The patrician Vanguard portfolio

[Anonymous No.53848082]

So good, even the fatFIRE crowd uses it
>VTI: 65%
>VXUS: 20%
>BND: 10%
>BNDX: 5%

Buy and use bond divvies for spending and buying more stocks

[Anonymous No.53848233]

I'm dropping my $190k USD cash into basically this once we bottom out later this year. Been sitting in cash since November 2021 and shorting nasdaq to pass the time
Love me some VTI

[Anonymous No.53848253]

>>53848233
Checked

OP that portfolio is great, I’d go with 10-15% VXUS due to political instability and lack of tech

[Anonymous No.53848255]

>>53848082
just dump everything into voo and get on with life

[Anonymous No.53848294]

>>53848082
based

[Anonymous No.53848317]

I got 3k in the "Vanguard Target Retirement 2065 Fund". What should I move it to? This isn't my real retirement account just a leftover from a short term employer

[Anonymous No.53848325]

>>53848317
$3k is too little to be in that fund, go with VTI or VTSAX

>>53848253
Nicely stated

>>53848233
Lump sum investing is fun, do it

[Anonymous No.53848329]

>>53848325
I'm buying the bottom babaaaay

[Anonymous No.53848342]

>>53848325
>$3k is too little to be in that fund
Yeah I didn't stay a the company long kek, thanks for the advice

[Justice for Leo No.53848349]

>>53848082
For me it's VHY.AX

[Anonymous No.53848355]

bump

[Anonymous No.53848360]

You will lose everything

>>53848309
>>53848309
>>53848309

[Anonymous No.53848565]

>>53848329
when the Fed starts to cut you’ll be set. Invest as much as possible

>>53848342
No problem, good luck anon. Keep compounding investments

>>53848360
Why can’t you invest in both asset classes

[Anonymous No.53848588]

Newb in investing here. Im buying the EUR version, VWCE ACC on degiro. How can i get some clarity on dividends? I can't find information.

[Anonymous No.53848622]

>>53848082
Boring boomer portfolio, no thanks. I’ll buy Bitcoin instead.

[Anonymous No.53849505]

>>53848082
how do I into rich

[Anonymous No.53849954]

>>53849505
Save and invest a dollar per day during 5 years. With compound interest minus inflation it will become almost half a million

[Anonymous No.53850535]

>>53848588
pls?

[Anonymous No.53852290]

>>53848082
I keep a mixture of ETF's, mutual funds, and collective investment trusts from a variety of investment firms instead of only Vanguard ETF's to mitigate risks separate from market risk

also fuck ex-US bond, I am 70/20/10

[Anonymous No.53852408]

>get $100/month in divvies
Im so comfy bros. while crypto chuds have to gamble with their life savings (and lose it 98% of the time) Im slowly growing my passive income to reduce my work hours by 50%.

[Anonymous No.53852418]

>>53848233
been sitting on the sidelines as well, probably a little too early oh well
>>53848082
long time passenger aboard the U.S.S. Vanguard...at what age would that be an appropriate allocation? 55 gen Xer and want a safe place to put $50k IRA. and how "safe" is Vanguard's Money Market? been hearing the term "bail-in", not liking the idea of that too much.

[Anonymous No.53852425]

>>53852408
How much do you have invested, and where, to get $100/month in dividends?

[Anonymous No.53852445]

>>53852425
about 34k

[Anonymous No.53852583]

>>53848082
Brainlet here, can someone gimme a QRD on all the different index funds? I have VOOG currently, and really little idea what makes one better than the other for long term holding.

[Anonymous No.53852591]

>>53852583
Should have clarified, Vanguard index funds specifically

[Anonymous No.53852752]

>>53849954
COMPOUND INTEREST THIS AND THAT, WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GUYS GET THE COMPOUND INTEREST?

[Anonymous No.53853205]

>>53848082
can you setup automated weekly buys on vanguard ?

[Anonymous No.53853219]

>>53853205
Depends on your broker dingus. You can schedule trades on TDA

[Anonymous No.53853763]

>>53852752

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Importance_of_saving_early

Unlike speculative assets like crypto, boomer rocks, and other purely speculative assets, stocks and bonds actually pay out real money regularly. And when you automatically reinvest that money, you get more payouts on that money. On top of the regular growth of stock and bond value, this creates a snowballing/compounding effect.

