|
Taima posted:Yeah dude I'm sure you have all the answers and would have delivered a masterpiece rebuttal if only that one dude hadn't been so crass as to lead with an internet emoticon. Looking for your other posts ITT and i cant seem to find them.. And you cant seem to find my posts after that one either
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
Sorry a little rolleyes emoticon doesnt scare me off coming after a all-too pat and hopeful ideology..EMH believers have never traded a day in their lives. If its so efficient, explain the market boom/bust cycle and flash crashes. Explain "irrational exuberance". Its just stupid and hoping for an academic sense of order out in the world and in your 401k (fat chance). Rolling eyes is all youve got to fend off the reality The markets have not really come that far from the great tulip mania of 16-whenever. That wasnt too efficient an event was it? the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Sorry a little rolleyes emoticon doesnt scare me off coming after a all-too pat and hopeful ideology..EMH believers have never traded a day in their lives. If its so efficient, explain the market boom/bust cycle and flash crashes. Explain "irrational exuberance". Its just stupid and hoping for an academic sense of order out in the world and in your 401k (fat chance). Rolling eyes is all youve got to fend off the reality You don't understand EMH, go read the wiki, because you are making a bit of a fool of yourself now. Basically, what it boils down to is: you do not know any better if Apple Inc. is going to be trading higher or lower tomorrow, than the millions of other traders out there. You may think you do, but all of the theories and hidden opportunities you have and see are already priced into the share value because on average the millions of other traders have those same theories and see those same opportunities. You do not have any other information than anybody else, you do not have any edge on the millions of other traders, reducing everything you do to pretty much gambling. Anyway, this isn't controversial. Everybody on wall street knows this. Why do you think all those investment firms want to invest other peoples money, and not their own? Edit, you are conflating EMH with the idea of a rational market, which it actually very much does not presume. Confusion fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
I said "educated guess" multiple times, no trader claims to know whats going to happen tomorrow. And im not making a fool of myself, in order for a market to be completely, or even partially efficient, it would have to be rational as well. Thats kindof what efficiency is..taking logical processes as far and as cleanly as they can go. Step right up posters, i read your little random walk down wall street book a long time ago And if i should read a wiki article (lol) you all should read Nassim Taleb. He made a living exploiting market inefficiencies and now all he does is write about it the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:I said "educated guess" multiple times, no trader claims to know whats going to happen tomorrow. And im not making a fool of myself, in order for a market to be completely, or even partially efficient, it would have to be rational as well. Thats kindof what efficiency is..taking logical processes as far and as cleanly as they can go. Step right up posters, i read your little random walk down wall street book a long time ago It does not. Market efficiency merely relates to the efficiency of setting a fair price in correspondence to the information available. That 'information' itself can be highly irrational such as psychological effects causing boom-bust cycles, things like irrational exuberance and people expectations about these things. Edit: Nobody is arguing that there aren't people that profit from the market. But there are also people the profit from a casino. The data however is pretty clear, and it shows that on average investment funds simply do not outperform the market. Confusion fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
The benefit of a good fund is while you might do only as well as the overall market when its climbing, you dont lose as loving badly when it crashes and burns. North Coast Asset Management is a good example of this, check their record. http://www.northcoastam.com/ The first part of your post says and explains exactly nothing about the market. If a pump and dumped stock is somehow "efficient" then I have no idea what the use of the theory is, that is bizarro world equivocating "if i cant do it no one can" crap. But yes trading is a form of gambling yes, and a lot comes down to good money management which ive also said a number of times. No ones talking about perfect knowledge being crucial. Jeez the people this topic brings out
