
>>1115282
>>1115283
What part of "well diversified" don't you understand?

>>1115279
Also not well diversified but you still wouldn't have lost money over almost any 5 year time period.
So good job proving yourself wrong. At least try cherrypicking a little more carefully the next time.

[Anonymous No.1115321]

>>1115294
Way to ignore the coup de gras
>g-good job proving yourself WRONG!
Never heard you index guys suggesting 5 year time periods. That's a new one

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1115391]

>>1115271
>>1115276
>>1115278
>>1115279
>>1115282
>>1115283
>>1115288
You selectively pick a handful of markets out of the hundreds that an indexer would be invested in, you present cherry-picked time frames that don't correlate to your other examples, you present inflation-adjusted results to avoid an apples-to-apples comparison, and then you lie about historic S&P 500 returns. You might as well throw up charts of the bottom performing S&P 500 individual stocks too, since we know, by definition, that some stocks in the index lag the index.

Let's also take notice of the fact that you haven't presented any better performing alternative strategy. So whatever the shortcoming of indexing, you apparently don't have anything better to offer.

>>1115321
>Never heard you index guys suggesting 5 year time periods.
Huh? It's pretty standard in the academic research to look at active investor 5-year performance as the minimum statistically significant time period. Longer is better, of course, but practical limitations have to be respected.

Of course, since you choose to ignore the research, you wouldn't know any of this.

But by all means, keep on shit-posting like usual, kid. Your posts are one of the most effective education tools I could imagine. You're a real life example of common investor logical fallacies and delusion.

[Anonymous No.1115447]

>>1115391
Chill out angry trip. Im not even talking against index investing. It's very useful as one investement tool as part of a bigger strategy.

I am countering the argument I hear on here a lot that "markets only ever go up." You yourself in this thread extrapolated 8% yearly average gains into infinity as an argument for index investing. Yet at the same time claim it is impossible to predict markets movements. Markets don't always go up and for all you know, U.S. stocks will crash and burn next year and never come back, as happened in many of the foreign index charts I posted. At no point did I lie or "cherrypick". And you should always think in inflation adjusted terms or you're fooling yourself

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1115592]

>>1115447
Strawman much?

Why would you make up a statement -- something that NO ONE in this thread said -- and then make 9 separate posts refuting the made-up statement?

I think its because you don't have a credible argument to make against indexing. All you can do is argue with yourself, Well, we're trying to have a serious discussion here, kid. If you want to play pretend, go elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.1115605]

>>1115592
Oh hey look, a trip is lying about what he said earlier.
>>1115170
>Stocks are wonderful, and enjoy collectively a strong positive bias from outside influences that historically drive markets higher. As the saying goes: a rising tide lifts all boats.

I'm pointing out that is not true for a very large number of investors, namely those who index invesed in a number of foreign markets and those who index invested in America between the 1960s and 1990s.

I'm not talking down ETFs at all. Now is a great time to be buying emerging market ETFs IMO. I wouldnt go near any sort of American index at this time, however. I think you'd be crazy to advise others to do so

[Anonymous No.1115610]

>>1115605
>60's-90's
>wouldnt go near any american index
>what is exponential growth

not a fan of tripfags either, but you have no idea what youre talking about. pls stawwp

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1115617]

>>1115605
Oh hey look, an anonymous faggot is changing his argument because he got called out for (a) lying in his first posts, and (b) making strawman arguments in his second post.

In point of fact, stocks do enjoy strong positive bias from external factors. Nationalistic factors, such a GDP growth and population growth, positively influence local markets. Certain cultural changes also positively influence markets, such as women entering the work force, trends towards longer working hours, and less vacations. Developments in legal and regulatory structures eliminate market inefficiencies, such as corruption, price manipulation, and insider trading. And lastly, technological advancement generally contributes to both demand and efficiency gains, providing a strong positive bias in affected markets.

>>1115605
>I think you'd be crazy
Wow, yet another shifting argument. So now you're all about the market timing? Good luck with that.

Dalbar's been studying investor behavior for decades, and attempted market timing is the #2 biggest mistake that investors make (paying excess fees being #1).

>inb4 you're the special snowflake that successfully times the market

[Anonymous No.1115631]

>>1115237
This is like saying it's a better idea to manage your own portfolio weights and a balanced and diversified portfolio in 500 stocks to save yourself .1% in fees.

Retarded

[Anonymous No.1115687]

>>1115610
2% dividend reinvestment over 30 years is nothing to brag about

>>1115617
My first post read ">indexes only ever go up" and all my other posts verify how ridiculous that statement is. I'm not sure why you're so angry and posting wall of text rants.

As far as market timing, there were thousands of investors who went cash in 07 and 08 and saved their asses. A large number of institutional investors are increasing their cash positions heavily right now. You dont have to know the exact minute a stock will skyrocket to "time the market." But if you cant see larger headwinds, youre blind.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1115728]

>>1115687
>My first post read ">indexes only ever go up" and all my other posts verify how ridiculous that statement is.
Congrats anon. You've spent hours in this thread refuting an argument that you admit you made up. Must be nice to have the luxury to shitpost to that degree.

>/strawman general/

>As far as market timing
You make it sound super easy. So easy, that any one can do it.

Except that more than 90% who try, fail.

The markets aren't weather patterns. They don't have "headwinds" or other simple explanations. It's a complex multi-faceted system that no one to date has been able to accurately model.

And yet you pretend that you've done exactly that.

>/roleplaying general/

[Anonymous No.1115748]

>>1114531
Nice

[Anonymous No.1115768]

>>1115728
Enough hedge fund managers are significantly increasing their cash positions that I'm not alone in my observations that we are in danger of heading into a strong correction. I don't know where you got this 90% number or what you consider "timing the market," but I'm just pointing out very evident facts. Make of them what you will. Like I said, there are certain ETFs I would buy now, and theres nothing wrong with holding all your stocks in ETFs of it suits your propensity for risk.

I suppose my question for you and my point in all of it is:

Why not add to your diversified ETF portfolio by buying weakness in certain sectors, like energy and emerging markets, instead of dollar cost averaging the whole thing at the historic peak of the broader index?
>why dollar cost average UP?

[Anonymous No.1115782]

>>1115768
>Enough hedge fund managers are significantly increasing their cash positions that I'm not alone in my observations that we are in danger of heading into a strong correction

Hedge Funds largely under-perform the market.

They are mostly nothing but scammers in suits who shine their degrees at you with big smiles to take your money.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1115788]

>>1115768
Have fun following the lead of hedge fund managers.

>Why not add to your diversified ETF portfolio by buying weakness in certain sectors, like energy and emerging markets, instead of dollar cost averaging the whole thing at the historic peak of the broader index?

You choose your asset allocations based on your risk tolerances, your practical needs, your investment horizon, and your personal goals. Chasing any particular market segments, for any reason, means you're letting the markets dictate your portfolio structure. That's not smart.

Furthermore, there's no evidence that chasing weak sectors leads to greater alpha. Value stocks do not outperform a diversified long-term portfolio (the possible exception being U.S. small-cap value stocks). The segments you mention are just as likely to underperform going forward as anything else.

So, no, a smart investor is not going to overweight into dogs.

>Lastly, for the record, I don't recommend dollar-cost averaging either. That's the third time you've just made up or assumed something. Can you try discussing the actual posts in the thread and not the imaginary voices in your head?

[Anonymous No.1115789]

>>1115782
Stop with the memes. You complete ignore 2:20 rule and that they actively avoid being killed in down years because one of the upsides is investots can pull their money out without getting murdered in a crash as they would with indexes. Hedge fund managers are typically extremely good and intelligent investors

[Anonymous No.1115793]

i have done a few single stocks.


one was great. ( stations casinos before they went private) and my ROI was 350% over 4 years

now. etf and funds

[Anonymous No.1115797]

>>1115789
>You complete ignore 2:20 rule and that they actively avoid being killed in down years because one of the upsides is investots can pull their money out without getting murdered in a crash as they would with indexes

>some idiot typed this statement out

Kek you are just talking out of your ass as demonstrated by this post. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.1115800]

>>1115788
You make a lot of vague statements.
>there's no evidence...
>value stocks do not outperform...
Im not even sure what you're talking about at this point you're being so vague.

