/smg/ - Stock Market General

[Anonymous No.14279178]

List of popular brokers:
https://pastebin.com/mrSchZPg

List of basic stock market terminology for newfags:
https://pastebin.com/VtnpN5iJ

Free advanced charting tools:
http://www.tradingview.com
https://www.koyfin.com/

Real-time market news:
https://thefly.com/index.php

Educational sites:
https://www.investopedia.com/
https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain

Best free stock screener
https://finviz.com/
https://www.tradingview.com/screener/

Premarket Data:
https://www.investing.com/indices/indices-futures

Earnings Report Calendars:
https://biz.yahoo.com/research/earncal/today.html
https://www.earningswhispers.com/calendar

Pump and Dump Advertising:
https://stocktwits.com

Boomer Investing 101:
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_started

Options Markets 101:
https://cdn.ymaws.com/afajof.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/files/Historical_Texts/cox-rubinstein-ocr-1985.pdf

Suggested books:
https://pastebin.com/jgA5zTuC

List of hedge fund holdings:
https://fintel.io/

for the snibbed:
https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/

Of previously:
>>14272148

[Anonymous No.14279185]

Buy Bitcoin

[Anonymous No.14279214]

TESLA

[Anonymous No.14279269]

Buy PCG

[Anonymous No.14279282]

>>14279178
would you guys recommend paying off credit card debt before investing again into stockmarket or should i invest and hope my monthly gains outperform my interest payments

[Anonymous No.14279320]

>>14279282
>having debt
why?

[Anonymous No.14279350]

>>14279320
should i use my retirement savings to pay it off

[Anonymous No.14279490]

>keep selling crypto thinking it’ll pull back
JUST

I DONT KNOW HOW TO TULIPMANIA!?!

[Anonymous No.14279497]

>>14279282
You should pay off your credit card debt before you spend money on stocks or anything else unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.14279509]

>>14279490
I guess retardation doesn’t have a price

Talking about crypto, not you fren

[Anonymous No.14279526]

Reminder that T Babies, AMRN, and DIS with a side helping of GE and PINS will set you up right nicely for the rough times ahead.

Hell by monday we may be at war with Iran!

[Anonymous No.14279528]

>get TD Ameritrade account to trade options
>make about $420 yesterday
>lose about $200 today
>profitable on the week

a-am I doing it right? So far have traded USO, SPY and QQQ options.

[Anonymous No.14279550]

I refuse to buy bitcoin
sorry, I don't buy the hype..

[Anonymous No.14279584]

>>14279528
dont trade options sell them

[Anonymous No.14279627]

>>14279550
That’s what I said too, until robinhood gave me the option, and I recognized its potential value as a hedge, and tool for capital flight.

I’m not sure how much of this is hype, maybe 75%. But I think some of it is wealthy folks, likely trying to get their money out of China/inflationary currency. And some is large institutions gobbling it up.

But if you own physical gold you’re probably better off.

[Anonymous No.14279661]

>>14279627
buying crypto on RH is like buying gold ETFs

you're not really buying crypto that you own

[Anonymous No.14279669]

>>14279584
At some point maybe I'll sell covered calls but for now I want to dip the toes in the water with active trading. It's pretty scary though, probably not gonna keep this up long term. I kept a single SPY call open over the weekend but really can't imagine holding these gunpowder kegs over the weekend. People are insane.

[Anonymous No.14279709]

>>14279661
What’s the best alternative for burgerlandians?

Also, Gold ETFs ain’t bad. Yeah yeah if shit hits the fan you won’t be able to get it. But you still make a tidy profit in chaotic and inflationary times. I’d like to have 5% of my net value in physical gold and 5% in paper gold. But I’m not wealthy enough to do it, and Gold is already the most expensive it’s been in years.

[Anonymous No.14279776]

>>14279669
>I want to dip the toes in the water with active trading.
Why?

[Anonymous No.14279856]

Rate my portfolio weekendfags

ABBV
AM
ARCC
BDCL
CNXM
D
EPD
ETO
IEP
LMLP
MAIN
MRRL
SMHD
USAC

Over 110k yielding 11.5%

[Anonymous No.14279860]

>>14279776
The potential for profit, simple as. I've gotten pretty good at momentum trading and see a lot of similar traits in what I follow.

[Anonymous No.14279875]

>>14279856
Your rich af man

[Anonymous No.14279883]

what platform you guys using for salping? fuck i can't stand meta trader after trying out pro real time

[Anonymous No.14279955]

>>14279875
I'm not rich at all. Yet.

[Anonymous No.14280010]

>>14279856
>SMHD
DVYL and SDYL are much better

[Anonymous No.14280011]

>>14279669
Actually held a put, but all the same with these things desu.

[Anonymous No.14280090]

>>14280010
Owned DVHL (similar) previously, getting rid of SMHD Monday. There are some issues with those, but damn do they churn money.

[Anonymous No.14280156]

>>14280090
DVYL and SDYL actually still go up in value

[Anonymous No.14280231]

>>14280090
>>14280156
CEFL has been very based in the several months I've owned it. Very flat action overall but that distribution sure is reliable. Had SMHD for a little while but it was terrible and I sold, which ended up being a good call. From what I remember fucking Gamestop was its largest weighting.

[Anonymous No.14280287]

>>14280231
Still same problem
It goes down

[Anonymous No.14280299]

>>14280231
>>14280156

Owned CEFL too, literally just got rid of it a couple weeks ago. I'm not saying any of these are "bad", it's just a risk appetite. Out of all the mentioned ones, I'd say DVYL is probably the best in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.14280350]

>>14279214
LONGGG

[Anonymous No.14280354]

>>14280299
I hear ya, it would be nice to have one that gains like you said.

>>14280287
Maye long long term. I bought several months ago and am actually positive on the position, with a pretty sweet total return.

[Anonymous No.14280361]

>>14279282
Keep a positive net worth and you're fine, assuming you have income. Also consider balance transfer to a 0% or low interest card to pay it off. Debt is ok if it's managed and not because of shit like buying 10 Xboxes because you felt like it.

[Anonymous No.14280393]

>>14280354
Leveraged ETFs decay, its a simple fact of investing.

[Anonymous No.14280397]

>>14279584
Retarded advice

[Anonymous No.14280459]

Is anyone familiar with how Robinhood handles options assignments? I believe the notification from Robinhood said, "You've been assigned..." but in my account history, it says it's pending. Does Robinhood just always say you've been assigned when the call expires in the money even if the contracts don't end up getting exercised? Is there any way to know for sure at this point, or do I just need to wait until Monday?

[Anonymous No.14280460]

How many different stocks do you guys typically hold? I've got 13 but I just started.

[Anonymous No.14280487]

>>14280460
I literally just posted my whole portfolio haha, I hold 14, soon to be 13. How big is your portfolio?

[Anonymous No.14280514]

>>14280459
Meant to post a pic

[Anonymous No.14280543]

Newfag here, could someone post a link to the google drive for the books? Thanks in advance desu

[Anonymous No.14280550]

>>14280543
>https://pastebin.com/jgA5zTuC

[Anonymous No.14280678]

>>14280487
About $900. I started with $100 and been adding in every week. I'm a wageslave but I figured it's better late than never and just trying to learn the ropes with Robinhood.

[Anonymous No.14280707]

>>14280460
Peter Lynch recommended 8-12 stocks as a maximum for the "part-time stock picker" (i.e. you) and 5 stocks as sufficiently diversified. The reasoning is that you shouldn't hold stocks if you can't keep up with the company's news and reports. (Sorry for the terrible picture. I tried too combine screenshots from two pages on my phone.)

[Anonymous No.14280757]

>>14280707
Would he count ETFs and the like as "companies"?

[Anonymous No.14280764]

>>14280678
You have way too many stocks. 8-12 like anon said is good, but that's when you have some powder to play with. With three- and four-digit investing, keep it limited. Diversification limits losses, but it also limits gains. You need the gains first, then you can diversify to keep that money and use it to make more money.

[Anonymous No.14280793]

>>14280764
That does make sense.

[Anonymous No.14280808]

when will you stockfags admit that you've been wrong since 2009?

[Anonymous No.14280877]

>>14280793
Well let's say you have 20 companies split over 1k. Each position is worth $50. Company XYZ goes parabolic and doubles in value. You only made $50 profit. Full disclosure, I made my initial money in binary options, so I'm a bit nuts.

[Anonymous No.14280895]

>>14280808
When I'm no longer retired.

[Anonymous No.14280919]

>>14280459
>>14280514
>>14279178
>>14279282
Newfag that just put $100 in Robinhood to start trading. What would be the best moves for me to start making some more money to invest with? Should I look in to short and long positions? I do not want to seem lazy, just very new.

[Anonymous No.14280945]

how much commission does your stock broker charge?

[Anonymous No.14280974]

>>14280550
Yeah, the google drive as mentioned in that exact pastebin

[Anonymous No.14280975]

THREADLY REMINDER THAT DIVIDENDS ARE YOUR FREN

How’s everyones Friday?

[Anonymous No.14281007]

>>14280975
It's Saturday here already

[Anonymous No.14281070]

>>14280757
Sort of. I think 8-12 is assuming you are picking your own individual company stock, which was his recommendation. If remember correctly, he advised if you'd rather invest in mutual funds (or ETFs), you should diversify across about 6 different types of funds. I'll check the book in a bit to see if he says anything in that section.

[Anonymous No.14281131]

>>14279178
>Boomer Investing 101:
>https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_started
Why is DIY index investing labeled as a Boomer thing?
Index funds didn't take off until the 2000s and only became mainstream over the last decade.
Boomers have their company pensions or whatever.