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:The first part of your post says and explains exactly nothing about the market. If a pump and dumped stock is somehow "efficient" then I have no idea what the use of the theory is, that is bizarro world equivocating "if i cant do it no one can" crap. It is merely a statement about the fact that you, nor anybody else, has an edge on the rest of the market. And that you can't beat the market long term by being 'smarter'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Confusion posted:It is merely a statement about the fact that you, nor anybody else, has an edge on the rest of the market. And that you can't beat the market long term by being 'smarter'. Aside from insider trading, what would constitute an edge to you? HFT funds get an edge by getting their servers as close to the exchange as possible, so thats one edge i can think of that has happened and is easily explainable...edges are constantly being found and exploited until they no longer exist. Someone has to make those markets efficient you know..it doesn't just happen. When they say arbitrage is impossible, what they actually mean but dont want to admit is the current way to do it is saturated. Like 20 different competing brands of your favorite soda pop until everyones sick of soda pop and they move on. And the market is just an aggregate of individual securities, why talk about it so monolithically? Youre talking about some kind of impossible difference of degree, not kind. Youre saying "no one can jump this high...except that guy". Why not exactly? The whole thing falls apart. Everyones a market participant. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Aug 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
You don't need an edge or to be "smarter than the market" to see trends and patterns (and to make a reasonably informed bet on some of them). Theres a lot of crosstalk going on here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
An anecdote about Rob Arnott, professional investor/academic. When giving a speech to 200 finance professors, he asked how many of them taught the efficient market hypothesis. Pretty much everyone's hand went up. He then asked how many of them believed in it. Only two hands stayed up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Y'know what's a better way to make money than day trading? Get 1000 trained monkeys to trade stocks at random until one of them goes on a hot streak and earns a 100% return. Then hire that monkey out as a genius investor prodigy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
I do wonder how much of this is just internet Marxists who've found they don't get angry enough over the unfairness of the market anymore, so they've decided half the first world economy does literally nothing instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:I do wonder how much of this is just internet Marxists who've found they don't get angry enough over the unfairness of the market anymore, so they've decided half the first world economy does literally nothing instead. Most of the derivatives market offers nothing to the world (or investors for that matter). This is not a contentious opinion, plenty of economic studies done on the matter by people pretty far from Marxists (heads of private banks and retirement funds).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
Bensa posted:Most of the derivatives market offers nothing to the world (or investors for that matter). This is not a contentious opinion, plenty of economic studies done on the matter by people pretty far from Marxists (heads of private banks and retirement funds). Bets placed on bets placed on bets placed on bets..a truly valuable service
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 09:56
|
|
|
I don't deny that a ton of the complexity only serves to confuse people to better take their money. But deep down investment banks do raise actual money to fund actual businesses, and their profits don't come entirely from corruption.Guy DeBorgore posted:Y'know what's a better way to make money than day trading? Get 1000 trained monkeys to trade stocks at random until one of them goes on a hot streak and earns a 100% return. Then hire that monkey out as a genius investor prodigy. I mean if this worked, someone would have actually done it (with a nice respectable computer system to stand in for the monkeys). Barring an evil capitalist conspiracy, nobody would want to pay huge salaries to prima donna traders if they didn't have to. Strategic Tea fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Aug 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:I mean if this worked, someone would have actually done it (with a nice respectable computer system to stand in for the monkeys). Barring an evil capitalist conspiracy, nobody would want to pay huge salaries to prima donna traders if they didn't have to. Every time you see some fund touting their out performance against a benchmark over a long period of time this is almost certainly what you are seeing. It's survivorship bias (or a ponzie scheme) and it happens all the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
In a way it's actually beneficial for people to believe that, like a very convenient fiction, because it gives stability to the market if the vast majority of investors don't feel spooked at the sign of a sell-off, same principle with FDIC insurance. Anything to prevent bank runs/market runs, from overly academic and ideological views about how the market works to pushing everyones savings into tax advantaged accounts that punish them for taking it out early. Enforcing order in the capitalist system through repeated belief and a little bit of punitive action lessens the worst shocks of the boom/bust cycle. Meanwhile the freewheeling betters and gamblers can keep doing what they're doing and shut up about it and no ones any worse off. EMH forever! Unironically even