Anyways, if you dont recommend DCAing, would you say now is a good time to begin a diversified ETF portfolio?

[Anonymous No.1115802]

>>1115797
Nice rebuttal.
>I'll post frogs and be derogatory! That'll make me look smart!

[Anonymous No.1115806]

>>1114500
Yes, yes I do. Strictly dividend stocks, though, and diversified through several sectors. Fuck day-trading.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1115813]

>>1115800
>You make a lot of vague statements.
No, I really don't. I make a lot of statements that you have no idea how to answer, especially since I back up my statements with citations.

If you're unable to keep up with the discussion, try asking questions instead of doubling-down on your ignorance and making ridiculous, laughable comments.

>would you say now is a good time to begin a diversified ETF portfolio?
Yes. Assuming you have a steady income, and a fully-funded cash emergency fund, then yes.

Ask me 5 years ago: same answer. Ask me back in 2000: same answer. Ask me tomorrow: same answer. Ask me in five years: same answer, unless the alien invasion happens.

>>1115802
You can bitch and moan, but you did make an incredibly stupid comment that's directly contrary to established research. So maybe you don't really have grounds to complain....

[Anonymous No.1115815]

>>1115813
So if you suggest now is a good time to start indexing, you are either saying markets will continue to go up, or you are advocating DCAing down. Which is it?

[Anonymous No.1115821]

>>1114525
>>1114537
>>1114608
>>1115610
>>1115797
I'm sure at least a few of these are iHaz. This faggot samefags in every single thread.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1115823]

>>1115815
Neither. First, I make no particular predictions about the future price direction of the markets. I do assume that the inherit positive bias that I described in >>1115617 will continue, an assumption that it supported by all available facts. Thus, for the long-term investor, the smartest decision is to maximize their time in market. That means the right time to invest is when you have money to invest.

Second, please stop suggesting that I advocate dollar-cost averaging. I've never made that statement, and I expressly disavowed it in this thread.

If you're unable to post a comment with making unsubstantiated assumptions about my views, then don't post. And if you want to know something, ask a question.

>Also, congrats on the false dichotomy. That's your fourth (fifth?) logical fallacy of the thread.

[Anonymous No.1115826]

>>1115823
>inherint positive bias
So youre saying "markets always go up" in a fancy way. I refer you to my previously posted charts

If someone cant have a conversation without claiming false dichotomies where there are none, they typicallt have nothing of substance to say

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1115833]

>>1115826
Huh? Obviously markets don't always go up. Equity markets have fallen in 25 of the last 90 years, and bond markets have fallen in 14 of the last 90 years.

At this point you're just repeating yourself. I'm happy to have a discussion about investing, or even a debate, but I'm not going to waste my time in a one-sided conversation. You obviously have no interest in learning anything or fixing your bad habits. Good luck with your sector picking and your market timing.

[Anonymous No.1115834]

Inherited 30k at 21 years old so I figured buying stocks would be wiser because of dividends. Got mainly dividend aristocrats like aflac, coca-cola, exon, walmart and blizzard as a wild card because I like their games

[Anonymous No.1115835]

Part of me say ride the index funds because no one part of the economy can drag them down. Consistent 6-7% average returns.

The other parts says to throw my money into a sci/tech or healthcare fund. Since Shillary is getting the nomination and will get stumped by the Trump the healthcare industry is not going anywhere. Obamacare is a massive handout to the insurance industry. Sci/tech is always full of start ups with massive returns on investment.

Anecdote time: parents put $2k into UNSCX back in 1990 when i was 1 year old. Family of family worked for W&D and suggested the fund. In 2009 I had $18k to take out for college. Brothers landed on the better side of recession and had $20k in their accounts when they tapped them. Hard to argue with close to 14% returns.

[Anonymous No.1115838]

>>1115833
>gets called out over and over
>STOP REPEATING YOURSELF

[Anonymous No.1115867]

>>1115821

[Anonymous No.1115894]

>>1115826
His statement isnt wrong. There is positive drift. It's proven my man.

[Anonymous No.1115895]

>>1115826
>>1115894

This is also assuming a constant amount of money. You should be dumping money in when the market is down significantly.

[Anonymous No.1116105]

>>1115894
There has been in the S&P 500. Doesnt mean there will continue to be. And there hasn't been in a good many other indexes. A lot of money has been artificially shoved into stocks so it's hard to see a situation where even more money could enter the field unless we start seeing much more positive economic signs. Anyways thats another conversation.

My main gripe with the index crowd on this site is that while their argument against stock picking is that you cant predict markets, they always predict markets will continue to rise. ETFs are awesome. I plan on buying a bunch when the market inevitably corrects. But if you're going to say markets always go up, you would have to also say Exxon Mobil always goes up and Google always goes up, because historically, they do. Both statements are equally stupid

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1116137]

>>1116105
>A lot of money has been artificially shoved into stocks so it's hard to see a situation where even more money could enter the field unless we start seeing much more positive economic signs.
So said skeptics in 2010. And 2012. And 2013. And 2014.

In truth, you have no idea how much uninvested capital and savings are available to the equity markets. You're just making a wild ass guess, and most likely a wrong one.

While it's going to be hard to pin down the amount of investing dry powder out there, we do know some things. We know that investments in private equity remain strong, even through the end of 2015. Investors continue to pump trillions into index funds. Clearly there is still uninvested capital out there, and bond yields are still miles from attractive.

Is there risk? Of course there's risk. Equity investing inherently bears risk, including indexing strategies. But if that's your only criticism -- that it's possible to lose money with index funds -- then congratulations on stating the patently obvious.

And yet, I can't help but notice that you STILL haven't told us the risk-adjusted alternative that's better....

>they always predict markets will continue to rise
No we don't. We predict that the markets will continue to benefit from the positive influences that helped make the markets a historically solid investment. We predict that GDP growth will continue. That populations will rise, buoying demand. We predict that the markets will get more efficient and more dynamic. That technology will continue to drive economic growth and efficiency in production.

Indexers don't predict that Exxon or Google will continue to rise next year. Rather, indexers predict that tomorrow's world will be incrementally more conducive to Exxon and Google (and every other stock), providing them with an enhanced opportunity to rise.

If you can't understand the difference between those two statements, then indexing just isn't for you kid.

[Anonymous No.1116142]

>>1114533
kek

[Anonymous No.1116168]

>>1116137
>so said skeptics in 2010. And 2011. And 2012. And 2013. And 2014
Ever heard of QE? Cmon, man. Funny you left out 2015. QE ended and markets fell flat. That's my only point here. Continuing to buy indexes at the peak of an artificially inflated market is about as risky as it gets.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1116176]

>>1116168
>Funny you left out 2015.
I left out 2015 for the same reason I left out 2011. Both were basically flat (2015 being slightly positive and 2011 being slightly negative).

That being said, I don't think you know what QE was. The government didn't buy equities or inflate equity demand. They bought fixed interest securities, increasing bank liquidity and driving down interest rates. Low interest rates caused some investors to increase their equity allocations, and that increased demand (and prices) by some degree.

Guess what? Interest rates were historically low in 2015 too, Oh by the way, they still are.

So your correlation argument has a lot of holes. QE might "artificially" inflate equity markets, and it might not. It didn't in Japan, which has a much longer history of QE than the US. The case is Europe is pretty mixed too.

The truth is, people like you don;t really need a justification to try to time the market, You see whatever pattern or signal or indicator you want to see, and then you make a guess. Your investment decisions are driven by emotion, but you dress it up with whatever argument makes you sleep at night. Good luck with that, snowflake.

>That's my only point here.
You haven't had a clear point the entire thread, other than that you have some bearish prediction, guess, or hunch about the future direction of the markets. Good for you, man, Every underperforming loser from Main Street to Wall Street says the same thing. So you'll just have to forgive those of us with a rational brain in our heads if we dismiss you as a kook and ignore your advice entirely.