[Anonymous No.53854265]

>>53848317
Honestly nothing. The expense ratio for what you're getting for a fund and forget investment strategy is excellent. It's a fully diversified holding in one if you look at the composition. If you sell it, you'd just be buying the same holdings manually in a similar asset allocation.

But the market is going to shit for the next year anyhow, so it literally doesn't matter unless you have insider info and are a piece of shit active manager.

[Anonymous No.53855487]

I just do 100% VTI. As long as you have liquidity to cover emergencies, there is almost no reason to not go all stocks/equities assuming you are 5+ years from retirement.

If you are FIRE and withdrawling money, or saving for a major purchase (car,tuition,house) then Id avoid

[Anonymous No.53855526]

>>53848082
>not NTSX for 1.5x leverage on 60/40
yikes

[Anonymous No.53855584]

>>53848349
why not vdhg?

[Anonymous No.53855643]

>>53855487
>there is almost no reason to not go all stocks/equities
the few reasons that there are shouldn't be ignored

[Anonymous No.53855673]

>>53855643
What time frame is this? There is no way the performance difference between 33% stocks and 67% bonds, compared to 100% stocks, has been that comparable within the past decade.

And over time the risk exposure dwindles (hence why I said if you have 5+ years and dont plan on withdrawls go all stocks). At that point you can smooth the extra volatility and almost any 5 year period in US history will come out great

Im not pretending to be an expert on this shit by any means so interested in legit counters. I once went to an open lecture in college 15 years ago by the guy who came up with the VIX index and he said that this was his approach so I just stole it lol

[Anonymous No.53855674]

>>53855643
Kek, the efficiency frontier fails when bonds are down 40% and stocks are also down 40% with the fed raising rates so quickly like they are today. Keep telling me bonds are safer.

[Anonymous No.53855686]

>>53855673
knowing Vanguard thats probably 50 or 100 years

[Anonymous No.53855708]

>>53855686
Yea I wonder ever since 2008 when bond yields went to the gutter if that approach even remotely makes sense. It's been a new frontier. Tech has also flipped stocks on its head a bit, never been easier to build and scale so things like P/E ratios arent always reflective of a good investment valuation

[Anonymous No.53855763]

>>53855674
right now the best play is to be in t-bills or a high yield MM account and waiting for the bottom
or shorting if you have the balls/luck

[Anonymous No.53855789]

>>53855763
Hard to know when that bottom is tho. Rates still will need to go up a bit based on latest inflation markets, so there still is some ways to go down, but dont think we see an ugly bottom out like many doomers here cry about. Employment is strong as long as you arent a techcel

IMO just keep DCAing. Then by 2024 when inflation has finally returned to sub 4%, Fed cuts rates, and DeSantis is elected its time for the running of the bulls again

[Anonymous No.53855803]

>>53855789
I've been cash gang since November 2021 and I am not buying back in until SPY gets to ~320
>Employment is strong
that's part of the problem and why inflation is structural and sticky. higher for longer. doom and gloom.

[Anonymous No.53855834]

>>53855673
TD Ameritrade claims that is 1970 to 2019, although the numbers do seem pretty crazy. Portfolio visualizer seems more accurate to me, however it doesn't have a "Total US Bond" asset that goes that far back, I would say intermediate term treasuries are roughly comparable though.

Specific numbers aside, my main point is that there *is* an efficient frontier created by the risk premium, and that by the same token foregoing some returns nets you leaps of reduction in risk, especially in the traditional range of bond allocations between 0 and 40%

>>53855674
I don't need to tell you shit, you are hopeless

[Anonymous No.53855844]

>>53855789
inflation can still 2x and stay around for longer than 2024

[Anonymous No.53855873]

>>53855844
True, I've found life rewards the optimist more than the pessimist. And if that means waiting until 2024, 2025, 2026, etc. then so be it

[Anonymous No.53855934]

>>53848082
Wow /BIZ/ is actually giving good financial advice! This must be a bottom signal.