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Aside from insider trading, what would constitute an edge to you? HFT funds get an edge by getting their servers as close to the exchange as possible, so thats one edge i can think of that has happened and is easily explainable...edges are constantly being found and exploited until they no longer exist. Congratulations, you've just invented the efficient market hypothesis! Tautologicus posted:You don't need an edge or to be "smarter than the market" to see trends and patterns (and to make a reasonably informed bet on some of them). Theres a lot of crosstalk going on here. If you want those bets to actually pay off, then they need to reflect trends and patterns that are statistically likely to play out. Everybody else in the market has access to the same data that you do (assuming no insider trading, etc). You need to find somebody else in the market willing to take the other side of your bet, at terms favorable to you. So, there are only two possible scenarios. One, you really are smarter than the market or have some kind of edge - necessarily so, because you've looked at the same data everyone else has, but drawn better conclusions about what it means for the future. Or, alternately, you have secret information or a structural advantage - which we can still toss under the "edge" category. Over time, your bets will pay off in more favorable ways than the people who bet against you, because you're smarter or have an edge, and you take their money. And, when you do take everybody else's money, they'll notice! They'll start picking apart your strategies. If you've outsmarted the market with a better strategy, pretty soon, other traders will pick up the same strategy and incorporate it into their understanding of the market, and prices will adjust - you have to be regularly coming up with new genius-level insights into how the whole thing works to keep the money train rolling. If you have a structural advantage, regulators are supposed to pick up on it. This might not always work that well when we're talking about massive, well-connected trading houses, but if Joe Daytrader manages to find a structural edge that can't be easily replicated, it'll very likely be shut down by regulators once it's big enough to be noticeable. Or, two, trading in the short-term near-zero-sum world without insider information or a pile of video cards colocated with the exchange is an effectively useless way to burn money on commissions, and you might as well grab some VTWSX instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Congratulations? It doesn't happen instantly (so it's not efficient). The rest of your post basically wasn't worth writing
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:Y'know what's a better way to make money than day trading? Get 1000 trained monkeys to trade stocks at random until one of them goes on a hot streak and earns a 100% return. Then hire that monkey out as a genius investor prodigy. You basically just described backtesting trading strategies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:I'm skeptical that these firms outperform the market (query: what is the index used for comparison?) longterm, given the ample body of empirical research showing that longterm outperformance is nearly nonexistent. Radiolab did a good podcast on it. Everything else in trading is just smoke and mirrors and gambling. The only difference is that, instead of the house having an edge, in this case the gambler has a small edge. Still, just like people can walk away as winners from Vegas, many people walk away as losers from the market. The only way to win with relatively low risk is to work in large volume and diversify or gamble with other people's money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Carnival of Shrews posted:I found this quote whilst hunting for this NYT article from 2010, which describes the problems of day trading better than any other I've read. Note that Andrew Lindloff, the day trader described as 'odds-defying', who survived in this game for over a decade (part of the time, apparently, with his small daughter bouncing on a bed behind him as he attempted mental combat with a swarm of algorithms) stated that his income (I think net, not gross, but he didn't explicitly state which) was between $100 000 and $120 000 p/a. Nice money, but not outrageous for someone working in finance, and if he was making about $500 a day he'd only have been trading on two days out of three each year, when it seems likely that such a guy would rarely take a day off. And taxes and trading charges soon rack up. This article is really good and notes, but doesn't directly address the nature of day-trading. "For years, Mr. Gomez was a manager at a self-storage facility, but he couldn’t resist trading commodities during office hours, and he had a hard time keeping his mind on his work." This is the archetype of the day trader. Office job, consistent income, disposable income to trade. Day trading is very, very rarely anyone's primary occupation, including the guys in this article. (explained later) So why do people persist in this line of work? “The technical term is thrill-seeking,” ... “There’s an adrenaline rush... quick feedback. If you buy and hold, a lot of things need to happen before you see a result, and much of what happens relates to external factors that are beyond your control. With day trading, you’re in charge... Also, he says, “people enjoy trading.”" Day trading is like gambling. An institution has the edge, most people lose money overall, but it is their hobby and entertainment. A huge factor is entertainment and a feeling of power/knowledge, which is very desirable to most people with management-type jobs where they can spend time gaming the markets. It's about the rush, the