[Anonymous No.14281152]

>>14281131
Because anything that actually makes you money is seen as "boomer".

[Anonymous No.14281161]

do you guys only trade with stocks? is no one using index futures?

[Anonymous No.14281177]

>>14280975
Bases and divvyp- wait where the FUCK is your divvy picture?

[Anonymous No.14281188]

>>14281161
Futures are just a meme here haha

[Anonymous No.14281215]

>>14281161
me trade ES and ZN :3

wha you want know?

[Anonymous No.14281227]

>no edition

[Anonymous No.14281341]

>>14281131
boomer is used to describe anything before 2010 now.

[Anonymous No.14281381]

>>14281070
>>14280757
Here's what he actually said about diversifying funds here.

[Anonymous No.14281396]

>>14281188
it weird because futures are purest form of asset class
ZN and ZF like only REAL market in whole worrla

[Anonymous No.14281424]

While I'm posting these, here's another piece of advice warning against excessive diversification.

[Anonymous No.14281511]

>>14279856
>Over 110k yielding 11.5%
means nothing without a time frame. how did it do compared to it's benchmark?

[Anonymous No.14281520]

>>14281424
no you want to own 100 different stocks then sell your winners to average down on your losers

[Anonymous No.14281532]

>>14281188
i thought stock options were the biggest meme

>>14281215
any idea how accuratly IG's cfds(or other cfds in general) follow the real futures' movements? i'm not willing to put the 25k to day trade yet but i was planning on opening a IB futures account just to get access to accurate market movements and more importantly pivot points.
if IG's cfds actually follow the futures accuratly

[Anonymous No.14281620]

>>14281381
>>14281424
Thanks anon, what is the title of this book?

[Anonymous No.14281688]

>>14280919
Just dump your $100 on any old stock that strikes your fancy and use that as motivation to learn more about it. I hear LCI and GALT are both popular around these parts.

[Anonymous No.14281741]

>>14281688
>not dumping everything into NAKD
It's like you don't want to be a millionaire.

[Anonymous No.14281747]

>>14281620
"Beating the Street." The pictures are from a chapter called "25 Golden Rules," which is in bullet-point format. I would read his other book "One Up on Wall Street" first if you haven't already read that.

[Anonymous No.14281792]

>>14281747
Thanks lad I'll check them out.

[Anonymous No.14281907]

Oh my god. Why didn’t I hodl. The fomo is palpable.

I may never be rich. I guess I have to sit this madness out too.

[Anonymous No.14281952]

>>14280757
No.

[Anonymous No.14281969]

>>14281741
Good advice. An investment in NAKD now could produce asymptotic returns for years to come!

[Anonymous No.14281970]

>>14281741
im >>14280919
just put 150 more on nakd, i hope your not fucking me over

[Anonymous No.14282002]

>>14280707
a LOT has changed since those books were written. if you took that advice at the time you would have never picked any of the tech stocks (Facebook, Amazon, etc.) that dominate the market today.
and 5 is absolutely not enough companies for diversification, maybe per market sector; there are more than 5 market sectors to invest in. that's not even counting international diversification.

[Anonymous No.14282009]

>>14281907
you CANNOT chase this up

there is like a 5% chance you make a little bit more, and 95% you get rekt

[Anonymous No.14282186]

>>14281792
maybe don't take advice from 4chan at face value. the "Boomer Investing" here >>14281131 should be the base line. if you think you can do better for whatever reason work your way up from the par, not by jumping into the deep end and hoping you float.

[Anonymous No.14282223]

>>14282009
I agree.


BUT I have this bad habit with stocks.
I assume the smart money has already been made, and if I buy at the open, it’s too late.

Could’ve bought gold, oil, and LMT after the drone takedown. Could have bought Lean Hogs every time i heard about African swine fever in China. But I thought, if I know about it, those smart commodity traders already know about it.

Same thing with the CGC/Acreage deal, I could’ve made a bundle off that. But I thought, if I’m learning about it on CNBC, surely those folks with inside information, microwave speed connections, Bloomberg terminals, whatever all know about it and the easy money has already been made.

But there’s so much easy money I just leave sitting on the table.

Am I alone in this, stockbros?

[Anonymous No.14282242]

>>14281532
well cant tell you exactly because dont mess with cfds
but can tell you in ES_Fs case, since it globex product with centralized data, it very very hard for track ES_F wrong

[Anonymous No.14282289]

>>14282223
me to a T. I think it has to do with my paranoia over the future of automated trading and HFT algos becoming sentient. I've literally had nightmares about global markets becoming Pareto efficient before.

[Anonymous No.14282365]

>>14282289
You have to understand how absolutely retarded computers and computer programmers are
Never fear
HFT, algos, just more opportunities for the clever and the initiated

[Anonymous No.14282425]

>>14282223
Just keep at it
Learn to QUANTITATIVELY identify conditions if you have to
I mostly tell people to ignore nerd shit like numbers and math and focus on chad investing. But if you’re feeling this much uncertainty that it’s blocking you from making money, you might have to go back to the basics

[Anonymous No.14282503]

Hope my gbtc makes comparable gains to owning straight bitcoins

[Anonymous No.14282570]

HEY COMP SCI BROS

Is there any website where I can download the buy/sell prices of stocks indexed to the minute (or preferably a lower granularity)? I want to write some tools to analyze daytrading.

[Anonymous No.14282623]

>>14282289
to dare

[Anonymous No.14282626]

>>14282570
Have you tried uhhhhh google?
Basically if you want minute prices you’re going to have to pay someone
Are you willing to pay, or do you just want a decent free data set (day open/close, maybe more depending)

[Anonymous No.14282647]

>>14282365
Yeah I suppose the only thing to do is make the best of it while we can. I'm just so, so petrified by the relationship between incentives and downsides for institutions and algo traders. I'm firmly of the belief that technocapital and global trade expand logarithmically, not linearly, and to slow down is to lose. As speed becomes commodified in and of itself, every second spent not preempting the market is returned sevenfold against the losing party. Something about "as markets learn to manufacture intelligence"...

[Anonymous No.14282670]

>>14279282
Pay of credit card debt. If you experience losess you will be in a world of pain. Plus credit card interest debt compounds. So it only gets worse.

[Anonymous No.14282810]

>>14281741
Oh no you don't. I'm not falling for that. Again.

[Anonymous No.14282825]

>>14282365
unless were talking neural networks those HFT are hand directed by non retarded people. there are articles about how they operate, it's not a set and forget thing.
>>14282647
do you have any reason to believe you have an edge or are you hoping your gut feelings about the market will figure out the market on it's own?
>>14282223
>if I’m learning about it on CNBC
well no shit.

[Anonymous No.14282828]

>>14282425
>QUANTITATIVELY identify conditions
AnimeGirlsWithInterrogativeMarks.jpg

[Anonymous No.14282831]

>>14282647
You only have to worry about that kind of stuff if you play their game
Play your own game
If you are investing/trading in a way where you have to fight the spread for every last basis point, then yeah some algos might be rockin your boat
But if you aren’t getting in/out of positions that much, if you aren’t monitoring spreads on the order of ~5bp really closely like it means life or death, then a lot of the algo pressure is invisible to you for pedestrian day-to-day trading
Now that doesn’t mean the algos can’t get weird, but the possibility of all the different algos getting weird in sync and causing big, unnatural moves in an otherwise healthy market is very low. Actually the more different styles and players, means more randomness and a more healthy robust space. Any super-trigger happy nutty algos will probably lose money and be pulled back, in the end central limit theorem keeps us reverberating to the mean

[Anonymous No.14282832]

>>14282002
You're not totally wrong, but you just have a different approach to investing to Lynch. The part-timer doesn't have time to follow 5+ stocks per sector. The idealized general approach Lynch describes is to look at lots of companies in detail, and from those, pick a handful of the best ones that you think will grow earnings quickly. He thinks if you do your homework and make prudent choices, you will likely end up selecting some stocks that will do exceedingly well (fivebagger, tenbagger or even hundredbagger), so even if the rest of the stocks perform mediocre or poorly, the lucky ones will bring your portfolio up, and you stand a good chance of outperforming the fund managers and the indices. Even if you would have missed all of the hot tech companies you mentioned following Lynch's advice (which I'm not certain is a given), you could have still done quite well picking stocks other than FAANG.

[Anonymous No.14282913]

>>14282825
>well no shit.
Except it still rocketed another 12% or so after someone on /smg/ said “wtf is going on with CGC?!” And I posted the explanation.

I thought, well that’s it, I missed the move. But I would’ve made bank if I just said fuck it and bought.

Same thing with Qualcomm, could have made serious money. But honestly I didn’t even realize how huge settling that lawsuit with Apple was until much later, so I try not to beat myself up about that one.

[Anonymous No.14282919]

What happens when 2 companies have the same
initials in the stock market?

[Anonymous No.14282938]

>>14282919
complete protonic reversal

[Anonymous No.14282942]

Should I buy more AMD?

[Anonymous No.14282945]

>>14282938
shieeeet

[Anonymous No.14282948]

>>14282919
They are legally required to merge. This is called a “hostile takeover” when done intentionally.

[Anonymous No.14282969]

>>14282948
>They are legally required to merge
source?

[Anonymous No.14283030]

>>14282825
The only edge I could reasonably expect to have is my pathological obsession with esoteric information and being more extremely online than 99.9% of the population (I lowkey see internet addiction as an unrecognized evolutionary/survival strategy). Not gonna cut it in the face of 100 million piratical Chinese entrepreneurs and 100,000 higher math PhDs though. High probability of evil futurities for the vast majority of people.
>>14282831
True and comforting. Trading not being a zero-sum game is a small comfort.