[Anonymous No.53855982]

>>53855873
I still got stocks, but also riding some commodities hoping they pop with sticky inflation

[Anonymous No.53855993]

>>53855982
sell everything before its too late

[Anonymous No.53856085]

>>53855993
lol, first bear market bud?

[Anonymous No.53856092]

>>53856085
naw, which is why I know we will continue to edge downwards for years

[Anonymous No.53856114]

>>53848082
This is perfect for 90% of normie plebs who have no interest in financial markets.

For those with an IQ above 120 who are interested in financial markets and willing to put in some work, you can do much better by judiciously investing in individual stocks, bonds and options. (The EMH is utter horseshit.)

[Anonymous No.53856132]

>>53856114
markets are not rational and no amount of IQ will save you from that fundamental fact

[Anonymous No.53856150]

>>53856132
Indeed. Which is what I said.

>>53855834
The identification of 'risk' with 'standard deviation of returns' is a fundamental source of confusion.

[Anonymous No.53856164]

>>53848360
Wrong in every conceivable sense.

[Anonymous No.53856182]

>>53856150
IQ is better spent on creative pursuits and not outperformance in day trading (read: gambling)

[Anonymous No.53856192]

>>53856182
>>53856150
I know you said individual stocks (which is reasonable) but options is largely gambling, simple as

[Anonymous No.53856226]

>>53856114
Never understood how EMH could be true. To not be able to consistently beat the market because it's efficient, means you also cant be able to consistently underperform the market - right? Well shit, that certainly isnt true unless you are just chasing stocks on the front page of the WSJ and selling at losses because of lack of emotional control.

Also the data is BS on EMH studies.
1. Hedge Fund goals and asset manager goals arent necessarily to outperform the stock market S&P. It's to manage risk. It literally is in the name 'hedge'. That is a different goal, it's about risk weighted returns

2. The claim is you cant beat the market consistently. Well, yea - after 10 years your fund will likely underperform the S&P 1 or 2 years even if optimized. But over longer time frames you can absolutely build a fund that is superior to the S&P.

3. Wouldnt this also apply to returns on smaller businesses as well? They hypothetically are priced to perfection and cant beat the market, or hell - you shouldnt even start a business. Because the market you are in should also be priced in and you cant generate excess returns, just like a large company hypothetically cant due to EMH

Am I reading this correctly anons? EMH just always smelled like academia nonsense. Reminds me of the old joke - an economist is out for a walk and steps on a $100 bill. He decides not to pick it up, stating 'if this was a real $100 bill someone else would have picked it up by now'.

You leave the ivory tower and go to the real world and calling anything 'efficient' is laughable. Idiots and opportnuity everywhere

[Anonymous No.53856240]

>>53855487
Historical a 60:40 portfolio in US/International outperforms everything, and thats within an overall 60:40 stock/bond portfolio

[Anonymous No.53856268]

>>53855708
I agree and yeah with the scale of the biggest companies in the country, all the talk of 'but its higher than historical PE ratios' is useless becaue 75 years ago shit like Ford and GE were the biggest companies making giant physical products, whereas nowdays Google and MS can scale stuff up only AFTER revenue is in their pocket. that useless stuff is what boomers say to force you to stay poor forever.

if anything the market could be UNDERvalued currently. theres no reason to not be 100-200% into the Nasdaq from age 20 to 40 if not longer. its just being poor on purpose

[Anonymous No.53856290]

>>53856150
uh I assumed by saying risk TD mean the same thing, standard deviation is how market return risk is quantified

[Anonymous No.53856309]

>>53856182
That's a personal value judgment. And I don't disagree in the abstract.

BTW, I do agree with these posts of yours:
>>53855763
>>53855803

Re:options
>>53856192
>options is largely gambling
Not if used in the way I would suggest. Let's say you bought Tesla stock at $15 in 2019. Now it's a year later and the stock is at around $100. You got an extraordinary 1 year return but you still believe in the company long term, so instead of selling the stock you SELL CALLS against it. Thus you receive guaranteed income in exchange for the potential upside. In general, writing (i.e. selling) options is the way to go if you own the underlying. I normally don't just outright BUY options except as part of a more complex strategy.