feeling of winning by your own volition. A one-time win is worth a long-term loss for the feeling of self-satisfaction. A gambler isn't going to tell you how they spent $10k of their $50k income on gambling, they're going to tell you about winning $1k. A day trader is more likely to have a larger income than that, and they aren't hitting zero because they have a consistent income. Considering most managed to work their way up to a job with a sizable income, they also know how much they can spend, and most probably also have retirement accounts and other investments. Mr. Lindloff thinks he has been juked and jived by a robo trader. “That was nothing but an algorithm boogie,” he mutters to the Today Trader faithful. “Goddang it. Drives me crazy.”" Robo-trading by institutions is such a lucrative game because there are tons of day traders out there to be gamed out of a bit of money. They mentally write it off as no loss to their ego. Winning $800 on one's own volition while losing $100 nine times to a robo-trader is still a mental gain when you're in it for an ego-boost. Tautologicus posted:HFT funds get an edge by getting their servers as close to the exchange as possible, so thats one edge i can think of that has happened and is easily explainable...edges are constantly being found and exploited until they no longer exist. P-Mack posted:I've been to the offices of hedge funds who reliably beat the market and make millions. I worked with the back end of this and it puts dystopian sci-fi supervillain supercomputers to shame. It makes the death star look like a Yugo. The idea that any day trader is going on instinct and consistently beating these is unbelievable. There are teams of people like the most analytical and qualified of day traders, working together to program to computers to out-think the day trader, leveraging a mechanical advantage from servers with the fastest possible response time to the stock exchange, and there are dozens of companies doing this. The business model of day trading - buying and reselling stocks within a day - has been commercialized and computerized to the point where a human doing it is pointless now. Ironically, the archetype/mythos of the day trader rose during the dot-com boom, before the exchange was computerized to the extent that it is now. Why do a few dozen subscribers pay to watch these quite appealing but hardly world-beating guys at work? “Eighty percent of it is camaraderie" It's like betting on a game of pool. The guy who loses three out of five games while spending money on drinks is still enjoying himself at the bar. Some people just like to do it digitally with the stock market rather than in a bar with a pool table. It's a hobby/entertainment. You get gamed by a hustler? Well gently caress that guy, he's a hustler! You work hard for his money and he's gotta game people for it. "[a company] which offers two-day investment seminars, as well as DVDs, CDs and online tutoring, in cities across the country. Price: $3,995 a person. Part of the pitch taps into the simmering anger at professional investors." Financial gurus selling services to people whose primary job is elsewhere is a huge business. Hedge funds and investment banks do it a lot for companies whose main business is elsewhere, because financial stuff still affects them. Selling advice really helps cover costs and pad your bankroll when your goal is trying to squeeze out a few percentage points. In this case, rather than being a big boy consulting for another big boy, these are small-timers selling advice to other small-timers. It happens at every scale, and selling financial advice is a much more traditional and lucrative business than day trading. "The company charges aspiring traders $199 a month for a live, real-time view of Mr. Lindloff’s computer screen...By the opening bell, 21 subscribers are logged in." Just those 21 subscribers at $199 per month for 12 months per year adds up to over $50k, and this guy claims to make $100-120k per year. That's 21 customers at the opening bell, so if he's "making" $165 per day while paying $300 in fees - losing $135 per day - he can do that all ~250 days the stock market is open and still earn his $100k+ with 60 paying subscribers. One guy in this story was cold-calling investment firms for a job - all of these "investment gurus" are either selling their knowledge or working a day job, and that's their real income. Zodijackylite fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Sep 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Zodijackylite posted:I worked with the back end of this and it puts dystopian sci-fi supervillain supercomputers to shame. It makes the death star look like a Yugo. The idea that any day trader is going on instinct and consistently beating these is unbelievable. There are teams of people like the most analytical and qualified of day traders, working together to program to computers to out-think the day trader, leveraging a mechanical advantage from servers with the fastest possible response time to the stock exchange, and there are dozens of companies doing this. And every once in a while they get the formulas terribly wrong and nearly destroy a good chunk of the global economy. http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=1 It's the CIIIIIRRCLE OF LIIIIIIIIIIFE
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