[Anonymous No.1116180]

>>1116176
Ok champ. Seems like you bought your own bullshit hook, line, and sinker. Any reasonable person would see a 5 year bull run to historical highs, followed by an extended flattening out and an abrupt 15% drop and say, "hey, I'm gonna take a pause from buying and wait for the market to establish a clearer direction here." I think youre the one letting emotion take over there m8. Most of your posts ITT amount to, "LALALALALALALA IM NOT LISTENING NOWS A GREAT TIME TO BUY."

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1116197]

>>1116180
>he thinks buy-and-hold is "bullshit"
>advocates market timing instead
Okay champ. Keep on ignoring the decades of research that unanimously conclude that the future short-term direction of the markets cannot be predicted.

Keep waiting for a "clearer direction" just like millions of your pals did in 2010. And 2012. And 2013. And even into 2014. Keep on being spooked by the normal fluctuations of the markets. You only missed a 250% six-year bull run, but that's a small price to pay since you avoided this month's whopping 10% down movement. Yikes.

>historical highs
Markets are at or near historical highs on 20% of ALL trading days, historically. If you're going to piss your pants to head to the sidelines every time we approach historical highs, you're going to dump your entire portfolio every five days. And of course, you'll also make massive mistakes on your entry points too, further adding to your losses. What a shit show.

Now maybe your extreme turtling is appropriate for your particular circumstances. Perhaps you're a year or two from retirement. Perhaps your income is so small that you can't afford volatility in your investments. Perhaps you have ass cancer and only have a year to live. If any of these are true, then you keep on doing what you're doing.

The rest of us, with normal lives and long investment horizons, will do what's best for normal investors.

Good luck with the ass cancer and the market timing.

[Anonymous No.1116207]

>>1116176
>It didn't in Japan, which has a much longer history of QE than the US.

There is clearly a relationship between QE and asset inflation. There is a thing called the transmission mechanism in monetary policy. The Nikkei has doubled in the years since Kuroda announced the largest asset purchase program in world history. This makes intuitive sense. The transmission mechanism ensures that some of the tens of billions of dollars worth of yen created out of thin air to buy bonds winds up in equity markets. There's nothing "artificial" about it.

The CAPE ratio is currently in the 99th percentile, and he is correct to suggest that equities are priced highly relative to historical norms. I don't know if you know this, but John Bogle, the guy who has been the figurehead of index investing, moved everything except 25% of his portfolio into cash and bonds during the dot-com bubble.

You don't need any trades to take place for the price of an asset to drop, and practically everything has a long investment duration baked into its price. I truly believe the world is headed towards further technological advancement and general disintermediation. It doesn't necessarily follow that publicly traded companies as a whole will continue to grow and extract enormous value from consumers. Self-driving cars will single handedly end the need for many multi-billion dollar companies involved in transportation and car production due to massive gains in transport efficiency. Blockchain technology also shows promise in removing the need for many multi-billion dollar companies. There is no free lunch. I can't offer you a "safe, reliable, guaranteed return" that will work forever. No one can.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1116234]

>>1116207
>The Nikkei has doubled
Correlation is not causation. Plenty of markets have doubled in a given time span without QE.

To be clear, I don't doubt that QE has some positive impact on equity prices. However, I do not accept conclusory pronouncements about the degree or longevity of those effects. Anyone who clamours that the U.S. markets are going to plunge as a result of the Fed's cessation of QE is missing two important facts: (1) QE ended some 15 months ago, and the markets have not changed by any degree outside the standard variance for that time period, and (2) there is no direct evidence that the absence of QE will lead to any statistically significant market effects going forward.

Unless you have actual evidence to counter these points, you're just making a speculative guess.

Of course, you're entitled to make any guesses you want, follow any hunches you wish, and heed any gut feelings you have. But that's just not how some of us make financial decisions.

>I can't offer you a "safe, reliable, guaranteed return" that will work forever.
No one said indexing will work forever. There's already research that suggests when more than 60% of the market adopts indexing, it may become more optimal to pursue alternate strategies. But that's a problem for our great-grandchildren.

The only real question is do you, or anyone else, have a long-term investing strategy that outperforms indexing on a risk-adjusted basis?

Thing is: we already know you don't. People much, much smarter than you (and even me) have already proven this in peer-reviewed studies.

If and when a better method is proven, I'll be the first to change strategies. I doubt it'll happen in our lifetime, but you never know.

Still, I won't try to stop you from guessing the market's future, playing the lottery, visiting casinos, or betting on sports. It's your money, and you can lose it however you want. Just don't drag others down with you, okay?

[Anonymous No.1116243]

>>1116234
Hmm

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1116245]

>>1116243
Yeah, all I see is a chart with a Y-axis manipulated to create an apparent correlation in two line segments in the last 10% of the X-axis.

Don't be so gullible. I'm not.

[Anonymous No.1116251]

>>1116245
Ihaz what do you think of this
>>1116235
In order to reduce brokerage fees?

[Anonymous No.1116252]

>>1116245
>massive expansion in the monetary base doesn't inflate prices
Opinion discarded.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1116272]

>>1116251
You're asking questions about the mechanics and fees of Australian investment accounts, which I really don't know. You'll need to ask someone more familiar with your local options, perhaps on the bogeheads.org forum.

I'd rather give no answer than guess and give you bad advice. Good luck.

>>1116252
I already said there was a relationship between QE and equity prices. I also said I question the degree and longevity of that relationship.

If you can't be bothered to read the posts in a thread, don't jump in at the end and make flyby shitposts.

[Anonymous No.1116290]

>>1114500
Buy amd

[Anonymous No.1116427]

>Indexer arrogance
Are you guys aware that you're making the same blind leap of faith like individual stock buyers? You're believing that your basket of stocks will continue to rise over time. You know what they say. Past performance does not predict future performance, and when your index tanks, you'll switch to another index like the good speculator that you are. Hell, even Vanguard Retirement Funds have changed several time. Don't pretend to be any smarter than you actually are.

[Anonymous No.1116458]

>>1116427
>what is diversification
>has no counter-point so questions faith in the market as a whole

Great argument bud!

[Anonymous No.1116470]

>>1116458
It's not diversification if you only by meme indexes. Why don't some people here buy commodity indices like gold or oil? Because you're a bunch of speculating pieces of shit like the rest of us.

>MUH DIVERSIFICATION
>B-BUT DON'T BUY THESE INDICES BECAUSE THESE OTHER INDICES ALWAYS GO UP

[Anonymous No.1116475]

>>1116234
>The only real question is do you, or anyone else, have a long-term investing strategy that outperforms indexing on a risk-adjusted basis?

I will agree that index investing is most definitely preferable to the stock picking being done by the unemployed and state school recent-graduates of this board. That's it, though. I don't think indexing is bulletproof. You might be able to extract another 5, 10 or even 15 years out of your indexing strategy. No one knows. I wouldn't place too much weight on expert researchers throwing out some arbitrary percentage for when indexing will stop being effective.

I never pretended to precisely quantify the extent to which QE inflates asset prices across all markets. I don't think that's even possible in such a dynamic global market environment.

>Still, I won't try to stop you from guessing the market's future, playing the lottery, visiting casinos, or betting on sports. It's your money, and you can lose it however you want. Just don't drag others down with you, okay?

I fully agree that 99.99% of the people on this board are not smart enough to pick stocks. However, I believe that stock picking will be the only way to see returns that come close to what has been achieved in the past with index investing. Percentage-wise, dividend payments are half of what they used to be, and projected earnings growth is widely expected to be much lower than the past. It's very mathematically improbable that index investing will be nearly as effective going forward.

I suggest you read this:

http://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/its-not-over-till-the-fat-lady-goes-on-a-p-e-diet

[Anonymous No.1116486]

>>1116470
Of course it's diversification.

US markets, international markets and bonds. Conveniently available in prepackaged form that would be completely out of reach for any single individual to have that kind of broad exposure.

>Why don't some people here buy commodity indices like gold or oil?