[Anonymous No.53856338]

>>53856226
>Idiots and opportnuity everywhere
There are 200million indians working twice as hard and twice as long as you, not to mention bots trying to take advantage of all this as well.
All short term opportunities are gone, you are not smart enough to beat the market, maybe you could 20 years ago

[Anonymous No.53856340]

>>53856240
Over what time frame though. Last 20 years with globalization is its own beast. Top US companies have a ton more global/international exposure than they did in the 70s, 80s, and 90s which a lot of these long term analysis include. By owning all large US companies IMO you get a nice international bent.

The greatest appeal to this is the business system set in America. It's just such a better investable business environment than any other country and it's not even close. I can betting on booms in capitalist friendly countries like India - but China too risky from regulatory/geopolitical standpoint, Japan population issues, South America lol inflation, corruption, etc. and Europe isnt appealing either.

I remember in 2010 the BRIC nations were all the rage and US growth was done. Well we saw how the last 10 years turned out for our market and BRIC isnt even a fucking term anymore. So I still feel good Buffeting it and going all US baby

[Anonymous No.53856356]

>>53856338
Im not talking about stock picking. Im not spinning wheels researching companies, dealing with emotional swings, timing purchases, etc. to chase an extra 1-2% yield vs passively dumping in index funds. Im talking about life in general, there is, and always will be, opportunity everywhere. At lest in business friendly america

[Anonymous No.53856410]

>>53856226
>means you also cant be able to consistently underperform the market - right?
This is a good point. Now obviously there are trading fees, taxes, etc that can cause underperformance all by themselves. But ignoring those, there is such a thing as being a shitty trader; viz., who cotton on to a trend too late, when it's about to turn the other way; or those who drink the koolaid thinking price reflects value.

>EMH just always smelled like academia nonsense.
Yes, you are reading that correctly. Academic economists are usually autists who act as useful idiots relative to the powers that be.

[Anonymous No.53856431]

>>53856290
>standard deviation is how market return risk is quantified
Why should it be quantified in that particular way?

[Anonymous No.53856463]

>>53848082
based vanguard bread

[Anonymous No.53856535]

>>53856338
It's not the kind of thing where throwing an extra few million laborers at it will dull one's edge.

Now AI? Yes, AI has the potential to spoil the whole game. But it's not yet at that level of sophistication. Maybe it will be in a few years, though. So smart retail traders (oxymoron?) still have some time. We will know when AI takes over by the sharp reduction in volatility. At that point, yes, passive index etfs will be the only way forward for retail.

[Anonymous No.53856588]

>>53856431
>why should mathematical concepts be modeled in a way such that people can glean useful, relevant information?
to be honest with you I don't know but if you disagree how about you got plot historical market returns to the likelihood you're going to shit your pants in the next hour instead

[Anonymous No.53856632]

>>53856588
So if you have two funds over 5 years with following performance:

Fund A: 10%, 11%, 12%, 8%, 10%
and
Fund B: 30%, 20%, 45%, 8%, 10%

the risk weighted returns of Fund A would be better right? St.Dev would be tiny, compared to B that is all over the place, but clearly outperforms? InB4 Sharpe ratio. Just think higher volatility for better funds can be a self fulfilling prophecy, no?

Explain to me my friend

[Anonymous No.53856674]

>>53856588
>why should mathematical concepts be modeled in a way such that people can glean useful, relevant information?
What makes you think that the representation of risk as specifically the standard deviation of returns is a model that enables people to "glean useful, relevant information"?

[Anonymous No.53856949]

>>53856674
std dev of returns isnt perfect as a descriptor of risk but it's decent enough

[Anonymous No.53856966]

>>53848082
>50% VTI
>30% BND
>20% VXUS

[Anonymous No.53857021]

>>53856966
I'm VT and EDV since still 30

[Anonymous No.53857036]

>>53856949
Strongly disagree. Long term investors are concerned about the possibility of long term loss of principal, but not short term volatility of returns.