You can make money that way but you'd need a lot to start and be ready to lose too. Basically you only have to "win" some of the time and know when to cut your Losses when you lose, but there are some fairly reliable patterns in market behavior and if you are not emotional about it and simply play the patterns and knowing when to cut gains and losses you can indeed make money. If you want to practice trading without risking (or gaining) real money you can go to marketwatch.com and set up a game that uses virtual dollars and real market data. Learn how to read sec papers, learn how to spot patterns (for example when a stock falls its very common for it to slow then temporarily bounce back up for a moment, before plunging again. Also knowing time-of-day patterns such as early morning rushes and end of the day buyback from short sellers. The problem is, even if you are consistently winning 10-20% and cutting your losses at 0-10%, you may be coming out on top (and performing far better than safer and easier mutual funds) , but if you're only trading a few hundred bucks worth of stock you aren't going to profit much after trading fees and taxes and stuff. People who win hundreds a day must be very disciplined and expect 5-15% returns and for the amount of time and work it may just be smarter to put it into mutual funds and dividend paying stocks so you don't have to babysit them unless that's how you get your jollies
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:You can make money that way but you'd need a lot to start and be ready to lose too. quote:The problem is, even if you are consistently winning 10-20% and cutting your losses at 0-10%, you may be coming out on top (and performing far better than safer and easier mutual funds) , but if you're only trading a few hundred bucks worth of stock you aren't going to profit much after trading fees and taxes and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:You think there are reliable patterns, but you simultaneously think that high frequency traders haven't noticed these patterns, and aren't pouring billions into these patterns faster than you could ever hope to because they're actually in the same building as the stock exchange, presumably because they just hate making money? I fully expect them to and expect to surf the waves that they create with their predictable trading. Once you get that volume of trading, it starts to form patterns again. As a day trader you only have to ride the speculation of people with more money. quote:You're being pretty unclear on the timelines here. 10% gains a day would just be completely absurd and quickly lead to having billions of dollars. 10% a year isn't blatantly stupid, but will still outperform the majority of mutual funds. If you are actually capable of averaging 10% returns a year, it's totally reasonable to do that as your full time job (no one reading this thread is capable of that). Not every day of course but over weeks and months. You also can't assume reinvesting all of it for maximum compounding, the smart thing would be to split up any gains and put them into more stable ling term stuff, so you would grow slowly and not become a billionaire unless you are the luckiest person alive. Still, you can grow your wealth this way. It's not the toughest thing in the world to spot scams and shell corporations but if you can spot a pump and dump and time it correctly you can ride those patterns for quick gains. It's risky and people don't advise it because it's safer over the long term to use mutual funds or some other long term strategy. Try it with virtual money games and see how tough it is and how risky before wasting any real money
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:I said "educated guess" multiple times, no trader claims to know whats going to happen tomorrow. And im not making a fool of myself, in order for a market to be completely, or even partially efficient, it would have to be rational as well. Thats kindof what efficiency is..taking logical processes as far and as cleanly as they can go. Step right up posters, i read your little random walk down wall street book a long time ago Taleb is best known for Black Swan theory, which states that high-impact events are by their nature hard to predict, and therefore under-weighted in risk models. Applied to trading, this involves positioning for possible events, while remaining neutral about their timing. Take a cheap position, and you can wait a long time for it to deliver a large dividend, when the under-weighted high impact event manifests. Unexpected events mean volatility, so if you're positioned for volatility, you're ready for the unexpected. Cheap positions relative to your capital pool are important, because the longer you can last until that "black swan" event turns up, the more time-neutral you can be. It's literally the exact polar opposite of day trading, which is about earning constant small rewards by trying to time movements. Mr Enderby fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Sep 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Taleb is best known for Black Swan theory, which states that high-impact events are by their nature hard to predict, and therefore under-weighted in risk models. Applied to trading, this involves positioning for possible events, while remaining neutral about their timing. Take a cheap position, and you can wait a long time for it to deliver a large dividend, when the under-weighted high impact event manifests. Unexpected events mean volatility, so if you're positioned for volatility, you're ready for the unexpected. Cheap positions relative to your capital pool are important, because you need to Bolded - need to what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Basically day trading without being really knowledgeable is little different than people who think they have a betting "system" that will beat the casinos- it's just people not having a clue what probability means. High return= high risk, end of story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:Bolded - need to what? Sorry, fixed it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZgV0fWGWmM This seems a fairly good guide to trading. The lads at the start especially know their stuff. Though they day trade mostly in FOREX they've already amassed a million and plan to be the worlds first trillionaires.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