7% of my portfolio is held in precious metals. You're just making bullshit assumptions because you have no understanding of well rounded investment philosophy.

You're another day trading idiot and the robinhood thread is this way >>1111334

[Anonymous No.1116490]

>>1116486
>7% of my portfolio is held in precious metals. You're just making bullshit assumptions because you have no understanding of well rounded investment philosophy.
Why 7% and not 50%? You are so ignorant it's pathetic. You're speculating like the rest of us. You chose specific allocations based on your own predictions you dumb piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.1116508]

>>1116490
No, you're not randomly "choosing" your allocation but you're weighting it by the share the asset has of the total market cap of everything (yes including precious metals, real estate, even art).

[Anonymous No.1116511]

>>1116508
I didn't say his allocation was random but why weigh by market cap? See where I'm going with this? Everything boils down to a leap of faith and indexers are no better than individual stock buyers.

>The equity market will always go up
>Bonds will always go up
>Commodities will always (sorta) go up
>I weigh by where the money goes (market cap)

[Anonymous No.1116512]

>>1116490
Precious metals sit there and look nice. They don't generate income nor does oil. Businesses do. That's where my growth comes from. In the event markets crashed the price of those metals rising in value would offset the difference.

The percentage is based on an individuals personal level of paranoia. There is no right number for that except to say that anything over 10% is considered excessive. I've even been told by friends that my 7% is crazy high but that's just where I feel comfortable.

Again, I wouldn't need to explain this if you actually understood sound investment principles.

Mommy lied, you're not a special snowflake kiddo. Don't get butthurt. Accept it.

[Anonymous No.1116513]

>>1116512
I'm not pretending to be a special snowflake but you certainly are. You're a speculator like the rest of us, I'm sorry.

[Anonymous No.1116525]

>>1116513

What part of sound, widely adopted and accepted investment principles do you not fucking understand? That is the 'US'.

Then, there's you. Day trading, individual stock picking retard that thinks he can beat 'US'.

So yes, you do think you're special. That's the whole point of this discussion and the overwhelming point of this thread. The fact that you somehow managed to flip that point and have the opposite takeaway testament to your mental retardation.

Oh and I like how you skipped the diversification point because you got BTFO.

[Anonymous No.1116528]

>>1116525
But I didn't get blown the fuck out. I already exposed you as a dumb ass thanks to this post:

>The percentage is based on an individuals personal level of paranoia. There is no right number for that except to say that anything over 10% is considered excessive. I've even been told by friends that my 7% is crazy high but that's just where I feel comfortable.

This is a simple yes or no question. I'm assuming you're intelligent enough to answer it since you're so cocky.

Do you buy a set of securities because you believe they will go up over time?

Go ahead. I'll wait. Let's see how much better you are as individual stock buyers. Remember it's yes or no. By the way, I won't be responding anymore because you answer will tell everything.

[Anonymous No.1116534]

>>1114722
>month day year notation

[Anonymous No.1116540]

>>1116528
In high growth allocation, yes.

Calling you stupid isn't being cocky if you actually are.

[Anonymous No.1116541]

eh yes and no.

I'm using my student loans.

[Anonymous No.1116587]

I plan to invest in more standard plans sure, but ive got 50 dollars in robinhood im basically playing with as I read more and just generally learn about the stock market. My goal with this "game" is to make a single dollar profit. It only dawned on me I can set a limit order on sales after I missed out.

[Anonymous No.1116600]

>>1116541
You're using your student loans on individual stocks? Is this a meme or something?

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1116623]

>>1116427
>Vanguard Retirement Funds have changed several time
Vanguard changes its indexes for several reasons, none of which have anything to do with chasing return.

They do it to add diversification, such the Target Retirement Fund going from a Three-Fund Portfolio to a Four-Fund Portfolio by adding International Bonds.

They do it reduce tracking errors. Not every index is equally accurate at tracking the benchmark, and sometimes they come in high or low. Either is an undesirable result, and Vanguard will drop an index with an inherent tracking issue.

And lastly, and most commonly, they do it to lower expenses. Indexes are the intellectual property of their publisher (e.g., Standard & Poors, Dow Jones, Morgan Stanley Capital International, etc.). Investment companies like Vanguard must pay licensing fees to use these products. If Vanguard can switch to a competing index with the same basic coverage and accuracy, then both Vanguard and its investors win.

Comparing any of this to the speculative gambling of individual stock pickers is laughable.

>>1116475
>I fully agree that 99.99% of the people on this board are not smart enough to pick stocks.
There's no evidence that 0.01% are either. You're still arguing for special snowflake status, and I'm afraid that's just a sad delusion.

>I suggest you read this
I started to, but I stopped when I got to the following line referencing secular bear markets:

"Of course you’re getting impatient; so are we."

Any financial journalist (I won't call them analysts) who is cheerleading for certain market conditions goes right in the trash. It would appear that you seek out "news" sources that simply reinforce your own bubble of ignorance. Inside your self-created echo chamber, I'm sure things do indeed look gloomy going forward. But you're living in fantasy land, as any objective observer can easily see.

So, without intending personal insult, my only possible conclusion is that you're a kook and a perma-bear. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.1116631]

>>1116600
no, how can it be a meme?

yes I am doing thus

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1116646]

>>1116511
>but why weigh by market cap?
If you're buying an asset class (like gold) for its downside hedging effect (like anon), then of course you'd set your allocation percentage by market capitalization. Otherwise, how else would you know you're getting the desired financial effect inside your portfolio?

You repeatedly strain yourself to analogize indexing to individual stock picking, but I'm not sure you have a sufficient grasp of the fundamentals of investing to be making these arguments. Every comparison you've tried so far has been idiotic.

>>1116528
>Do you buy a set of securities because you believe they will go up over time?
For the 20th time in the thread, yes.

There's a myriad of differences between indexers and stock pickers, but both share the common goal of growing their wealth. What differs is how the strategy they use to achieve that goal.

Indexers use a sound, widely adopted and accepted investment principles (thanks for the nice phrasing, anon). One that has been academically tested under a peer-reviewed scientific methodology for decades by the world's leading experts in finance and academia. And, while it's no guarantee of future results, the indexing strategy has been demonstrably and dramatically more successful than other approaches historically.

By contrast, individual stock pickers make guesses, hunches, and predictions about the future. No different than gambling, playing the lottery, or calling a coin flip. They even "win" occasionally, although it's hard to ever consider them winners due to the obscene level of fees and taxes they bear. It's a strategy which has proven to return between 4-8% lower returns annually than indexing, according to the Dalbar studies of the last two decades.

So, bottom line, there's your difference: 4-8% annually. Over a lifetime, an indexer will be dramatically more wealthy than an individual stock picker thanks to that performance drag. Thus, in the one goal that both share, the indexer wins.

[Anonymous No.1116650]

>>1116646
About fucking time you posted something useful instead of pandering to your band of neet fanboys lmao.

[Anonymous No.1116743]

>>1116646
I dont know senpai, im just messing with the stock market with play money. I hear index/mutual funds being the most solid investment from some which is fine and I dont mind actually investing in that, but its kind of interesting making a semi educated guess and seeing if you can make some returns on it. Also I've heard having many different kinds of investments helps you long before it hurts you so at the very least from that angle what harm is there in it.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1116785]

>>1116743
>Also I've heard having many different kinds of investments helps you long before it hurts
Being diversified doesn't mean picking a bunch of different stocks. It means building a portfolio comprised of multiple asset classes and market exposures that provide the kind of risk/reward metrics that match your goals and investment horizon.

The number of individual stocks you'd need to own to minimize diversifiable risk the same as an index is very large. Owning 100 stocks reduces diversifiable risk by about 90%, and you'd need about 400 stocks to reduce diversifiable risk by 95% By contrast, you can reduce 99% of diversifiable risk with 1 index fund -- and at dramatically lower transaction costs.

>its kind of interesting making a semi educated guess and seeing if you can make some returns on it
I don't make a fuss if people want to take 5-10% of their portfolio and invest in individual stocks, sector overweighting, or other higher risk strategies. If that's consistent with your overall risk tolerance and goals, then fine.