[Anonymous No.14283073]

>>14283030
HFT sort of becomes a ZSG because you’re just fighting the spreads
Investing, hopefully, is like the opposite of a ZSG (of course in the end, existence in this universe is ZS because use of entropy limits)

[Anonymous No.14283110]

>>14282948
The employees of both companies are allowed to have a big fight to decide the outcome too though (trial by combat under English common law). That's why Monster.com trades under MWW, they're too scared of Monster Energy's dirtbike cavalry to try and take the MNST ticker for themselves.

[Anonymous No.14283148]

>>14283073
Entropy proves both the existence of the gnostic conception of God and many aspects of Jewish Kabbalah to be real

[Anonymous No.14283223]

>>14283148
how so?

[Anonymous No.14283286]

>>14282919
This is fundamentally impossible
The reasons why we’re unknown until 1925, when Pauli proved his famous exclusion principle.
The physical origins have to do with the fundamental quantum states of the underlying corporations, including orbital locations, spin numbers, and of course the ticker symbol

[Anonymous No.14283354]

>>14283110
>Hot bitches get paid to do this
>handing out free shit to dudes becomes an internship they can use for college credit and put on their resumes for grad school or employment
>simultaneously they are boosting their self-esteem and social skills, as well as social media profiles
>This is called entrepreneurship

[Anonymous No.14283389]

>>14282832
>you stand a good chance of outperforming the fund managers and the indices
there a mountain of empirical evidence that shows this isn't possible anymore. Lynch and all of the other legendary investors made their name when nobody really knew how the markets worked. there's a reason why those kinds of larger than life characters aren't made in the field anymore. I doubt Lynch would give the same advice today if he was still active.

[Anonymous No.14283466]

>>14282913
when all the information is prices into a stock, it doesn't mean the price can't go up anymore. it means the price is adjusted to the risk, as in it has an equal chance of going up or down. with varying degrees of volatility. you're essentially flipping a coin.
>>14283030
dude, you're not competing with the average normie. you're competing with people who's job it is to scrape every dollar off the stock they can, with all of that AI tech and hardware at their disposal.
>Trading not being a zero-sum game is a small comfort.
trading isn't. but beating your benchmark is. if you can't do that consistently you may as well buy the index and safe yourself the headache.

[Anonymous No.14283480]

>>14283354
Hot dudes (athletes and e-athletes) like myself get paid literally MILLIONS to endorse not only energy drinks but a wide variety of products, and you’re getting mad at little 20 year old thotties who can’t find a better job than to shill monster? They make like minimum wage. And the entry on their resume doesn’t even matter, if they’re near you in qualifications and cute they’ll get the job easy without the monster girl experience
Cmon my man, I could write a book, maybe a trilogy, of reasons to be annoyed at women. But the Red Bull girls wouldn’t even get a sentence in it. Not worth the effort to get mad about that IMO

[Anonymous No.14283555]

>>14283389
>when nobody really knew how the markets worked.

Just like in 2019 :^)
Unironically though

And you know there are still managers who outperform
Their edge isn’t an open secret yet, but I can tell you that it lies in the very very grey area between insider trading and ‘unconstrained information gathering activities’
Every single one who is really putting up solid numbers is doing a variation of the same thing

[Anonymous No.14283605]

>>14283480
>hot dudes like myself
>paid MILLIONS
>hanging out on /biz/

100% LOL

[Anonymous No.14283640]

>>14283480
>I could write a book
Then why haven’t you?
Prove it or stop e-statting.

[Anonymous No.14283676]

>>14282919
you differentiate by colour

[Anonymous No.14283729]

>>14283555
>Their edge isn’t an open secret yet
their edge is that they pay billions for private internet lines and the latest in trading AI. it's not hard to beat the market when you get the news half a second early and get to trade on it before everybody else. none of this is secret.
and the publicly available mutual funds don't beat the market either, they're a sham. they data mine successful funds to sell or use some other trick to sell to consumers.

[Anonymous No.14283843]

>>14283729
When I talk about information, I’m not talking about the kind of news you see on the wire or tweets
I’m talking about real hard number news that you don’t get in BBT.
I’m not talking about HFT fast bois, I’m talking about retrieving and using week-to-week and month-to-month intel that no one else has access to (no one else could have access to)

You’re just thinking about strategies and managers that you have heard of or read articles or books about. That’s old news, those boys are still out here playing and there are plenty of them. I’m talking about the slower moving quant funds that are beating baseline handily still every year. I’m telling you that what they are doing is not something you can go online and read an article about, you’re going to have to use your imagination and THINK about it for a second because I’m not going to spell it out
Much love

[Anonymous No.14283899]

I'm betting on trump losing 2020 election and the stock market taking a hit %15-%25(40% within 3 years)

where do I keep money financial advisers of biz, all in cash right now

[Anonymous No.14283950]

>>14283843
>(no one else could have access to)
yeah, Lynch's dated advice doesn't help there either.
when your beat in both tech and info telling people to just pick 5 stocks does more harm than good. potentially a lot more harm.

[Anonymous No.14283971]

So apparently the aus economy is in the gutter and the RBA has cut the cash rate to 1.25 with a potential 2 more interest rate cuts on the cards before year end. The economy has slowed to levels not seen since the gfc.
Yet despite this, the share market is going up.

Is this just because fixed interest returns are so low that people are turning to the share market despite economic conditions?

[Anonymous No.14284021]

>>14281131
>https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/
Why does this boomer shit not mention Modern Portfolio Theory? It's just mathematically optimised diversification.
>stonks + bunds
Yeah m8 you are still 98% correlated with the US market, you have no advantage.

[Anonymous No.14284065]

DIVIDENDS = GOD

[Anonymous No.14284093]

>>14283971

It's a gamble either way at this point m8.

1. Central banks cut the interest rates and the share markets go ballistic.

2. Central banks cut interest rates but they are too far behind the real economy and everything shits the bed.

Honestly it's media driven. If Trump closes a deal with China, you're gonna see a blow off top the likes you've never seen.

If China tells Trump to fuck off, then we're going to see a bear market.

[Anonymous No.14284105]

>>14284021
>you have no advantage
you don't have an advantage regardless, at least you can get carried.
I doubt anyone on this board has even seen an annual report or knows how to read one.

[Anonymous No.14284196]

>>14283389
I'd be interested in your mountain of evidence if you have anything to post, but whatever you have in mind, it's obviously not "impossible." If you buy a fund tracking some index (e.g. S&P 500), you will perform approximately as well as the index. If you select a group of individual stocks that perform better than the index as a whole, you will outperform the odex. To say this is impossible implies that all stocks perform the same (average), which is false.

[Anonymous No.14284210]

>>14284065
Post the chart.

[Anonymous No.14284279]

>>14284105
huh? Almost everyone here reads 11ks and shit that's publicly available

[Anonymous No.14284367]

>>14284105
I know that actively picking is not likely to beat the market. But as a result of their low correlation and often high gains, the stocks+bonds portfolio isn't on the Efficient Frontier because of not including gold, real estate and crypto.
The same gains with lower volatility was what I meant by 'advantage'.

Though I won't pretend this method doesn't have it's flaws. For starters its acceptable to assume the asset classes won't change their correlations and volatility going forward, assuming the expected return will stay consistent may be a stretch.

And MPT also gives total meme portfolios like
>69% in TLT
>31% in TQQQ

[Anonymous No.14284630]

>>14284196
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/10/14/the-economics-nobel-goes-to-eugene-fama-lars-hansen-and-robert-shiller/?utm_term=.ac8a999681e9
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/experience/news-history/professor-william-sharpe-shares-nobel-prize-economics
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-way-fewer-actively-managed-funds-beat-the-sp-than-we-thought-2017-04-24
> If you select a group of individual stocks that perform better than the index as a whole, you will outperform the odex. To say this is impossible implies that all stocks perform the same (average), which is false.
it's kind of like the horse races. some horses win more than average, but because of the different pay outs just picking the horse that wins the most isn't necessarily a winning strategy.

[Anonymous No.14284657]

>>14284367
the boglehead philosophy isn't just stocks and bonds. it doesn't specify exactly which funds to buy. it does encourage to buy as much of the global economy as possible, market weighted, which does include gold and REITs.

[Anonymous No.14284701]

>>14284657
I think the final goal for almost all investment strategies is "to buy as much of the global economy as possible".
at least that's what I'm going for : )

[Anonymous No.14284731]

>>14284279
bullshit. I've never seen anyone on this board shill a security for any reason that isn't a meme

[Anonymous No.14284742]

>>14284701
>I think the final goal for almost all investment strategies is "to buy as much of the global economy as possible".
have you seen this place? 99% of the posts are about going 100% into some crypto. the other guy I'm arguing is saying 5 hand picked stocks is enough.

[Anonymous No.14284752]

I have considered picking ETFs instead of individual stocks. As much as I like NVIDI, AMD, and even Lam, if we get a trade war truce with China I’d probably just buy a semiconductor etf. Though... maybe huawei if it’s publicly traded.

But there are some companies that have good products, good management, and loyal customers. I miss you, Tim Apple. I regret not buying the FUD.

>>14284701
Really? So then you just never sell?

My goal would be to buy the sectors of the global economy that are going to expand, and sell them before they contract.

Of course, this is impossible to do perfectly. I can’t predict the future.

[Anonymous No.14284781]

>>14284742
>have you seen this place
dude this is /biz/, it's full of kids who have no kids, a job, live with mom and have literally never been taught a singular fucking thing about personal finance. All they know is rich people invest and THIS... well they can do this with their very low amounts of money and do it at 3am when theyre awake.