[Anonymous No.53857744]

>>53855487
This is dangerous. 100% anything is dangerous. Always have a small amount diversified for the black swan event

[Anonymous No.53857777]

If you guys want a little more risk, look into factor investing, specifically small cap value. The best fund is AVUV. Ben Felix approved. Jack Bogle knew what factor investing was and supported it, but didnt push it for boomers because it brought on more complexity. If you're young, get some small cap value exposure, especially at these extremely derisked / low valuations they are in the bear market.

https://youtu.be/2MVSsVi1_e4

[Anonymous No.53857797]

>>53857777
fucking checked

[Anonymous No.53857819]

>>53857777
bogle chads stay winning

[Anonymous No.53857833]

>>53857036
if a portfolio has a high expected return but also a high standard deviation of returns it signals that very potential for long-term loss of principal if you end up in a left-tail scenario

[Anonymous No.53857837]

>>53848082
i hate indexers so much bros. lazy, smug, barren of independent thought, conviction or risk tolerance. truly unbearable.

[Anonymous No.53857876]

>>53857833
No, it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.53857881]

>>53857837
I like trading too. But buying and holding stocks is retarded. Look at what's happened this year. Companies losing 70% like it's nothing. Imagine buying Zoom at $400 or Affirm over $100 and they're penny stocks now. Imagine buying Amazon or Google instead of shorting them. The patrician way is buying index and shorting individual equities

[Anonymous No.53857941]

>>53857881
sounds comfy. I hold a highly concentrated portfolio, and sell options around my positions. It's crushed the market for the last half decade. Options are so beautiful... i've seriously thought of just converting my longs into LEAPS and owning nothing but a enormous cash pile to collateralize my options.. maybe a thicc divy player to run otm CC on for a bonus. lol imagine buying shitcos... I guess my biggest issues outside of the flavor of fellas that buy indexes, is that i like a handful of the companies in them and the rest of the basket is shit that i refuse to own... you want an index that beats the spy? take the spy... and cut 200-300 of the bottom performers... cut the shit.

[Anonymous No.53857972]

>>53857881
>The patrician way is buying index and shorting individual equities
At this point in time? You would be much better off doing the opposite.

[Anonymous No.53858004]

>>53857941
Fact: you are at least 100 times smarter than the OP....

[Anonymous No.53858017]

>>53857881
>Imagine buying Zoom at $400 or Affirm over $100
I can't because I don't have Down Syndrome.

[Anonymous No.53858026]

Holy shit this is the first useful thread on /biz/ in years.

[Anonymous No.53858114]

>>53857941
I agree with you, ultimately and don't think I'd hold indexes forever. If you can start to crank out $30-50k per position, it's worth it to hold individual stocks. Until then, trading is the better option and hold some index for long term

[Anonymous No.53858122]

>>53858004
>>53858017
kek as he agrees with me. gtfo or add to the thread

[Anonymous No.53858124]

>>53858026
Weird. This is like an hourly post in SMG. Almost all of us there actually do this and just have fun larping as someone who buys DOLE. (Ok some of us are actually up 20% on DOLE).

[Anonymous No.53858139]

>>53857941
I have 100 shares of Tesla. What’s a good CC date/strike in your opinion, options man?

[Anonymous No.53858171]

>>53856309
If you believe in the company long term why would you sell calls on it? If the price goes up then those calls will be exercise and you will lose the stock you own for a lower price then market. Are you a retard?

[Anonymous No.53858195]

>>53858171
>If you believe in the company long term why would you sell calls on it?
Because you know multiples are about to compress and earnings growth (if any) won't remotely compensate.

[Anonymous No.53858218]

>>53858195
how do you know so much s3npai

[Anonymous No.53858260]

>>53856632
Aw dude what an interesting hypothetical here let me try

Fund A:
21.23%, -5.27%, 30.87%, 20.75%, 25.64%, -19.51%
and
Fund B:
87.38%, 3.58%, 35.73%, 152.52%, -23.35%, -66.98%

except my funds are ITOT and ARKK and I think yours are made up, ITOT actually ended up returning a little more
what do I need to explain? that in the long run virtually no investor is able to consistently pick the fund that outperforms ahead of time, and that ignoring risk is a shit idea? should I explain why basing your investment decision off the prior five years of performance is a shit idea? what do you need explained?