If you try to ride the momentum as a day trader, you're just going to make your broker rich off of fees. Taleb's strategies oftentimes rely on exotic financial instruments to get the exposure to high impact events, a lot of these are out of reach of day traders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
I'll go ahead and play devil's advocate and yes I have done what you described in the OP and yes I have come ahead in every trade with the exception of one, which I'll get into. And please take all of this with a grain of salt because every time I post this or talk about this people line up to tell me I'm an idiot but my day trading account has cleared 30% per year consistently so suck my dick I guess. Foremost, the biggest issue with day trading is that by nature of investment you should not put said money away unless you are truly prepared to not touch it for decades, which conflicts with holding a stock short term to ride a wave. For example, what's a $10 bill from 1920 worth? I have no idea, I'll guess maybe $20 to a collector or something. But compare that to $10 in coca-cola stock in 1920 and yeah you're a millionaire. Anyway, my strategy was pretty straightforward. Find an industry that I was familiar with so that I could reliably interpret news, watch prices to get an idea of a relative limit, wait until said stock dropped 3%-5% in a day as stocks sometimes do, buy and resell ideally within two weeks on the rebound. Earlier I mentioned I've only lost money with this once. That was Sirius XM radio back in like 2011. I bought it at ~$2.35, but due to unexpected bills I had to sell at ~$2.20, a drat shame since it shot up to $3.30 in the months after. Hence, don't invest unless you're prepared to not touch it come worst case scenario. I'm not claiming to be some stock market guru, but that's what I've done and it's worked for me. It probably also helped that I'm a private investigator by trade, so I enjoy researching the poo poo out of something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Noslo posted:Foremost, the biggest issue with day trading is that by nature of investment you should not put said money away unless you are truly prepared to not touch it for decades, which conflicts with holding a stock short term to ride a wave. For example, what's a $10 bill from 1920 worth? I have no idea, I'll guess maybe $20 to a collector or something. But compare that to $10 in coca-cola stock in 1920 and yeah you're a millionaire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
twodot posted:$10 in Coca Cola stock from 1920 would be worth ~$92,000 today, but sure we believe whatever returns you're getting is something other than luck. Thank you. I pulled that number out of my rear end and to prove that cash depreciates long term and it still stands. And please believe whatever you want. The satisfaction of others has no effect on my value of my portfolio.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
I absolutely believe that you can get 30% returns year over year, indefinitely, with no real risk. Do you use net jet or do you own your own? Because you must be running a mutli-billion dollar investment firm since you are outperforming every hedge fund, investment bank or other vehicle by a multiple of two or three. Tell me, what other numbers did you pull out of your rear end?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I absolutely believe that you can get 30% returns year over year, indefinitely, with no real risk. Murgos posted:Do you use net jet or do you own your own? Because you must be running a mutli-billion dollar investment firm since you are outperforming every hedge fund, investment bank or other vehicle by a multiple of two or three. Murgos posted:Tell me, what other numbers did you pull out of your rear end?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Noslo posted:Just the $10 one. And after careful review we see that it was actually $110 in 1920 that was needed to be a millionaire today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:Overvaluing a stock by a factor of 10: the sign of a financial genius outperforming everyone in the field. I got 3/4 of the factors right though, so that means I'm 75% correct! Seriously though when you keep nitpicking the same literal interpretation of what I've been saying was an off the cuff remark, it only devalues your own argument. I thought the tone of the sentence made that apparent, but text doesn't always work like that I guess. Still open to any questions though, since this is an A/T thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
I too have made 30% per year consistently but also had so little money on hand that I had to sell at a loss to cover an unexpected expense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 06:13
|
|