What do you expect? smg is the best escape, and real estate threads are as scarce as water in the desert, which is a fuckin shame because Im 20k in the stock market and ~90k in real estate depending on how you appraise the houses

[Anonymous No.14284789]

>>14284742
>5 hand picked stocks
MCD, MRK, MO, LMT, and a bank or REIT?
Also, gold.

[Anonymous No.14284813]

>>14284781
where were you able to find a 90k house damn
slightly jelly, i had to pay a lot more than that. I've got about half my square footage sitting empty, I never even go upstairs. Can't buy small (like 1k sq ft) cheap houses in my area, they just don't exist. so I had to buy a full-boomer family home. At least it isn't a McMansion

[Anonymous No.14284821]

Imagine being a Timmy and buying bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.14284835]

>>14284789
I was saying don't do that. whatever, I'm going to bed. good luck, you'll need it.

[Anonymous No.14284868]

>>14284813
thats my equity in 3 properties. I put 4% down on a fourplex (250k), 25% down on 2 other duplexes (60k, 160k) and fixed up the properties a bit for forced appreciation and then regular apprecation due to market fuckery. In all it took about 65k, my rent roll is comfortably positive and I've had no vacancies in the fourplex keeping me cashflow positive despite my fat ass taking 25% of it, but it's a lot fucking harder than dividends

[Anonymous No.14284875]

>>14284835
Kek
I know, stockpicking is mostly for fun and education. I’m mostly VTSAX and cash. And a few very heavy bags. I wish I could say it was worth the price of tuition...

[Anonymous No.14284884]

>>14284868
should note that Im also counting amortization in on that. Bless.

[Anonymous No.14284888]

>>14284630
Thanks, I'll take look. I just read through the first article and it doesn't really contradict Lynch's books. Your argument (as I understood it) was that Lynch's principles worked in the 70s through early 90s, but wouldn't work today.

>"Understanding how mispricing of assets emerges," wrote the Nobel committee, "and when and why financial markets do not efficiently reflect available information, is one of the most important tasks for future research. The answers may turn out to depend heavily on the particular contexts and institutional settings, but they will no doubt be extremely valuable for policymakers as well as practitioners."

>The fusion of Fama's, Hansen's and Shiller's research, then, boils down to this: We know that stock prices behave randomly on short-term horizons, and that efforts to time the market in the short run are probably counterproductive. But we also know that markets can become broadly mispriced for long periods due to the mysteries of human psychology.

[Anonymous No.14284952]

Daily reminder that you will never beat the SP500 index and you're better off buying and holding that (or you local countries equivalent) rather than trying to trade or invest yourself.

That is all.

[Anonymous No.14284956]

>>14284868
I'll probably go in on a RE strategy like this when I move to another state. No idea when that might be, maybe next 5-10 years, I've got a decent amount of funds now and it's only growing ;3

do you live in one of the units? got any fun stories with the tenants? do you try and screen out undesireables?
I've had a hard enough time living with people, most people who rent are super lazy, abuse appliances, go wild with the utilities, etc. I feel like the only people I'd want to rent to are people with enough respect for property that they would probably already own a house, if that makes sense. 85% of renters are scum and can't be trusted with anything without fucking it up, just my opinion.

[Anonymous No.14285004]

>>14284630
The third article is about how activley-managed mutual funds tend to underperform the market, which doesn't prove Lynch wrong. I believe that would have been the case back in the 80s/90s as well when his books were published. A major argument in his books is that fund managers have a lot of handicaps that the small retail investor doesn't, so the retail investor actually has a big advantage over the fund managers if they are smart. The article is also about the futility of picking the best performing funds (Lynch writes about how picking mutual funds based on prior performance doesn't work in his books). Lynch also encourages readers to pick individual stocks, not mutual funds, assuming they have the time and temperament.

I haven't read the third article yet, but it was published in 1990, so it's not clear how it could give evidence that Lynch's principles don't work anymore.

[Anonymous No.14285063]

>>14285004
>>14284630
Stop reading crap and go read Little Book of Common Sense Investing.

I can guarantee not a single person on /biz/ is going to out perform the index.

Stock picking is a losers game only fools partake in.

[Anonymous No.14285068]

>>14284956
I live in one of the fourplex units. 260k is actually very pricey for my region. 1m buys you an actual fucking victorian mansion in the middle of the city, so I ended up buying a fourplex as my first property for 10k down in a middle class neighborhood. Low crime, moderate incomes, average schools and good levels of home ownership. As such, it's been extremely easy. I am super fucking stingy about who I rent to, and I manage everything myself. If I have a kid who wants to move in and doesn't have an old land lord I can call and their credit history is non existent I ask for their parents cell, thats usually enough to turn them away. I turn away for criminal history, bad credit, bad history with old land lords or no history, anything like that. People with no provable income or who will only pay with cash or bank statements show large cash deposits with no explanation. Who I let in can affect the whole fucking neighborhood and drag everything down, it's a serious amount of power you have at your fingertips.

So it might take me a 2 or 3 times as long to fill an occupancy but I'll wait a month and a half if it means that I can get someone quality in there that won't leave an emergency message at 3am because the lightbulb blew in the shitter

[Anonymous No.14285123]

>>14279550
I remember doing that too
I spent $990 on one share of AMZN instead of $500 for one BTC back in the day

it'll haunt you if you arnt careful

[Anonymous No.14285166]

>>14280543
>>14280550
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1rq9DS_rEFIy8JrEeiDDqRhrviAy0Nnqj

;)

[Anonymous No.14285187]

after market close, I finally think we solved the Mystery of why GEO and CoreCivic took big old dumps today:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-warren/u-s-democratic-2020-candidate-warren-calls-for-ban-on-private-prisons-idUSKCN1TM1OW

Pocahontas pulled a Bernie on private prison REITs
remember that this is a Juicy buy opportunity, unless Biden and the rest of the dems also parrot that same position, in which case we wait for a steeper cut in prices
these prison REITs are nice yielders, we already liked them. we continue to look for even better values :)


In other news:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-china/kim-xi-agree-to-grow-ties-whatever-external-situation-north-korean-media-idUSKCN1TM2P2
Kim being friendly, Xi and Kim best friends forever

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china/china-state-media-urges-u-s-to-drop-win-at-all-costs-trade-stance-idUSKCN1TN02V
China begs for mercy, urges US to please stop the trade war

[Anonymous No.14285226]

>>14285063
That's an asinine statment, but I already have most of my investments in index funds in my IRA and 401k. I don't have a choice in the 401k. I am trying to beat the index (S&P 500) picking stocks in a taxable account. We'll see how it goes over the long term.

[Anonymous No.14285287]

>>14285004
>A major argument in his books is that fund managers have a lot of handicaps
you mean how they're supposed to be too large and cumbersome to notice the details? investment banking is a little more sophisticated now than it was back before internet, or cell phones. if looking into those details is profitable for you then it's definitely profitable to pay someone like you to do it for them. also there's a giant industry around making a science out of turning tiny companies into money machines if you haven't noticed (startups).
Lynch and other value investors are all about figuring out the company's "true" value and buying it up if the price tag is below that. it doesn't matter how well you know a company if the "true" value you arrive at is already within range of the listed price. and that's a lot of work to then have to wonder if the listed price reflects information you don't have access to. like there are companies dedicated to taking private satellite images of shipping routes to investment banks and other bullshit.

I really need to go to sleep. I try to be on around the same time tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.14285304]

>>14284021
They literally reference modern portfolio theory, zoomer.

[Anonymous No.14285364]

>>14285068
how many hurdles did you have to go through when it came to legalities and taxes. From someone who knows very little about real estate did you have to learn a lot? Also is dicking around with safety deposit amounts enough to keep people you dont prefer out along with short contract times?

[Anonymous No.14285371]

>>14285226
not to mention how that ignores the thrill when you actually do manage to beat the market (even if only temporarily)

ive payed more money than the lost opportunity costs for much milder thrills in my lifetime

and as an added bonus i can learn something new thats actually useful! not to mention shoot the shit with other people who actively invest (both irl and online in Tajik butter-churning forums )

[Anonymous No.14285392]

>>14285063
Also, when Bogle says that beating the market is a "loser's game," what he means is primarily that stupid (but common) behavior makes it so.

>"After the deduction of the costs of investing, beating the stock market is a loser’s game."

If you're buying and selling frequently, paying commissions, short-term capital gains tax, selling at inopportune times, you'll end up flushing enough money down the toilet that it will likely wipe out whatever advantage you might have enjoyed over the market average. That's not really a valid argument against picking stocks following Peter Lynch's principles.

[Anonymous No.14286050]

>>14285371

It's not that hard to beat the market over the course of a year. The problem is beating it consistently year after year after year. This is where things fall apart. Sometimes you beat it, sometimes you don't, sometimes you take an overall loss in addition to losing to the market. Long term hodl style, just cost average in to the market and save yourself hundreds of hours of work, struggle, and stress. Do note, however, that there are backtested studies indicating 2x leverage long hold is the winning position.

The only reason I try to beat the market sometimes is to take on the additional risk in hopes of raising some extra money quickly for a large purchase. Say I need a new car. Which I do. Then I yolo a bit. This year's yolo did not go as planned and I took a loss instead. That was fun. No new car this year.

[Anonymous No.14286092]

>>14285287
The two important questions are (1) will certain stocks yield better than average returns in the future, and (2) do we have a better than random chance of selecting these stocks? The answer to the first question is obviously yes. Some stocks will do much worse than average. Some will do much better than average. Just to give an example, I was looking at Denny's stock earlier, and it looks like you would have made a roughly 5x profit buying it about five years ago. For the second question, I don't have hard data to argue one way or another, but I think at least logically it makes sense that we should be able to beat the S&P 500. Even just sticking to stocks from the S&P 500 is it really the case that all stocks are equally good prospects, and that we can't expect to do better buying some subset than buying all the stocks in proportion to their current index weights? I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.14286114]

>>14285371
>you mean how they're supposed to be too large and cumbersome to notice the details?