>>53856674
because you haven't yet offered an alternative that lets people evaluate their optimal asset allocation
you and every other edgy bizraeli has argued modelling the concept of risk as st dev is a bad way to evaluate risk, but in the context of creating a portfolio of funds it works

>>53857036
no one said the volatility is short term, there are entire decades where an asset class performs unlike its typical performance and this is constantly the reason cited as to why you'd want to diversify into multiple asset classes in the first place

[Anonymous No.53858293]

>>53858260
>no one said the volatility is short term
>>53855643
>>53855834

[Anonymous No.53858294]

>>53858171
Let’s say you had 100 marbles with $1 a piece. You like marbles and you think in a year from now they might be worth $1.50 a piece, but you have pretty good information suggesting that those marbles might only be worth $.80 in a few months. You don’t want to sell them, because you still like your marbles and believe in them long term.
Along comes a fellow marble collector that thinks he knows better. He says “hey bro, I’ll bet you those marbles will be worth $1.20 in 4 weeks. Take the bet and you gotta sell them to me if they go above that price. I’ll pay you $20 right now.”
Now if the marble goes down to .$80 like I thought, I keep the $20 and my marbles. If it goes above $1.20(unlikely), I still keep the $20 and sell the man my marbles for $1.20. Maybe the marble went to $1.30 or even $1.50.
The point is, I didn’t lose any principle. I can buy back in, or take my chips and walk away.

[Anonymous No.53859512]

>>53855487
I was thinking the same, especially since inflation is greater than bonds yields at the moment. But then, why does anybody still use bonds in his portfolio? They seem to serve a purpose still.

„Stocks for the Long Run? Sometimes Yes. Sometimes No.“: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3805927

[Anonymous No.53859545]

Is Vanguard Real Estate Tokenized Stock Defichain DVNQ worth to buy?

[Anonymous No.53859558]

Go back to /SMG/, this board is for making a lot of money while you are still young, not investing like a retired boomer and working until you're 50. Go 50/50 crypto/precious metals if you actually want to make money without taking too much risk and avoiding all of the capital controls and clown world bs ahead

[Anonymous No.53859916]

is good to invest in Vanguard Real Estate Tokenized Stock Defichain DVNQ?

[Anonymous No.53861304]

>>53848082
I'm new to this. Can a Euro buy this directly or do I have to find a European (Irish?) replica if it exists?

[Anonymous No.53861483]

>>53857744
lol this isnt dangerous at all. A black swan event will be corrected or fixed in 5 years, just like it has every time in US history. If it's a black swan event that lasts decades (nuclear war) then stocks are the least of your concerns.

Meanwhile your emergency fund is just in cash. I can ride out any multi year black swan because Im not a /biz/ spaz. Initial covid crash, or the 20% loss last year? Yea zero sleep lost

[Anonymous No.53861506]

>>53857876
excellent rebuttal, I stand corrected

[Anonymous No.53861593]

>>53848082
Bonds are for losers. Imagine buying bonds at the bottom

[Anonymous No.53861639]

>>53861593
inflation is good for stocks I dont care what reddit or other fags tell you. Sure in the short term you will see downswings and volatility. But stocks are based on the value of the companies future earnings, and if there is inflation then that value goes up.

Long story short buy stocks and ride the wave out. Bonds are for patsies.

[Anonymous No.53861726]

>>53861506
it's pointless lmao

[Anonymous No.53861828]

>>53857941
Mike is that you?

[Anonymous No.53861880]

>>53861506
You're the one making the claim.

[Anonymous No.53861895]

>>53861880
Then explain to me why my claim is incorrect

[Anonymous No.53861909]

The core of my portfolios is VTSAX and VTIAX but I can't stop myself from buying some value and small memes

[Anonymous No.53861918]

Why aren't you guys going with VWRA?

[Anonymous No.53861966]

>>53861895
>>53861880

[Anonymous No.53862020]

>>53861966
Oh okay you're retarded. My bad for seriously engaging. I should've known when your 120 IQ investing strategy was selling covered calls lmao

[Anonymous No.53862039]

>>53861918
cause we're not europoors

[Anonymous No.53862050]

>>53862020
In other words, you got nothing. Your claim was:

>if a portfolio has a high expected return but also a high standard deviation of returns it signals that very potential for long-term loss of principal if you end up in a left-tail scenario

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence for this, because you can't. And all the insults in the world won't change that fact.