However, too many people push the limits of this exception, and think it's fine to add even more speculative investments, or even to make their whole portfolio from individual stock picks. They rationalize this either due to special snowflake syndrome (they think they're the super-smart exception that can beat the market) or that their age/wealth/income is so small that they can take any level of risk they want without consequence (never true). Both forms of delusion lead to long-term underperformance.

But if you can be disciplined and want to allocate a small portion of your portfolio to more speculative investments, that's up to you. Just wait until you've already built your core portfolio of index funds to sufficient levels that your "play account" won't hurt your long-term compounding.

[Anonymous No.1116843]

>>1116785
Just for the record i didnt mean diversifying as in getting a lot of different stocks, but yeah im thinking more like the second thing you were saying where you for instance just take a portion of your portfolio and invest it in a different manner.

Though i see what you mean about building a stronger portfolio first, right now im just fumbling around with pocket change as i read about where and how you start serious investments.

[Anonymous No.1116856]

>>1116785
Is there a guide you would recommend for getting started with index funds?

[Anonymous No.1116865]

>>1116646
You keep saying the same thing but haven't said anything substantial. Indices are good because of past performance is your summary. How are you any different from individual stock owners? You can rationalize your method anyway you want, but don't try to call speculation and "hunches" by any other name. Then you bring up diversification, which while valid, requires another leap of faith to determine the level of allocation and speculation. The only take away from your mantra is that index investing is cheap. That's it.

[Anonymous No.1116891]

>>1116865

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1116901]

>>1116856
>Is there a guide you would recommend for getting started with index funds?
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_started

>>1116865
Your reading comprehension needs a lot of work. Good luck, snowflake.

[Anonymous No.1117092]

>>1116623
>Any financial journalist (I won't call them analysts) who is cheerleading for certain market conditions goes right in the trash.

That guy talks with more world renowned economists in a week than you have in your life.

>It would appear that you seek out "news" sources that simply reinforce your own bubble of ignorance.

I would say the same thing about you. You didn't even bother to read it despite John Mauldin being a highly respected economist.

I also like how you conveniently ignored the fact that your index investing hero John Bogle "timed" the market by shifting most of his assets out of the stock market during the dot-com bubble. "Cheerleading" the desire for lower P/E ratios is a far cry from short term speculation on market direction.

>There's no evidence that 0.01% are either. You're still arguing for special snowflake status, and I'm afraid that's just a sad delusion.

Except there is. Exceptionally intelligent investors have beaten the markets year after year where dumb luck can't explain it if you understand how statistics works. Markets are not so efficient that it's impossible to make intelligent purchases based on value discrepancies.

If that guy isn't good enough for you, maybe you should read Warren Buffett's refutation of efficient markets.

http://gdsinvestments.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/The-Superinvestors-of-Graham-and-Doddsville-by-Warren-Buffett.pdf

[Anonymous No.1117104]

Honestly, if you actually know what needs to be done to adequately analyze an individual stock or company, based on what you would learn in college/work/CFA, you would never do it because it takes way too much time.

[Anonymous No.1117131]

>>1116243
Kek and inflation is still 2%. The USD has never been stronger. Treasury yields are insanely low for 18 trillion in debt. America is the place to be you simple-minded prole.

Smh senpai u are a babby in finance knowledge.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1117136]

>>1117092
>Exceptionally intelligent investors have beaten the markets year after year where dumb luck can't explain it
No they don't.

https://www.dimensional.com/famafrench/essays/luck-versus-skill-in-mutual-fund-performance.aspx

>Markets are not so efficient that it's impossible to make intelligent purchases based on value discrepancies
No one said otherwise. However, the size of the inefficiencies, their scarcity, and the time and cost of finding and exploiting them is a sufficiently large drag on performance that is becomes a suboptimal strategy.

By way of example, trading your way to a 12% return may sound attractive, but if you give back 4% to costs and lost time in market, then you're only booking an 8% return. Meanwhile, index equities have averaged 9% plus 2% in dividends for an 11% return. Choose one.

I don't know why you stock pickers (and day traders, TA wizards, etc.) have such cognitive dissonance over this simple concept. Yes, it's possible to earn positive returns with your speculative strategies. But you're still underperforming the index, which means you're falling behind.

Investing is about making choices between alternatives. Indexing simply outperforms stock picking. Period. And its more tax efficient, not to mention simpler and less time consuming. All happy accidents, but true nonetheless.

At this point, I'm not going to waste any more time on your unsupported arguments. All you're doing is taking potshots at indexing from tangential perspectives, ignoring the fact that you have no evidence to refute the main point: indexing is the superior performing risk adjusted strategy. So come up with evidence, or don't bother posting. Because neither you nor any blogger you read has 1/1000th of the qualifications of any one of the academics I've cited in support of indexing.

Good luck, snowflake.

[Anonymous No.1117145]

>>1114500
Only when I get insider information.

[Anonymous No.1117148]

>>1117136
Thousands of people beat the market every year. What are you even talking about? 4% fees? Lmao. Dont pretend other people dont "beat the market" just because you prefer indexing

[Anonymous No.1117151]

>>1117148
He's right. Post your stock picking returns or btfo.

[Anonymous No.1117157]

>>1117151
Lol no. I dont have to post shit. I dont have to post pictures of the sky outside my house to prove the sky is often blue

Ever heard of a prop trader? Their literal job is to "beat the market"

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1117163]

>>1117148
>Thousands of people beat the market every year.
True, but only 10% do it again next year. And 10% of those in the following year. And 10% of those the year after. And none in the 5th year.

That's how statistics work, snowflake.

Investing isn't a one-year exercise. Considering the 90% failure rate of stock pickers, you're looking at 1 positive year for every 9 years that you underperform. That''s a pretty shitty record.

Meanwhile, equity indexes rise in 7 years out of every 10.

So, pop quiz: Would you rather have the best strategy in 1/10 years or 7/10 years?

[Anonymous No.1117166]

>>1117163
Thats not how statistics work. Thats how dice rolling works. Because the 90% (assuming that number is accurate) would fail again the next year, and the next, and maybe get lucky here and there. The successful percentage would continue their success as stock analysis is not a random "roll of the dice"

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1117170]

>>1117166
>Thats not how statistics work. Thats how dice rolling works. Because the 90% (assuming that number is accurate) would fail again the next year, and the next, and maybe get lucky here and there. The successful percentage would continue their success as stock analysis is not a random "roll of the dice"
Well, Nobel Prize winning academic Eugene Fama says I'm right and you're wrong. So I'm gonna go ahead and disregard your stupid comment.

https://www.dimensional.com/famafrench/essays/luck-versus-skill-in-mutual-fund-performance.aspx

[Anonymous No.1117173]

>>1117170
>luck vs skill in mutual fund performance
What the fuck do mutual funds have to do with it? I'm not a mutual fund, I'm an individual investor. What is with you guys?

[Anonymous No.1117181]

>>1117166
Yes, stock analysis is a random roll of the dice.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1117183]

>>1117173
Hmmm, I wonder what the advisors of actively-managed mutual funds, like the one's studied by Fama do? Oh yeah! They pick individual stocks and try to beat the market.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or just desperate for attention, but looking back you haven't made an intelligent post in this entire thread. You've also lied, engaged in multiple logical fallacies, and attempted to put words in my mouth. If you had anything worthwhile to say, you would have already said it. I won't be spending any more time responding to your garbage.

Good luck, snowflake.

[Anonymous No.1117184]

>>1117173
I work for a fund company and prior to that a brokerage. Investors like you are the reason we're in business. The one's making the money on the stock market are the middlemen like me who take your fees and let you think that you're an expert. Keep it up though, I still have a sales goal to hit this quarter.

[Anonymous No.1117191]

>>1117183
They are also restricted by long only rules and minimum price rules that keep them away from most smallcap growth stocks. You are clearly delusional if you think that study pertains to individuals portfolios. They say someone with a little knowledge is more dangerous to themself than someone with none at all. You seem to half knowwhat you are talking about in most of your posts, but are obviously confused about the details

>>1117184
>I lie on the internet for a living

[Anonymous No.1117238]

>>1116901
I have a question for you...if you have millions now, how much did you start out with?