That's a gross misunderstanding of what Lynch said. If anything the opposite is true. Big companies have full time analysts who are more educated than us and can spend their work day analyzing stocks and companies. Big funds do have disadvantages because they have limits on how they can invest. If a small investor finds a promising microcap company, they can take as large a position as they can afford. Lynch talks about funds having limits on how a fund can only own a limited portion of a single company's shares and, and only a limited portion of a fund's money can go into a single stock. Another disadvantage that funds have is they have to worry about monthly performance figures to their investors (customers), who may be less level-headed than the managers. So even if the fund manager is smart, he may be forced to do things like buy mediocre (or worse) stocks that he thinks will seem respectable to the customers (Lynch's favorite example is that "no one got fired for investing in IBM"), or he mighr be forces to sell stocks at a low point if customers cash out. The individual investor has greater freedom to keep a long-term perspective and follow his own persuasions.

On your other point about big money being smarter than us, that's true in many ways. One of Lynch's points of advice was to look at companies that are not so closely scrutinized by the analysts (or even have no analysts following them) and that have lower levels of institutional ownership. These still exist today. That hasn't changed. The other thing is that we as individuals may actually be smarter than (or at least as smart as) the analysts in certain ways, whether as consumers, through our jobs or whatever.

[Anonymous No.14286124]

>>14285287
>if looking into those details is profitable for you then it's definitely profitable to pay someone like you to do it for them.

Not necessarily. Especially when you are talking about small companies. It really may not be worth their time and money to follow such companies. There may be enough profit to be made in the biggest companies that it's not necessary to worry about the smallest ones.

[Anonymous No.14286254]

A good example of an irrationally priced stock is LCI. It "randomly deviated" so low, it's presently trading under $6 even though it's going to be a $100 stock in due time.

[Anonymous No.14286380]

>>14286254

[Anonymous No.14286465]

UNCHARTED FUCKING WATERS

[Anonymous No.14286485]

>>14286465
Soon.

[Anonymous No.14286537]

10y old US econ expansion will set a record next mth by becoming longest ever.

[Anonymous No.14286560]

>>14286485
Crumble human security

[Anonymous No.14286608]

>>14286560
Based 'extremely basic capitalist' boomer.

[Anonymous No.14286653]

>>14286608
more like extremely honest marxist kekkies, read his stuff on Mao

[Anonymous No.14286661]

How can you kill zombies?

[Anonymous No.14286686]

>>14286661
Man I think I'm about to play some They Are Billions
that is a fun little zombie game right there. made by some Spaniards in fact.

Either that or mess around in python, maybe a little of both

[Anonymous No.14286918]

What if the market will never drop again? Is it possible?

[Anonymous No.14286936]

>>14286918
3.6 roentgen

[Anonymous No.14287016]

I fucked up.

[Anonymous No.14287110]

>>14279178
I'm 21 and only have a fairly low paying part time job.
I'm willing to try to learn through the Investing for Beginners course.
Is it a smart buy? Could I actually do something worthwhile?

[Anonymous No.14287240]

>>14287016
Bad job, frend
Next time try not buying memes

[Anonymous No.14287734]

>>14287110
>Is it a smart buy? Could I actually do something worthwhile?
no, just start small in the market by yourself

anything you can learn in those courses that is not a scam can also be found in many different books, for free

also all you need to do is buy one share of SPY or DIA once a week or once a month (depends how much money you can afford to invest)

do that, and youll beat 90% of the people here, with wayy less effort

[Anonymous No.14288159]

Slow Saturday morning page 8 BUMP!

[Anonymous No.14288352]

>>14287734
thank you for taking the time to respond to me
i'm unclear on absolutely everything, but i'll screenshot your post for the future

[Anonymous No.14288381]

>>14281970
NEVER
BUY
NAKD

[Anonymous No.14288519]

>>14284630
>Robert Shiller
>Shiller
>Nobel Prize for being a Shiller

[Anonymous No.14288738]

>>14279178
Anyone here tried algo/HFT trading?

[Anonymous No.14288796]

>>14286092
>(1) will certain stocks yield better than average returns in the future
some lottery numbers yield better than average as well. that's not at all helpful though.
>(2) do we have a better than random chance of selecting these stocks?
>but I think at least logically it makes sense that we should be able to beat the S&P 500
you're forgetting that beating an average is competitive; every winner implies a loser, and nobody plays to lose. it makes sense to say a person can run 25 miles with enough training. it's not so intuitive to assume that any given person can get in the top 10% of runners in a marathon when everybody participating has trained years to do the same.
>>14285392
if the market is perfectly efficient, on average you won't win or lose money. like betting on black on a roulette table with perfect 50:50 odds, you'd just be treading water. the house taking a cut is what makes it a loser's game.

[Anonymous No.14289057]

>>14286114
>Big funds do have disadvantages because they have limits on how they can invest
that's the textbook theory. the same reasoning was applied to large corporations as well, but if you haven't noticed companies like Google and Amazon figured they could just throw money at anything with potential and take that innovation for themselves. it's naive to think that investment banking hasn't learned anything in the past few decades.
not that it even that it's just institutions you're competing with. retail investing has become so easy that you'd also have to assume that all of the "easy" money hasn't already taken by other like minded investors.
>investor finds a promising microcap company
nobody here is investing in microcap. if you were you'd be competing a handful of investors that REALLY know that business. people seriously investing in them (and not betting on a penny stock) are getting off their asses and seeing the companies with their own eyes and meeting the staff. like how people talking about the Beyond Meat stock after tasting the product. for a company that doesn't sell nationwide the means putting boots on the ground.
Lynche's "invest in what you know" implies you know more than the general consensus, in one way or another. it's more of a misunderstanding to think that that's something you can achieve by looking at the same internet as everybody else.

[Anonymous No.14289170]

>>14286124
should have quoted this with the last post.
Lynch is great, but he's not the be all and end all. like Newton is an important figure in physics but his larger than life status doesn't mean his findings were final.
it sucks that the economics has turned away from the romantic idea of the genius lone investor making it rich in the shadow of the giants. but reality is just like that some times.

[Anonymous No.14289326]

It's all about the long term Profit and Income man. Course some of these "long term" is actually kinda short, AMRN & NBY. Buyouts a coming. Buyout is coming for LGF to. If they want to survive the dawning of the Streaming Wars a buyout is the only option they have.

Helps that I got a few of these at the rock bottom of the 52w ranges

[Anonymous No.14289514]

Did all the day traders leave?
Half the thread is boomer posts

Not that I mind, I basically only hold etfs too

[Anonymous No.14289555]

>>14283971

Lower rates>more debt>debt goes into shares

[Anonymous No.14289563]

>>14289326
But yeah you have to do some backround checking on whatever company you plan to invest in. Some companies which look like they're on deaths door can turn around and make a killing. Others, well, death can't come quick enough. Still others are "to big to fall" Some major shit would have to happen before they fell.

Look at GE, investors fled the stock, it sank to 6.66 per. They hired a CEO who has a proven record for turning shit into diamonds. Now GE is turning around, slowly but it is happening. The stock is going up. If you'd bought it at the low point you'd be making almost double your money back now.

[Anonymous No.14289613]

>>14289563
Would you have the balls to buy at the low point when it is down almost 80% since 2017?

[Anonymous No.14289669]

>>14289613
I did. I bought at 7 per. (GE). Another example is AMD. In 2015 AMD was $2 per share. Now it's almost $30.

[Anonymous No.14289756]

>>14289669
Noice
I don't think I'd have the courage to hold on for a winner for so long.
I'd probably take profit too early and miss out.

[Anonymous No.14289828]

>>14289669
>>14289756
how to predict the perfect time to cash out?

[Anonymous No.14289835]

>>14289669
AMD is not going back to $2 again, not for the foreseeable future anyway. They'd have to have a new CEO who fucked up or have a few bad product releases in quick succession before the stock ever sank that low again. Sure market forces will cause a dip here and there but nothing as drastic as falling to $2. At most you'd see a fall to like $14 per. Also AMD will not fall. Intel/Nvidia would be the only game in town then. Which would be bad for consumers. So the Govt would not allow AMD to fall.

[Anonymous No.14290126]

>>14289828
It depends. In the case of GE the Airplane leasing arm of the company just did a deal with Amazon Air. Amazon placed an order for 15 new planes. This also includes service contracts for those planes. While this is just a small part of GE I think it's safe to say that unless Amazon gets into financial trouble or other shit that GE will be raking in the cash for a long time.

Also GE pays a Divvy. Cut now down to a penny, in the glory days it paid out 0.30 per. So if it gets reinstated back to 0.30 you'd get income from that.

[Anonymous No.14290214]

>>14289326
How did NBY come on your radar?

[Anonymous No.14290303]

>>14289563
sold GE at 13 after getting in at 14. using it as a short term capital loss on my taxes was better than holding that trash.

maybe the new CEO turns it around, he probably doesn't do it for a few years and my money will earn more somewhere else in the mean time

[Anonymous No.14290531]

Anybody holding PTN? What are your expectations for next week?

