/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>430984

iHaz isn't particularly smart at all. There have been numerous instances of him having no idea what he is talking about coupled with extreme arrogance.

Having millions doesn't make you intelligent and it certainly doesn't make you less of a piece of shit.

>>430984
>>430989
Incorrect. His assertion that Buffett has underperformed the S&P 500 on numerous occasions is correct. And I've only seen him give good investing advice (index funds).

It's amazing how many people have bought into the cult of Buffett. Without his 2008 bailouts he would be on the street corner with a cup in his hand.

>>431008

A monkey jacking off its cock with one hand and slapping its other on a keyboard could repeat ad nauseum the old tired "index fund" adage.

There are other ways to make meaningful and lucrative investments. Index funds are not the be all end all.

In terms of Buffett, literally who cares.

>>431008
>ihaz shills
>someone actually shilling for a random user

llllllllllllllllllmao

>>431017
The reason why Index Funds are repeated "ad nauseum" is that they outperform literally everyone. Basically everyone who tries to outperform the market instead of taking the return of the market ends up underperforming the market. There have been thousands of studies done on this. So recommending the best investment (index funds) is a smart thing not a bad thing. It's like saying 'WHY DO YOU RECOMMEND PEOPLE TO WORK AND SAVE". Good advice is timeless and should be repeated often.

>>431038
Nah he's just another Boglehead and we all feel allegiance with one another. Whether you like him or not -and yes I agree he can be a bit arrogant- his advice is correct and you should listen to it.

>>431042

You're wrong. Not "literally everyone" under performs the market. The majority of people. Generally you'll find that the "majority of people" are pretty mediocre at absolutely everything.

My problem with iHaz isn't his index fund advice. It's when he barges into discussions he knows nothing about and gets demonstrably proven wrong.

Please take your mouth off his cock.

>>431055
Yes, literally everyone underperforms the market. Get over it. And you're not that special snowflake who will beat the market.

Google the following and click the top link (4chan recognises the link as spam).

wall-street-is-rentier-rip-off-index.html

>Generally you'll find that the "majority of people" are pretty mediocre at absolutely everything.
Except the people tasked with beating the market aren't the mediocre at all. They're the smartest most connected people on the planet. They all have top tier educations and the best training. And yet they always get beat by index fund investors.

Please take your mouth off Wall Street's cock.

>>430984
>letting a tripfag get to you to the degree that you're posting threads about said tripfag

>>431071

>has no idea what he's talking about but talks like he does.

>shills for a random internet poster.

What a world we live in.

>>431077
>has no idea what he's talking about but talks like he does.
Quite the contrary, I do know what I'm talking about. Which is why I don't fall for Wall Street marketing. To believe that there are people/institutions who consistently outperform the market is utter stupidity. You really are the gullible type Wall Street preys on.

One day you'll wake up to how the game works.

>>431071
>And yet they always get beat by index fund investors.

Hehe. Completely untrue. That's why there are hedge funds who have literally raped the S&P for decades.

"B-b-but hedge funds on average underperform the S&P. This obviously proves that you can't pick winners."

>>431080

>putting words into my mouth that I never said
>insinuating things that I do not think because you jump to conclusions on what you think I'm saying instead of reading what I actually said.

Yeah, I think we're done here.

>>430984
If I never see iHaz on here again I will be super happy. The only thing worse than ignorance is people whose egos won't allow them to see their own ignorance.

>>431089
>That's why there are hedge funds who have literally raped the S&P for decades.
....
>THEY SAID IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE.
top kek there are no hedge funds who have consistently outperformed the S&P 500. Not Soros, not Cohen, not anyone. It's bullshit.
>>431129
>The only thing worse than ignorance is people whose egos won't allow them to see their own ignorance.
That's why so many people don't invest in Index Funds.

>>431137
>top kek there are no hedge funds who have consistently outperformed the S&P 500. Not Soros, not Cohen, not anyone. It's bullshit.

Holy shit, you are pants-on-head retarded.

>>431137
Most investors know that they have to take risks to outperform the market. Your hyperbole implies that there is no bell curve and absolutely no one can come out on top. It's ridiculous.

There are other merits to active investing. Like the experience which could lead you to run your own funds and get paid in 100% guaranteed management fees.

>>431140
>believing published return figures
holy shit you don't actually do this?