[Anonymous No.1117253]

>>1117183
>29 posts by this ID
>all extremely long winded and redundant
>not to mention the probable samefagging
Fuck dude do you have a life? You're almost as bad as the ETH shills. Go outside a little. Get some sun you pasty white fat neckbeard.

[Anonymous No.1117257]

>>1116534
February 29, 2016 = 2/29/2016.

This is how we do in America.

[Anonymous No.1117263]

>>1117191
Whatever you say. I don't need to lie to be correct.

[Anonymous No.1117308]

>>1117263
Then you should know that you make your money off margin accounts. Nobody's getting rich off my $5 trade fee every two months

[Anonymous No.1117319]

>>1117191
Kek your posts out you for having a minimal, if any, financial education.

Wrap up that degree in finance and then come back and post. Despite what you may think you are making yourself look like even more of a retard with each post.

[Anonymous No.1117328]

>>1117319
You can stop samfagging now, tripfag

[Anonymous No.1117332]

>>1114500
i do. BLL and LTC have been my best gainers this year. admittedely my portfolio isn't great, but ive had some winners and cashed out at a 10 or 15% gain. never had anything ridiculous. but im in for the long haul, so all my dividends will recover. (I hope)

[Anonymous No.1117335]

>>1117332
and I don't fuck with penny stocks. fuck that shit. not worth it

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1117350]

>>1117238
>how much did you start out with?
I don't really understand what you're asking. My parents did pay for my education, for which I'm eternally grateful. But I wasn't given money, and I don't have a trust fund.

[Anonymous No.1117392]

>>1114722

Why even go through the extra step of copying the whole screen when you could've just trimmed the spreadsheet itself?

[Anonymous No.1117394]

>put money into Acorns
>overall profit of 11 cents since starting 2 months ago

I-I'm gonna make it, right?

[Anonymous No.1117411]

>>1114500
>>1114518
This is shitposting. Someone had to pick the stocks to go into your vanguard funds.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1117438]

>>1117411
I answered this one two days ago, snowflake.
>>1115167
Try harder next time.

[Anonymous No.1117498]

>>1117438
>the individual stock picker is constantly buying and selling based on his guess, prediction, hunch
Not every person who buys individual stocks behaves like a typical penny stock, cryptocurrency, forex or day trader.

An ISP can invest in mature companies and buy and hold, the only thing an index fund can do differently is cut down on fees and other difficulties when it comes to diversifying to the extent they do. Statistically you don't need to diversify much to reduce your chances of doing badly. As a random example let's say someone decided to buy the 3 most conspicuous companies on the internet in 2006. Over the past 10 years yahoo has gone up 4%, google 315% and microsoft 87% for an average of 135% (not including dividends). By contrast the vanguard IT ETF has gone up 120%. Here also the ISPer would have the potential to sell yahoo and buy something else if they thought it was failing.

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0958&FundIntExt=INT#tab=1

We would have to do this for dozens of different sectors to gain a clearer picture of how sensible ISPing compares to ETFs. I'm not sure where your 90% statistic comes from or what it is based on, I am sure many individual ISPers fail to beat the market, however in terms of purchasing power you might see a different story with a minority of long and medium term investors with large investments and a large group of gambling addicts constantly blowing small amounts of money.

>snowflake
>try harder
>lol i trol u
What would really hurt my feelings would be for you to logically disprove me and point out any fatal errors I might be making.

[Anonymous No.1117514]

>>1117498
It's not just about total return of x period of years. It's about the volatility of those returns, which is lower for an index than individual stocks.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1117532]

>>1117498
The only thing I take from your entire post is that if an investor can accurately guess which stocks will outperform and which stocks will underperform, then they can beat the market.

Duh.

The problem (do I really need to explain this, again?) is that the individual investor can't accurately make those predictions. Study after study proves its not possible to a sufficient degree of accuracy to beat the benchmark. Even if you guess right sometimes, you'll be wrong other times. And even when you guess right, you'll mess up the timing. And you'll pay more in fees while you try to figure it out.

>What would really hurt my feelings would be for you to logically disprove me and point out any fatal errors I might be making.
Ok, I've now done exactly that. Your entire comment is logically unsound, and assumes its premise.

But for the record, the reason that I insulted you is because you jumped into a thread without reading it, and made a stupid comment
that I had expressly disproven in this same thread earlier. This tends to indicate the you're someone who's only interested in making snarky, meme-quality posts and not engaging in serious discussion.

Personally, I don't care either way. If you want to act like an asshole, then I'll treat you like an asshole. Act with civility, and you'll get the same in response. Your choice.

[Anonymous No.1117542]

>>1117532
So tell us how we should invest instead

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1117544]

>>1117542
>So tell us how we should invest instead
No problem. Assuming you have a stable wage/income, a fully-funded emergency fund appropriate to your circumstances, and a long-term commitment to growing your wealth, then I recommend that the core of your investments be a "Four Fund Portfolio" (you can Goggle it for the details). If you're not comfortable selecting your own allocations, then you can go with an "all-in-one" fund like Vanguard's Target Retirement investments.

Remember that investing is a long term prospect, calculated to take advantage of the long-term growth rate of the markets. This is not a strategy to supplement your income or produce a rags-to-riches miracle. It's a strategy designed to safely (as safely as the market permits) grow your money so that you can, hopefully, have comfort, security, and wealth in your later years, including long after your regular income ceases.

[Anonymous No.1117556]

>>1117544
Thanks. Will look into it. So you're a full-time investor / business owner?

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1117564]

>>1117556
>So you're a full-time investor / business owner?
No, I'm an attorney. I do own my own law firm, but I'm not an entrepreneur in the traditional sense.

I just happen to know quite a lot about investing and how to make optimal investment decisions. I manage my own investment portfolio, which is currently more than $12 million dollars total. I put a lot of effort into making smart decisions for my own money, and I'm happy to share my insights with others.

[Anonymous No.1117588]

>>1117564
Okay cool. Always funny to see people like you and me end up on 4chan somehow.

[Anonymous No.1117595]

>>1117564
Why don't you day trade?

[Anonymous No.1117602]

Whats better, a three or four fund etf portfolio which is topped up quarterly/biannually or one growth mutual fund added to monthly?

[Anonymous No.1117623]

>>1117595

[Anonymous No.1117631]

>>1114500
I do. A minority of my portfolio, but statistically they're not worse than an index fund, just more volatile.

Actually, I save on management fees on the individual stocks I pick, so they'll be a little bit better over the long run. I'm 29, I can ride out a few cycles.

[Anonymous No.1117672]

>>1117602
Bump

[Anonymous No.1117709]

>>1117532
I already showed why your mutual fund study doesnt pertain here: >>1117191

Take out the biggrowth small caps and of course you will have trouble beating the market. I would like to see the same study pertaining to hedge funds, which can act a lot more like individual investors.

You'll probably samefag again with some vague insult, though, like you always do

[Anonymous No.1117716]

>>1116901
I'm sorry but you still haven't convinced me. Unfortunately, you belong in the Bogleheads forum with the rest of the loonies.

>JUST INVEST IN THE INDEX BRO
You can randomly pick any SP500 stocks and beat it. This is a statistical fact.

>INDICES ALWAYS GO UP
You were already proven wrong the Japanese Nikkei index. The European stock market hasn't budge for 20 years either. Now you're telling me your faith in index investing is not beatable? Even a moron can beat those indices. Don't make me laugh. You probably don't have a clue about systematic risk or anything about stocks other than what was regurgitated to you by "renowned experts". It's unfortunate that having millions didn't give you a brain.

Face it iDumDum (clever right?). Ignorance and passivity is not a strategy.

[Anonymous No.1117722]

>>1117716
By the way, I like you to tell the best indices to invest in for the next 40 years since you have so much faith in your system. I'm a 20 something year old man with lots of room for growth.