[Anonymous No.14290948]

>>14290214
Happened to come across the name during some digging on AMRN. Looked into it more, looked at there site. Saw where they are basically setting themselves up to be bought. The Chairman of the board is some 80 yr old dude who's only claim to fame is mergers and Buyouts with his china pharma company. Said 80 yr old dude is NBY's biggest share holder. Big name U.S investment groups also got a stake in it. NBY's main product can be bought on amazon for like $30 bucks. The China Pharma company makes no secret of there long range plans for NBY; Bluntly states it on there site

[Anonymous No.14291244]

>>14290948
My take; the china pharma company is watching NBY. If the company does good, sales increase, new products come out,etc then the buyout offer will be floated. The current products NBY has is all FDA approved so it's just a mater of sales now for them. So while the waiting game is happening the stock price will be going up due to increased profits and investor greed

[Anonymous No.14291368]

>>14279178
>tfw cant just go to sleep until monday

[Anonymous No.14291480]

>>14291368
Soon we will be neural networked / wetwired into global markets and the trading will never ever end

>welcome to the Hotel Cali, senor

[Anonymous No.14291510]

I am Indian living in India.
How do invest in NYSE stocks?

[Anonymous No.14291545]

>>14291510
Send me money and I will open an account for you

[Anonymous No.14291573]

>>14291545
This. He's a great dude and set me up

[Anonymous No.14291587]

>>14291510
Invest directly?
Because if you just want US exposure there should be plently of locally listed etfs that track US indexes, probably vanguard products

[Yesterday's OP Anon No.14291616]

>>14291545
>>14291573

[Anonymous No.14291691]

>>14291587
I will search

[Anonymous No.14292094]

How many of you have $1 mil in liquid?
The average age to become millionaire is 37.

[Anonymous No.14292109]

>>14291510
First learn basic hygiene. Then find a long nosed fellow, he'll set you up.

[Anonymous No.14292211]

>>14289170
Your main argument was that Lynch's advice is outdated and that, while it may have been good advice that would have produced superior returns at the time (late 80s, early 90s), his advice will no longer produce above-average returns today. The main point of evidence that you've offered for this is an academic theory (efficient market hypothesis) that predates Lynch's books and his career. Unless you're going to provide evidence that the stock market is so much more "efficient" than it was even in Lynch's time, all your argument would show (if true) is that Lynch's principles didn't even work in his own day, and that his success was just a random accident.

The idea that it's impossible to exceed average results doesn't make logical sense. Take your assumption that the average retail investor and the average fund manager both fail to beat the market. Basic arithmetic tells us in order for that to be the case that quite a few people have to be doing significantly better than average. You might say that it's true that some do better than average, but they only do better than average by random chance, but I think that still remains to be proven.

[Anonymous No.14292231]

>>14292094
https://mentalfloss.com/article/550886/average-age-when-people-become-millionaires

why you lying nigger

[Anonymous No.14292269]

Capitalism exploits workers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl_Ew0c4T9g

[Anonymous No.14292967]

>>14280550
No basic economics in the list?

[Anonymous No.14293110]

>>14292231
Somebody told me in office. 57 is too old. Lol you can't get girls from your college.
Everyone who says date young girls miss the point that it is always good and less time consuming and better feel to date girls with who you have had classes with, worked with. Men who get college girls have better feeling than men who grow old and date young girls who spend half their time with her peers.

[Anonymous No.14293169]

>>14292211
I actually agree with you that it is possible to beat the market.

BUT I think there should be some clarification made about some of your assumptions
I would say that I don't think that the statement:
>...assumption that the average retail investor and the average fund manager both fail to beat the market. Basic arithmetic tells us in order for that to be the case that quite a few people have to be doing significantly better than average.

This isn't actually true. It is NOT correct to think of the stock market as a place where everyone's returns are in some kind of normal distribution around an average index yield. Because of all kinds of things, chiefly tax inefficiencies and different kinds of transactions and holding fees, it would be theoretically possible for EVERYONE to either tie with or lose to a normally-taxed indexed return. Of course that would be remarkable and rare to happen over a single year, given the number of participants in the market. But looking at increasingly longer durations, that's actually how the picture starts to look for almost all market participants.
In real life, it isn't as if you can lay out all the stock market returns on a balance, and for someone's dollar to have under-performed an index it means that someone else's dollar necessarily out-performed the index. (talking about pre-investment equal dollars) That is not how it works !! ~

to think like that, we have to be in some magical world where there are no taxes or transaction or management fees, or fees of any kind, and monetary policy is perfectly stable and the only thing we consider as 'investments' are equities, and all kinds of other things...

[Anonymous No.14293249]

bitcorn mooning as expected, and friday saturday are historically the best gain days for bitcorn

fed guaranteed stacks moon long term. all is moon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLjMhxS1CgE

[Anonymous No.14293304]

To me "beating the market" means getting back every dime I put in. Then whatever I make after that is just extra. If it all shats after I made back my initial investment money then why should I give a fuck? I'm not out anything. Pay yourself back first should be the 1st thing you do. You invest 10k, then you should make/pay yourself back 10k. Then if your stocks earn you another 10k hey all the better.

[Anonymous No.14293355]

50% total market
25% 2x SP500
25% 2x NASDAQ

rate this long term hold portfolio

[Anonymous No.14293370]

>>14279856
Do you drip your ETNs or just lets the dividends pool up and reinvest them in something else?

[Anonymous No.14293429]

>>14293304
you gotta at least keep up with inflation my dude
like you're looking to retire in 20 years, any $10 worth you put in only will buy you $6 worth of comparable goods after 20 years, if you have no gains. once you start to have gains, then you have to fight off taxes.
if you aren't getting at least 2.5% return, long periods of time will destroy your wealth.


>>14293355
I would suggest holding some amount of PM. I would suggest some amount of EM, in my case targeted EM.
I would suggest some strategy that lowers your leverage from 2x to 1x (or lower) depending on market conditions, and increases cash allocation (just delay new investment) at a combination of cycle timing and higher index RSI

[Anonymous No.14293480]

>>14293429
i know EM is emerging meme ass markets what the hell is PM

why would i be under 1x leverage when the market goes up over time

[Anonymous No.14293499]

>>14293355
>holding leveraged etfs long term instead of rolling heavy ITM LEAPS
not going to make it

[Anonymous No.14293511]

>>14293480
are you talking about 2x on margin or 2x on leverage?
PM = precious metals

[Anonymous No.14293570]

>>14293511
2x on leverage, owning SSO and QLD which are ProShares 2x ETFs

[Anonymous No.14293727]

>>14293570
large moves down OR crabs can really really hurt your returns with a 2x.
Like I said, there are times for a 2x leverage to enter your strategy, but they should be timing- and conditions- dependent.

Over the last year your 2x leverage underperforms the indices they track, even thought he indices are up.
QLD underperformed the Nasdaq by 4.5% and QQQ by almost 5%. SSO underperformed the S&P index by about a percent.

All of that is with the very nice gains climate that was seen in January-April.
if you bought right at the bottom in January, you would almost be up 2x (not quite, but almost).

basically your overall performance will never actually be 2x, and in certain market conditions and time spans your money is better off in the indices. I forsee some crab market ahead, which is why my advice right now is to look for yield and stability, not high-beta plays. you want to be strengthening your position to make sure you have plenty of money for the years to come. If we get another December-style buy opportunity you will be very glad to buy 2x funds then, but if you go into a situation like that with 2x funds you will be waiting to break even for a while

[Anonymous No.14293940]

>>14293169
That's a good point, but I was making the assumption that costs alone don't account for the majority failing to beat the market. Take the picture I posted for example. I just grabbed the picture without reading whatever article it came from so I don't know what the definition of "Average Stock Fund Investor" is there, but let's take that as the average investor performance. The picture gives the return of an "S&P 500 Index Fund" over the period as a little over 9% per year. The "Average Stock Fund Investor" has a return of about 5% per year, or in other words, about 55% the annual return of the index fund. Where did the other 45% of the returns go? The "Average Investor" is either systematically making poor investments, which we can avoid by systematically making investments of at least mediocre prudence, or taking on unnecessary costs due to trading too frequently and selling too early, which can also be avoided.

[Anonymous No.14294055]

>>14293304
Beating the market means beating the average gains of the dow or s&p or whatever similar benchmark over a given period of time. It's not a subjective phrase.

[Anonymous No.14294093]

>>14293727
im not fully 2x, with 50% 1x and 50% 2x im basically 1.5x leveraged or so, with a huge base of my portfolio still being total market funds which are basically guaranteed 8% annually forever

[Anonymous No.14294157]

over all I'm up 5.46%. not bad. least i'm not in the red

[Anonymous No.14294365]

Recovery stories?

Quite humiliating that so much of my recovery is due to crypto mooning, and I already sold off most of mine.

[Anonymous No.14294373]

>>14292211
Of course it's possible to beat the market. What's not possible is to consistently beat the market, year after year.

[Anonymous No.14294390]

>>14285287
>you mean how they're supposed to be too large and cumbersome to notice the details?
I haven't read that book, but the problem with actively managed funds is that the bigger they are, the more of the market they have to own, and the less likely they are to outperform it. It's like the opposite of an economy of scale.

[Anonymous No.14294430]

>>14294365
I was up 16K in two months literally only to panic sell during the trade war meltdown.Then, I thought I could short the market and lost 10K more. I've made it all back up by BYND of all bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14294570]

>>14294430
my man out here panic timing the market and managing to lose more money than should even be possible lmao

[Anonymous No.14294576]

>>14279282
What's the interest rate on the debt? Since it's CC probably pay it off, but on debts that are like 4% or less, you can probably just pay the require amount and invest your free money to out pacethe debt interest.

[Anonymous No.14294577]

>>14294430
Tyson is getting into the "fake" meat fad. Will put the hurt on BYND I'd think. SFM is a better play long term for the healthy/veggie fad. SFM is growing pretty good.