[Anonymous No.53862052]

>>53862039
>i don't ge'it.gif

[Anonymous No.53862073]

I want to fuck VTI

[Anonymous No.53862074]

For someone that plans to live off dividends without having to sell shares, are bonds even relevant? To take it further, would it be prudent to focus on a dividend ETF like SCHD rather than VTI?

[Anonymous No.53862081]

>>53862052
we can't purchase VWRA in the US, we have VT instead

[Anonymous No.53862132]

>>53862050
>invest in portfolio with high expected return and high standard deviation of returns

>you have several years of strong negative returns that fall within the left tail of the return distribution you identified

>you are now so far in the hole that recovery is unlikely even over a moderately long period of right-tail high returns

sounds like long-term loss of principal to me, chief. Go sell your TSLA covered calls.

[Anonymous No.53862208]

>>53862074
Put some more weight into purchasing SCHD while still buying VTI or VT since those will also offer divies just not as good as SCHD.

[Anonymous No.53862223]

>>53862132
That's not proof of what you're claiming. Standard deviation is not the cause of the loss of principal.

[Anonymous No.53862253]

>>53862208
Thank you for the advice. I'm assuming bonds are irrelevant for someone like me?

[Anonymous No.53862270]

>>53862223
standard deviation measures the volatility of returns. A high return volatility indicates a higher probability of deeply negative returns. Deeply negative returns are the cause of the loss of principal.

[Anonymous No.53862327]

>>53862270
You're describing a scenario where you bought the top of a highly speculative bubble stock. The volatility of returns is not the reason the bubble popped.

[Anonymous No.53862377]

>>53862253
At the moment yes. You generally want to start picking those up later. Do some research.

[Anonymous No.53862422]

>>53862327
>You're describing a scenario where you bought the top of a highly speculative bubble stock

point to where I said this. You're just putting words in my mouth to justify your talking points.

[Anonymous No.53862435]

>>53862422
>point to where I said this.
>>53862132

[Anonymous No.53862455]

>>53862435
that's not what I said, you're just making inferences about what I said. Try again.

a high standard deviation of returns =/= highly speculative bubble stock

[Anonymous No.53862477]

>>53862455
>>a high standard deviation of returns =/= highly speculative bubble stock
Indeed, but that's not what you said. You described a scenario in which there are several consecutive years of strong negative returns.

[Anonymous No.53862566]

>>53862477
which is a scenario that can occur when investing in portfolios/companies with a high standard deviation of returns

a catastrophic collapse in value doesn't necessitate the company/portfolio being a "highly speculative bubble stock", go look at GE.

[Anonymous No.53862613]

>>53862566
>which is a scenario that can occur when investing in portfolios/companies with a high standard deviation of returns
It can happen in a range of scenarios. Pre-crash standard deviation of returns is irrelevant.

>a catastrophic collapse in value doesn't necessitate the company/portfolio being a "highly speculative bubble stock", go look at GE.
GE didn't have a high standard deviation of returns before it crashed. In fact, it was quite the opposite since Welsh was managing earnings results (in a borderline criminal way) to meet expectations perfectly.

[Anonymous No.53862813]

>>53857881
Youre a retard. Nobody in their right mind would consider investing in absolutely overpriced (by factors of 100-500) stocks and consider themselves an investor.

[Anonymous No.53863507]

>>53848082
What’s a good price for VTI in the next 6 months. I just added to my Roth IRA and I think $200 is too much. I am thinking $180

[Anonymous No.53863516]

>>53863507
I'm going to start slurping at $180 but it will prob hit $160

[Anonymous No.53863722]

>>53863507
Slurp down and then once it bottoms slurp back up.

[Anonymous No.53864009]

>>53856114
>For those with an IQ above 120 who are interested in financial markets and willing to put in some work, you can do much better by judiciously investing in individual stocks, bonds and options.
There are much more efficient ways to make money for 120 iqs.