[Anonymous No.1117791]

>>1115279
As a Britfag, I noticed this chart and how it doesn't seem to correspond to reality.

[Anonymous No.1117814]

>>1116207
>The transmission mechanism ensures that some of the tens of billions of dollars worth of yen created out of thin air to buy bonds winds up in equity markets.
Wrong. QE alters reserve accounts not depository accounts. None of the money from QE can be used to purchase equity securities because none of the money ever gets into people's accounts. QE is simple a method of reducing interest rates in the banking system. None of that money gets out of the banking system.

[Anonymous No.1117846]

>>1117542
Saaaaaamefag. iHaz did you just forget that you used this ID to ask yourself the same exact question earlier in the thread? Thats just sloppy. If you're going to samefag at least put some effort into it. Whenever theres a long thread like this you forget that you can only change your IP so much until it comes full circle. The samefagging is funny but you continuously getting caught is even funnier.

[Anonymous No.1118027]

>>1117846
Is it always the same guy screaming samefag at iHaz? Pathetic imo

[Anonymous No.1118032]

>>1117846
I asked him the question twice because I didn't recieve sufficient response the first time.

[Anonymous No.1118033]

>>1118027
>iHaz gets caught red handed samefagging
>samefags more to do damage control
Stahp

[Anonymous No.1118035]

>>1118027
>>1118032
Interesting that all the sudden you both show up in the same thread at the exact same time after more than an hour of no posts.

[Anonymous No.1118046]

>>1118035
whatever man

[Anonymous No.1118048]

>>1117846
Kek. Nothing new here. iHaz been outed many many times as a samefag and fraud

[Anonymous No.1118068]

>>1117814
>Wrong. QE alters reserve accounts not depository accounts. None of the money from QE can be used to purchase equity securities because none of the money ever gets into people's accounts. QE is simple a method of reducing interest rates in the banking system. None of that money gets out of the banking system.

Simplistic answer. Buying bank-owned assets provides excess liquidity to those banks which results in more lending. This increase in cheap lending makes its way into businesses and individuals. It has the same effect.

[Anonymous No.1118079]

>>1118033
>>1118048
>>1118068
Go buy some more ETH, faggots

[Anonymous No.1118083]

>>1118068
was meant to reply to >>1118035

[Anonymous No.1118123]

>>1114670
as much as a i hate tripfags, ihaz is correct.

the difference between admiral shares and investor shares is so minor that it is literally less than hundreds of dollars over 10 years. If you consider the time event horizon for gains via investing, the difference of .2% over .05% is absolutely not worth waiting on.

Simply add money to investor fund then contribute weekly or monthly. Once you get past the minimum required admiral amount, transfer to admiral shares.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1118129]

>>1117595
>Why don't you day trade?

[Anonymous No.1118151]

>>1118129
Fuck off iHaznt

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1118169]

>>1117602
>Whats better, a three or four fund etf portfolio which is topped up quarterly/biannually or one growth mutual fund added to monthly?
A four fund portfolio because of the substantially better diversification.

Growth stocks are wonderful, but they're not inherently better than value or blend stocks. Like all asset classes, they'll perform very well in some years but poorly in others, And, unfortunately, its impossible to predict in advance. As such, its best to spread your money across as many asset classes as possible, consistent with your goals and risk tolerance.

>>1118068
>It has the same effect.
No it doesn't have the same effect. It has an effect in the same direction. Banks didn't automatically loan out all that cash sitting in their reserves (despite the Fed urging them to do so). In the wake of the mortgage crisis, banks massively tightened their credit standards, and for a long time, it was substantially harder to get credit of any kind. So no, the QE money didn't fly out into the economy and straight into equities.

Furthermore, typical (bad) investor behavior meant that many investors were buying bonds at the time they should have been buying stocks (despite QE). Look at fund inflows in 2009, 2010 and 2011 (and even into 2012 despite the bull market being 4 years old). People flocked to the apparent "safety" of bond funds at the exact moment that equities hit their glidepath. Investors always get it wrong.

>Why do you think indexers loved the 2009-2014 market so much? Because we were the one's who benefitted the most. All you had to do was stay the course and not change your strategy, and you nearly tripled your net worth.

So, ironically, to the exact that any of those QE dollars did make it into investor hands, a substantial portion went into fixed income.

Now, again, for the third time, I'll state that QE did have a positive effect on equity prices. That's not debatable. But the degree and timing remains open to examination.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1118196]

>>1117716
>>1117722
>insults me in one post and then asks for my advice in the next post

[Anonymous No.1118234]

>>1118196
>is supposedly a lawyer
>cant tell if someone is being facetious or not when they ask you for "advice"
Yikes

[Anonymous No.1118292]

>>1118169
>No it doesn't have the same effect.

Yes. It does. It took about a year and a half before the banks began lending like crazy again, and the vast majority of the new debt issued to companies was used for share buybacks.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1118329]

>>1118292
Bonds are debt too.

[Anonymous No.1118337]

>>1118329
so basically biy msci and hold onto for ever? I mean emerging markets will (should) have pretty consistent growth in our lifetime

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1118348]

>>1118337
>so basically biy msci and hold onto for ever?
No. Massively over-concentrating into one asset class is a mistake, as I've said several times already in this thread.

See >>1117544 if you want my advice on portfolio construction.

[Anonymous No.1118406]

Just a question iHaz. Why do you keep arguing with these people? Most of them don't seem to understand any or most of the following terms
"on average", "over the long term", "historically", "diversified", "statistically (in)significant", "statistical outlier", "peer-reviewed", "scientifical"
I mean whats the point? And it's the same cherry picked charts, strawman arguments and logical fallacies in every thread. By probably the same 10-20 posters.

[Anonymous No.1118446]

>>1118406
Saaaamefag.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1118454]

>>1118406
>I mean whats the point? And it's the same cherry picked charts, strawman arguments and logical fallacies in every thread. By probably the same 10-20 posters.
For every 10-20 idiots, there's maybe 100-200 people who lurk these threads looking to learn something. Perhaps even more, who knows.

In the absence of good information, these folks are going to be fooled by bad information. Because there's an entire industry of financial advisors, do-it-yourself brokerages, market journalists, and get-rich gurus who prey on the ignorance of the masses with wild promises, lies, and deception.

Yet if no one takes the time to teach young people how to invest the right way, then the hucksters will win because they'll be the only one's talking. And, unfortunately, indexing isn't something that's taught in classes or widely understood by the older generation. Nor is it always intuitive. So the only way to learn it is when someone like you or I make the effort to teach it.

>Besides which, it's fun to blow off steam by taking these autists to the woodshed. In my professional life I have to be civil, courteous, and respectful ... even when my opponents are morons. Here, I get to take the gloves off.

Trust me, I get exasperated by these morons too. Most days, I just don't have the time or patience to respond to their bullshit. So I mostly ignore them.

But when I do respond, I'm going to do it right and make sure the lesson is clear and complete.

[Anonymous No.1118467]

>>1118454
Just a question iHaz. Why do you samefag so much? Why do these "morons" opinion matter so much to you that you so desperately want their validation?

[Anonymous No.1118478]

I'm in my mid 20s living in Canada. I have about about 45k in a Tax Free Savings Account, which is invested in Bank of Montreal's Asset Allocation Fund (a mutual fund). My goals for this account are long term (ie, I almost certainly will not touch it for 10 years+).
TFSA details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax-Free_Savings_Account
The Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) is an account that provides tax benefits for saving in Canada. Investment income, including capital gains and dividends, earned in a TFSA is not taxed, even when withdrawn. Contributions to a TFSA are not deductible for income tax purposes, unlike contributions to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP).

I have about 100k in a Scotia bank mutual fund. I may need to dip into this, but I will do my utmost not to.

I have fairly high risk tolerance. If my investments dropped, say, 20% in value overnight I wouldn't be all that emotionally affected (mostly because it wouldn't have any impact on my living standards).
I'm entering a 1 year master's program this coming in September. I will get a fair amount of funding, which may or may not be enough, though I will also try for some sort of employment.

Can someone give me any advice? Should I make a new thread?