[Anonymous No.14294579]

>>14294430
Goddamn that’s a lot of movement.
Did you learn anything?

[Anonymous No.14294610]

>>14294579
Don't think you can predict how the market will react to FUD

[Anonymous No.14294635]

>>14279282
Pay the debt off first. Long run you'd save more/have more to invest by not forking out so much to the credit card company. Plus you get to screw the company outta fees.

[Anonymous No.14294639]

>>14294430
>i earned most of my money gambling
>then i lost most of my money gambling
>but i earned some of it back gambling again

[Anonymous No.14294652]

>>14292211
The best way to beat the market is to be Alpha focused. Find markets with small marketcap and ride up with the growth. Rest of stuff are just bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14294668]

>>14294635
PAY OFF CC's OVER 8% INTEREST, THEN INVEST

thats the rule

[Anonymous No.14294685]

>>14294093
as long as you understand what a 2x daily leverage ETF actually is and how its price behaves under varying market conditions

:3


>>14293940
>making the assumption that costs alone don't account for the majority failing to beat the market
transaction costs, spreads, and tax inefficiency are a MASSIVE reason why you don't see more active stock pickers and traders beating the indices over long periods of time.
when you see the index, the index isn't paying taxes (well, the companies are, but you know).

Now let's imagine some very clever and resourceful trader, and give her the advantage of never having to pay transaction fees. In this case she is a cute anime girl, but imagine what you will. Now she can, each year, magically pick a nice basket of stocks that will grow in share price by 10%, which is a significant out-performance of our indices, which we will say are rising at a very nice 9%. Because this is a MAGICAL anime girl, she even gets paid all the same dividend yield that the S&P does, without any calendar inefficiencies form buying/selling stocks. This is a 10% out-performance in gains FOREVER with all kinds of concessions given.

But because she has to pick new outperforming stocks every year, she has to pay capital gains tax (there are some things even magic and anime cannot overcome). If she holds the stocks for less than a year, she has to pay short term capital gains tax, which is extremely gruesome and I will not mention it here.
If she only has to pay long-term capital gains tax at a rate of 20%, that means her yearly gains will only be 8%, after she pays the tax. So the rate at which her money compounds is less than the index.
After 50 years, her compounded gain is 46.9x, while the index grows 74.4x (59.5x after taxes)
(cont'd)

[Anonymous No.14294732]

>>14294652
or get in with a bio company that makes it/gets bought down the line. (AMRN & NBY). With AMRN I'll make 18 - 40k alone. NBY, the jury is still out on it.

[LCIguy !7SgaW5KMQI No.14294758]

WHEN DA FAK DOES ROBINHOOD CHECKING ACCOUNT OPEN?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Anonymous No.14294775]

>>14294732
Fuck clinical stage bioshit. You're better off in the dude weed (US companies).

[Anonymous No.14294815]

>>14294685
Holy heckies
What am me reading O_O

[Anonymous No.14294834]

>>14294685
(cont)
I think those return rates might be too high for our current climate.
basically you can play around with the gain numbers, investment duration, and tax rates all you want in excel. that will tell you how much you need to beat the market by over whatever shorter duration (dt) to break even with the post-tax index.
you can throw in placeholder numbers for transaction fees and dividend inefficiency as you like, or pretend you are a magical anime girl who doesn't have to deal with those pesky things.

But first of all, if you aren't holding for over a year to pay long-term cappy gains tax, you need to outperform by a HUGE amount, probably >20% depending on tax bracket, consistently, just to break even. If you are holding EVERY position for over a year, you still need a significant and consistent out-performance. But the longer you hold each positions (measured in YEARS), the more your underlying can compound BEFORE getting taxed.

basically I'm just trying to explain why tax efficiency is such a big deal when we look at long-term performance. If you assume a smaller account, you can bring tax numbers (rates in %) down, but then the 'smaller end of the scale' inefficiencies like transaction fees start being felt more.

All that being said, my assets are in a combination of long-term investing that is extremely tax efficient (most of my money) as well as short term robinhood phone games (unconstrained, highly taxed). So you can do both ;^)

but taxes and fees and other inefficiencies ARE the reason why most investors who are trying to pick and churn baskets of equities don't beat post-tax index returns in the long run. all else has a nice normal distribution, the taxes and fees are what drag the entire normal distribution down significantly

[Yesterday's OP Anon No.14294835]

>>14294758

[Yesterday's OP Anon No.14294853]

>>14294834
>All that being said, my assets are in a combination of long-term investing that is extremely tax efficient (most of my money) as well as short term robinhood phone games (unconstrained, highly taxed). So you can do both

All in all I think this is the best strategy.

[Anonymous No.14294856]

>MVALX
>Midcap conrarian fund
>1.12% expense ratio
WAT DA FUG?
What similar fund can I invest this in? It basically doubled since I put the money in there.

Should I just leave it alone, because moving it will create a taxable event? Fuck taxes seriously, but my income is basically 0 this year so maybe now is the time to do it?

[Anonymous No.14295051]

I make shit now. I'd have to make a shit load of money each year in the market to even get bumped into a higher tax bracket. Pretty much this will happen just twice. First when I get my AMRN buyout profits. Nice big lump sum. The other event will be when I'm an old man and my Divvy stocks start paying out for me.

[Anonymous No.14295066]

>>14294834
-_-;
what people forget most about daytrading am amount of money people will lend you for positions that close at EOD

in me case, your 20% turns into me .02%

all me have do am make .23% daily for make huge cash even after taxes

[Anonymous No.14295115]

>>14294834

most of the above posts assume a healthy 6+ figure account size and 6 figure incomes.
I'm used to a different audience. To make some of this information more relevant to the fine people here on /smg/:

if you some kind of NEET or McDonalds worker the situation is completely different because you can throw short term cappy gains under the recently increased standard deduction, or pay a very low tax bracket (10% or 12%)
basically taxes don't hurt you as much. If you only buy tight-spread assets on RH with limit orders, you can get away with quite a lot.

If we think of extremely small spec traders without much tax or fee burden (/smg/ for example), this population of traders could actually experience a normal distribution of returns around the broad market return rate. But that only happens without emotion, memes, and mistakes coming into play. Even this most idealized group of anime girls will probably still have only a few percentile of members who can outperform the post-tax index after even a short span of 5 years.

[Anonymous No.14295144]

Hey guys,

What are your thoughts on Steven Dux and Tim Sykes?

[Anonymous No.14295240]

>>14295066
If you're implying that you can make a short term capital gains of say, net 100K and only pay 0.2% tax then you're doing something illegal. tax rates are tax rates, short term gains are short term gains.

but yes, if you can make 0.23% daily every day that the market is open you will have a 58% return over ~200 trading sessions, so even paying a high tax bracket you will beat the post-tax index performance.

If you can maintain that performance for every single trading session for 10 years you can 45x your money, after cappy gains.

[Anonymous No.14295285]

>>14294685
Which is why you compare pre-tax returns, after costs. Problem solved.

[Anonymous No.14295528]

>>14295066
Nice dubs

Bad impersonation

[Anonymous No.14295544]

Oh well. Your better off just paying the tax and be done with it. Fucking with the IRS is a big no no. By fucking with the IRS you're saying "please look into every little bit of my life and please fine my ass and maybe send my ass to prison so I can be someone's bitch"

No thanks.

[Anonymous No.14295545]

>>14295285
I mean most posters here have an even better way to 'solve' the problems of the tax inefficiencies inherent in an active strategy (instead of just ignoring the problem as you are suggesting). /smg/ posters are ingenious problem solvers. Many go with the time-tested strategy of 'having little or no taxable income or capital gains', which allows them to be EXTREMELY tax efficient, putting the index-funds strategies to shame.

even in up years, some /smg/ posters only have to worry about making sure they can properly calculate their capital loss rollover when tax season comes around :^)

[Anonymous No.14295602]

>>14279282
You don't get taxed paying off loans. If you invest money and lose you still have to pay interest. Even if you make money you still have that debt accruing interest and you need to pay capital gains tax

[Anonymous No.14295618]

>>14295545
lmao

[Anonymous No.14295640]

>>14295545
You're creating a problem that doesn't exist, so it's easy to solve. If you want to take taxes into account, don't compare to some magical index that doesn't pay capital gains. Compare to your retuns if you were 100% allocated to indices and paid capital returns on those.

[Anonymous No.14295673]

Heh, saw recently where some dumb ass won the mega millions and ended up forking half of it to his wife who he was divorcing. The final ink wasn't dry on the divorce papers yet so under the law the soon to be ex was entitled to half of it. If the dumb ass was smart he coulda waited a month and claimed the money yet also screw the ex outta her cut. The lotto gives you a month to claim the money.

[Anonymous No.14295762]

>>14295640
wait I did that was the whole purpose of my super long posts

The whole point is, taxes aren't apples-to-apples between divergent investment strategies. the poster I was originally replying to said that he/she didin't think taxes would cause a significant difference between a stock-picking and index strategy.

The point I want to illustrate is that short-term investment strategies are losing compounding power constantly if they are paying capital gains taxes early. it makes a massive difference, so even if you can pick the right stocks and outperform the index by a 10% margin, you will be massively behind it at the end of a long duration because of how the compounding works.

I compared the strategy with higher yearly gains, but a yearly tax payment, to the long-term strategy where all gains compound and taxes are paid once, at the end.
let me know if any part does not make sense

(you can google a million different resources for this if you don't trust me, or run the numbers in excel yourself)

[Anonymous No.14295853]

Whats up with Deuche bank?