>>431155

>Your hyperbole implies that there is no bell curve

Where does the evidence say that stock returns follow a normal distribution?

For anyone not index investing, your results are skewed by brokerage fees, fund expenses, and taxes.

>>431157
sounds like a conspiracy to me. got any sources that aren't from infowars?

off to /pol/ you go

>>431182
>where are your sources that wall street isn't honest
my sides

>>431240
you don't need them right? jews always lie amirite?

throw yourself in the garbage please

>>431008
>Without his 2008 bailouts he would be on the street corner with a cup in his hand.

What are you even talking about?

>>431008
>I have no idea what I'm talking about
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2012/11/27/berkshire-and-buffett-got-no-bailout-money-directly/

>>431282
>>431297
He had huge investments in companies that received bailouts. Not only that but his entire insurance business (which is the biggest piece of BRK) would have been wiped out without the bailouts. It's amazing how naive you faggots are.
>>431252
I'm not going to give you sauce for Wall Street lying about performance for the same reason I don't google shit for others. DO IT YOURSELF YOU LAZY CUNT.

>>431310
This is the worse logic I've ever seen
So does that mean every investor who has stock in a bank, or stock in something that has stock in a bank, would be "on the street corner with a cup in his hand"
95% of investors are now on the street corner

>>431316
>So does that mean every investor who has stock in a bank, or stock in something that has stock in a bank, would be "on the street corner with a cup in his hand"
Are you retarded? It's not about where the stock is held. He owned stock of companies that received tax payers money. Without your money, those companies would be bankrupt and he would have lost everything he invested in them. Tens of billions.

You people are such retarded faggots. You work all week and then give your money to this man. And then at the end of the week you go online and defend him for his amazing "investing" abilities. No wonder most of you are poor, you deserve nothing for being such suckers.

>>431310
you're making extraordinary claims about well-known funds. the burden of proof is on you.

lying about your returns is securities fraud. if they had lied about their returns, they would be in jail like Madoff

you are a fucking idiot

>>431316
>iHaz is shit

bu-but he's a la-lawyer with 20 years experience! Really guys he is!

>Buffett wasn't good at what he does anymore

He'd be right.

>>431322

>still has no idea what he's talking about.

Honestly why can't you and iHaz just fuck off? If you don't like investing in any other way than with an index fund then fine. Stay in your vanguard threads.

Stop bleeding into other threads where people are trying to discuss other things. I don't believe in technical analysis but when I see a thread on it I don't jump in and shit post about things I know nothing about.

You are absolutely pants on head retarded man.

>>431080
but there are (a few) but they exist.
if you're an unsophisticated and risk adverse investor than index and certain etf's are your best bet, but if you are willing to take serious risk and pay heavy fees there are alternative investments that can consistently beat the index.

Source: someone that actually works in investment management

>>431367
>extraordinary claims
oh boy
>lying about your returns is securities fraud
Firstly you do not have to "lie" about returns to inflate them. There are numerous techniques -many of which are legal- that hedge funds use to inflate their numbers.
>in jail like Madoff
top kek the SEC were being tipped off for decades on Bernie and never did anything. Never rely on the SEC
>>431545
>still has no idea what he's talking about.
Yea I've noticed this is what you say whenever you can't address any of the points being made. Sad.
>>431548
lel spoken like a true newb

wait a few years and you'll understand

>>431548

>someone that actually works in investment management

I see you've drunken the company kool aid then.

I hope you enjoy a long productive career of lying to yourself and your clients that those heavy fees don't bleed dry whatever meager advantage you *might* give.

>>431631
lol do you even work in the industry, see the actual data, look at the actual trades, and calculate the numbers

and yeah unfortunately a lot of funds do take unusually high fees, but we don't force people to give us their money, we tell them our fees show them how much alpha we generate net of fees, and the fee adjusted returns of our competitors both active and passive. But people are either too lazy, don't know, or don't have the capacity to manage their own investments..so we do it for them. Oh and by the way the kool aid is delicious, but then again you would know since you've been too.

>>431620
Lol you don't even know, God I can't believe I even come to the joke of place when so many of you know nothing

>>431620

You didn't make any points. You're just saying stupid shit like "literally no one beats the market".

Then telling me things I never said in order to try to prove me wrong.