[Anonymous No.1118530]

I actually think iHaz is a decent guy. Coming onto a forum and helping people out for free is something you should be grateful for. No idea, why you autists get so angry at the guy. I don't think he samefags but I honestly can't be sure.

I didn't like his post recommending Four Funds because international bond diversification is something that just isn't worth it, whether hedged or unhedged. Either go Three Fund Portfolio or 100% stocks if you want ultimate growth.

[Anonymous No.1118545]

Canuck with big hairy balls here
I'm 100% in individual Canadian stocks, fight me ya hoser

if you haven't bought CGC yet you're a damn fool

I'm gambling my spare lunch money on beat-to-shit alberta oil stocks too #yolo

[Anonymous No.1118553]

>>1118530
Saaaaamefag

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1118591]

>>1118530
>international bond diversification is something that just isn't worth it, whether hedged or unhedged
I'm not to argue with someone who's smart enough to says nice things about me, but if you're interested in understanding why I recommend a (modest) allocation to international bonds, here's Vanguard's white paper on the subject:

https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/icrifi.pdf

[Anonymous No.1118714]

OP here shoutout to the index reppers

Well stock pickers, how did you fare today? Got btfo ITT by this days performance. Post how much u up.

[Anonymous No.1118732]

>>1118454
Indexing is definitely taught in classes my friend. You have to be a master accountant or have a master accountants on your staff if you want to pick stocks.

Aka why all these proles without a finance education are getting btfo itt

[Anonymous No.1118736]

>>1118714
Forgot to post how much I'm up. 2k on spxl while you fags were bitching about how the world is going to end 1 month ago.

Btfo

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1118784]

>>1118732
>Indexing is definitely taught in classes my friend.
Seriously? Well, that's honestly great to hear. It certainly wasn't true in my day.

Where was this, and how would you rate the quality of the indexing information you were taught?

[Anonymous No.1118792]

>>1118784
Probably the biggest theme taught in finance these days is diversification to reduce risk

Everywhere

[Anonymous No.1118809]

>>1118714
Closed LNG position today for a 22% profit over 2 1/2 weeks

[Anonymous No.1118840]

>>1118809
I'm talking total return over the day of the entire portfolio.

Don't put any back in there

[Anonymous No.1118849]

>>1118840
Who looks at daily unrealized G/L? Stop being retarded

[Anonymous No.1118856]

>>1118849
The broad market was up, index funds were up 2-3%. If you are a master stock picker you should be up equal if not less.

[Anonymous No.1118857]

>>1118792
This. iHaz isnt a special snowflake for buying index funds or telling everyone else to buy index funds. Its literally pleb tier basic investing knowledge.

[Anonymous No.1118858]

>>1118856
Are you literally retarded or trying to make a joke?

[Anonymous No.1118895]

>>1118858
Shouldn't you be beating the market?

[Anonymous No.1118918]

>>1118895
I just told you I closed a position for a 20%+ profit in 2 and a half weeks. How did your index funds do over that time period? Stop being retarded

>see how my ID changed, but my posts held continuity without pretending to be a different poster? Thats how you use this site without samefagging, iHaznt

[Anonymous No.1118945]

>>1118918
>i cant be iHaz because i dont even like tripfags!
>i cant be iHaz because I talk about him in 3rd person!
>i cant be iHaz because i only agree with 99% of what he says!
>i cant be iHaz because my lack of punctuation and capital letters doesnt fit his writing style!
I love how he thinks /biz/ is too naive to know hes doing it. Even when people call him out on it he still does it every thread. It would be funny if it wasnt so sad.

[Anonymous No.1118958]

>>1118945
Does he do this often?

[Anonymous No.1118964]

>>1118958
ALL the time.

[Anonymous No.1119000]

>>1118918
>he doesn't view his investments as a portfolio context

Keep investing in natural gas. I hear futures are good lmao

[Anonymous No.1119017]

>>1119000
Nope. Each position is entered with a different strategy in mind. Why are you even talking about things you don't understand?

[Anonymous No.1119073]

>>1118918

Oh get fucked, you're gambling. You're a blind squirrel who found a nut, don't pat yourself on the back too hard. I don't give a fuck if you make money, but don't come here and act all smug as if the rest of us should be impressed.

[Pizza Fund Manager !!n1HP3TUF4Ba No.1119109]

>>1114518
>he can't read daily liquidity

[Anonymous No.1119110]

>>1119073
Bullshit. Cheniere was about to export their first shipment of LNG after years of construction on the Sabine Pass facility. The stock was trading in the mid $30s, then their first shipment got delayed, the market for jittery and at the same time oil and natgas futures tanked, taking emergy stocks down with them. If you looked at the first LNG shipments out of Australia the same thing happened. In my eyes, Cheniere was still on pace to make their delivery, albeit late, but got caught up in the energy selloff. I bought at $29, they made their first shipment without a hitch and the stock popped right back up to mid $30s. Sold for 20%.

I wasnt being smug. OP was being smug when he popped back into his troll thread and asked how stock pickers were doing today. That's how i did today. Get fucked

[Anonymous No.1119111]

quite an amusing thread. this guy thinks nobody beats the market because fama's study done during vietnam war era speaks for that or something. then he tells you'd have to be a acccountant master to pick stocks. oh my god.

yes indexing is a good if you literally have no idea what you are doing and stock picking based on fundamentals isnt necessarily a vice thing to do as you are going often have too little diverse for a buy and hold strat that way.

there are several studies showing even the basic timing strats beat the buy and hold indexing both in absolute terms and risk adjusted terms.

and that is only the investing side. the trading side is a complete another game. you have to see it to believe it i guess

[Pizza Fund Manager !!n1HP3TUF4Ba No.1119117]

>>1119111
>this post is confirmed by the US Department of Repeating Digits

[Anonymous No.1119121]

>>1119073
I bought into PWE, GIG, and FCAU towards market close today, and sold today for a gain of 5.5%.
Wow, its so hard to view trends and analyse information.
So.
Hard.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.1119145]

Now that this thread is almost 250 posts old, and all rational discussion ended 12 hours ago, the daytraders, stock pickers, and investing wizards arrive to circlejerk each other... right on cue.

Some brilliant samefag made the following prophetic comment -- 3 days ago:

>They only emerge deep in the depths of seldom visited shitposts where they can lie to each other about their "gainz" without the bright scrutiny of rational thinkers.

So what kind of shitposts do we get from the daytraders and stock pickers, now that the thread has died?

>>1119111
>fama's study done during vietnam war era
>date of study: December 14, 2009

>vietnam war era
>2009

Kek. Hard to follow an act like that. G'nite and drive home safely.

[Pizza Fund Manager !!n1HP3TUF4Ba No.1119147]

>>1119145
>he self-fulfills his own prophecy

[Anonymous No.1119148]

>>1119145
The majority of people who fail out of the market due so due to lack of starting capital, and frustration at not turning an immediate profit.
Not because the market itself is some nigh conquerable beast that no mortal man can possibly comprehend.

[Anonymous No.1119154]

>>1119148
Most of the guys like iHaz are likely in with the bunch who lost their shirts and decided to go 100% passive. It's like alcoholics who frown on you for having a beer like you're on the verge of ruining your life

[Anonymous No.1119159]

he is dumb but not that dumb. so he senses something is wrong what he is saying, that's why he fights so hard.

most unexperienced guys bought right into the efficient market meme (well marketed by index funds originally) and they never let go, until the day they see a concrete showing telling otherwise.

[Anonymous No.1119224]

I just have to post this in a thread like this. And ive only owned this for the past week when I sold gazprom for a 10% profit after the russians and saudis agreed on a production cut. Turned out to be a great choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIKO-t4vU6Q

Looks like theres some problems with model eugene

[Anonymous No.1119236]

>>1119224
Very nice. What was the reasoning behind buying this?

[Anonymous No.1119239]

>>1119236
multiple reasons. Mainly it was trading below cash per share and way below book. Consistent profits and a new CEO with experience. The LED bulb is the top seller on amazon and in walmart. There margins are thin but there prices are cutthroat.