[Anonymous No.14295867]

>>14295545
me just ignore taxes for now and pay lowest capital gains bracket O_O
with all debt and hardship have had
if IRS ever sends me something will just reply back "you lucky me not on disability"

[Anonymous No.14295945]

Capital gains work like other taxes with brackets, so I’m better off creating taxable events during stints of unemployment/schooling, right?

>>14295867
...better, but still not great

[Anonymous No.14295972]

>>14295853
not much !
hehe


>>14295867
yikes
but also hehe
how long have you been operating this 'extremely tax efficient' strategy?

[Anonymous No.14296126]

whast teh difference between broker account and client account at InterActiveBrokers

they dont say anything about it no communication on their website

[Anonymous No.14296136]

>>14295853
It's dying.

[Anonymous No.14296223]

>>14292211
EMH isn't some magical force that keeps people from making above average returns. it's people buying (or selling) a stock until it's not worth buying anymore to the best of their ability, knowledge, and technology. Buffet made his first few million buy just reading the books of companies and finding the one where their assets were worth more than their market cap. that opportunity was only there because investing was a relatively small profession that didn't have the man power to come through all that data. also stocks were traded over telegram or whatever.
Lynch asks people to notice stuff like what local foods are popular, which is something grocers and food chains didn't track back in the 80s, but they definitely do today. the whole idea of big data blew up a decade ago; everything is tracked, data mining bots go through everything. an investing edge means you have an information edge, which Lynch's philosophy doesn't provide anymore.
watch Moneyball if you haven't already. about how statistics took over what should have already been an optimized game. the world has definitely changed since the 80s.
>but they only do better than average by random chance, but I think that still remains to be proven.
that's essentially what those studies I linked provide evidence for. rather, the burden of proof should be on you as you're proposing that a specific philosophy can improve the dismal returns of your average retail investor.

[Anonymous No.14296268]

>>14296223
>buying stocks of companies that are below book value
Isn’t that the status of most of the financial sector? GS has been trading near or below book value for years. And they’re all going to get hit even harder by a rate cut.

[Anonymous No.14296415]

>>14296223
im pretty sure buffet made his first million collecting early version of a fee nowadays known as active managed fund fee, not by picking stocks :) secondly buffet quickly moved to buy companies outright not stacks and then at big money stakes buy business and build monopoly with owned companies in that area

[Anonymous No.14296448]

stock picking is the worst way to trade imo, too large variance. there are estimates that say even buffet easily lucky coin tosser with his pick if you pick coca cola and mcdonalds and hold 40 years it's impossible to tell whether that's luck or not, however there statistically should been wayyy better pickers than buffet and have been. most have prolly quit at huge cash outs etc etc along the way buffet kept going, whether luck or not involved

[Anonymous No.14296465]

>>14293940
> The "Average Stock Fund Investor" has a return of about 5% per year, or in other words, about 55% the annual return of the index fund. Where did the other 45% of the returns go?
that's not what that chart says.
the stock investor doesn't necessarily use the S&P as their benchmark. if it did "Average" would refer to"Average Joe" as opposed to average as in mean. otherwise the average(mean) investor would perform the same as the benchmark which is the average. the money goes mostly to whoever took the other side of their trade.
>The "Average Investor" is either systematically making poor investments, which we can avoid by systematically making investments of at least mediocre prudence
you don't know that. those investors could very well be making trades with the same ability and knowledge as you but all be getting undercut by someone else with a bigger edge. you could theoretically have a institutional investor that somehow knows the exact value of a stock and be happy to buy or sell to anybody who erroneously thinks they know better and keeping the price virtually flat. that doesn't necessarily make an opportunity for other retail traders.
like in pic related where you have one expert poker player taking money from the rest of the amateurs exchanging money back and forwards.

[Anonymous No.14296475]

daily remember: anons dont have to waste life watching TESLA

[Anonymous No.14296528]

>>14295853
Falling revenues, 3 straights years of heavy losses, multiple lawsuits regarding mortgages and a shitty home market in europe. It's dealing with a lot of issues but i think they have a competent CEO who can turn things around, however it's gonna take a while

[Anonymous No.14296617]

>>14296268
>GS has been trading near or below book value for years
something else accounts for it then. I highly doubt something so obvious would be looked over
>>14296415
>moved to buy companies outright
sure, he bought a company outright by buying controlling share of those under priced stocks and then sold the assets. he did pick stocks though. maybe were confusing pre and post inflation millionaire?
not going to dig around for the expert from his book. it's summarized here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee5BzwBCERE

[Anonymous No.14296681]

>>14295762
Ok, I see, makes sense. Although this is based on US tax system. Some other countries basically apply a flat rate to your investments. In the Netherlands it used to be that the government assumed you made 4% annually and taxed that by 30%, meaning that you would pay 1.2% annually. This was regardless of how long you held your stocks.

[Anonymous No.14296731]

>>14293940
>"Average Stock Fund Investor" has a return of about 5% per year, or in other words, about 55% the annual return of the index fund. Where did the other 45% of the returns go?
The average investor doesn't just hold stocks (or even the index) for a year. They time the market and lose a few % along the way.

[Anonymous No.14296793]

>>14296681
>that dutch tax you described
scary !!
in the US some lawmakers wanted to bring up a law like that, but they would try and price the worth of EVERY invested asset for EVERY citizen at the end of the year to pay cappy gains on (instead of waiting for you to sell). They also floated a wealth tax, to pay based on net worth yearly.

It's to get people like Jeffy Bezos who see massive "on-paper" net worth growth but pay like 0% tax because he doesn't sell any of his stock.

Unlikely that those laws could even be implemented if they got the votes
but also they would never get the votes anyway because all the top campaign donors for all our politicians are rich people or big companies

[Anonymous No.14296854]

>>14296126
did u read:
https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=1036#broker-accounts

?

read that webpage that explains differences between account types (individual, managed, advised, brokered)
if you have any further questions, IB should assist you in your local language and legal structure, contacting them would be best

much love

[Anonymous No.14297085]

>>14296528
So is this going to bring about a lehman style collapse, ie, TBTF?

How can I short Germoney

[Anonymous No.14297127]

>>14296793
How is it scary? Dutch investors love it because they make way more than 4% annually. Also, the first 60k EUR (~ 70k USD) is not taxed. In USA you pay 20%, right? If your annual returns are high, that 20% is huge after 20-30 years.

[Anonymous No.14297321]

So are any of you actually profitable with real money?

[Anonymous No.14297488]

>>14297321
me has something like ≈16 years track record or something XD it's pretty fine, got lucky during sub prime lost less than market and trading have evolved so much and more active past years. so lucky + leveraged indexing + nao pretty decent trading too

[Anonymous No.14297501]

>>14297127
20% of realized gains is the top bracket in the US. so if you make 200k realized gains in a long term investment, 40k.
I still don't like paying a yearly amount based on total investments, are you saying it was based on account value or just on gains made in the year?

>>14297321
My gold is doing crazy numbers, and it's just getting started ;^)

[Anonymous No.14297511]

OPEN THE MARKET NOW I'M BORED

[Anonymous No.14297543]

do taxes from your taxable brokerage account basically end up being

total realized gains - total realized losses times:

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/taxes/capital-gains-tax-rates/

the rates in this chart? shouldnt this be very easy to do in taht case?

[Anonymous No.14297565]

>>14297511
this

[Anonymous No.14297569]

>>14297511
forex?

Has everyone finished shorting the gbp and Euro for when Boris Johnson makes sure they’re both rekt?

[Anonymous No.14297593]

>>14297511
You can always trade XRP :^)

[Anonymous No.14297627]

>>14297501
1.2% of account value on 1st of Jan

[Anonymous No.14297641]

>>14297543
it should be very simple with only one or two accounts, not too many transactions in a year, etc.

if you don't sell anything in a year, you don't have to do any capital gains at all

real tax work comes when you have a relationship of multiple different kinds of accounts across different brokers, assets that aren't just publicly traded equities, international exposures of all types, etc. etc. etc. and that's just for an individual. ;^)

but for an individual with 'simple' investment structure, the tax stuff isn't too bad once you get used to it, you should be able to figure it all out just by reading about it. make sure to look up the actual IRS forms and read them too

[Anonymous No.14297702]

>>14295762
shut the fuck up BOOMER

[Anonymous No.14298024]

>>14297511
Have sex

[Anonymous No.14298029]

>>14297488
What are your average annual returns?

[Anonymous No.14298233]

>>14297085
No, lehman's was a liquidity problem, deutsche has plenty of liquidity. Deutsche is becoming more irrelevant on the global stage seeing as they're downsizing their us offices and they're focusing more on the german market. the problem is that the german market is shit, it's very competitive plus the euribor is fucking negative ffs

[Anonymous No.14298699]

movie night?

[Anonymous No.14298852]

>>14298699
sunny D incommunicado 14 hours
I think he already said what movie night was gonna be this week but I forgot

[Anonymous No.14298973]

>everyfucking thing on the market is beta correlated
>people still do the "diversifing" meme

Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.14299049]

>>14298973

What does beta correlated mean?

[BagholderExtraordinaire !kDjFcJuZkQ No.14299058]

>>14294815
fake retarded kneepad girl is fake

[Anonymous No.14299132]

>>14299127
>>14299127
>>14299127
>>14299127


>>14299127


a new thread b404

[Anonymous No.14299186]

>>14298852
>>14298699
I stayed up til 5AM working on my secret project and just woke up lol. Movie night is at 9:00pm MTN (Chad) time, 11:00pm EST as always. Tonight's feature is Pokémon 3: The Movie: Entei – Spell of the Unown (2000), with the possibility of a double feature since it's only an hour long.

[Anonymous No.14299260]

>>14297511
POST YOUR WEEKS PERFORMANCE %