/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.448527]

How do you actually do technical analysis? I'm taking a few stats class and we've learned about linear regression, trend projection, exponential smoothing and shit like that which I understand, but what else is there? I'm trying to find subjects that actually teach technical analysis and what kind of stats would you use for it? Is it more or less just linear regression models?

[Anonymous No.448530]

You don't. The idea that you can predict things like that accurately based on a set criteria of significantly consistent statistics is a fantasy at this time. Your best bet is to just pick companies that you think are going to do well and profitably over the next few years and assume that their stocks will at some point reflect that analysis.

[Anonymous No.448533]

>>448530
No I know. I wasn't planning on day trading. What I'm looking for is to try and predict stock prices to determine if they're going to fall considered overbought and inflated, stuff like that. I've just been using a EMA and used it when I bought GILD and it worked out really well, but I want to gain more insight as a tool to go along with my fundamental analysis. Like if I like a stock and want to buy it I want to run some sort of technical analysis to know if it's a good time to buy or if I should wait because it's overvalued.

[Anonymous No.448534]

>>448533

I would use common sense.

Right now the biggest holders are the Baby Boomers and after them the Echo Boom. They are cashing out for retirement on their accumulated stocks. Buying into the financial system right now are the millennials, who are broke and far less demographically numerous. Supply side is about to be flooded, demand is about to shrink considerably.

We're overvalued massively. Hold your cash back and wait to buy in until prices plummet and there's a new equilibrium. Remember that timing the market is a myth.

[Anonymous No.448536]

>>448534
I'm not talking about doing anything right now. I have most of my cash in solid long picks but I'm just trying to learn and what to look for in a class, like what kind of stats to learn. Using EMA helped me already when I made my purchase, so I just want to learn about other things that could help me be able to identify good times to purchase stock when I'm ready to.

[Anonymous No.448545]

>>448534
>Hold your cash back and wait to buy in until prices plummet and there's a new equilibrium.
>Remember that timing the market is a myth.
Literally what. the. fuck. These two statements are diametrically opposite. You may be clinically brain damaged.

[Anonymous No.448546]

>>448545

>not understanding what I'm talking about when I say that you can't time the market

That would be putting money in and thinking you can pull it out right before things go to shit, then put it back in at the new equilibrium instead of waiting.

[Anonymous No.448551]

>>448527
Read this book. You don't need to know squat about stats, unless you're developing your own indicators.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0735200661

[Anonymous No.448560]

You could check out prediction and confidence intervals I guess

[Anonymous No.448568]

>>448530
wrong wrong wrong

tell that to every systems trader who posts gains at the end of the year

so wrong

[Anonymous No.448653]

I read what stupid people write on 4chan, then I do the opposite.

[Anonymous No.448659]

>>448530

Wrong. This can be said exaclty for Poker but there are Poker stars.

[Anonymous No.448722]

>>448527
Technical analysis is the stockmarket version of astrology

[Anonymous No.448730]

>>448551
Right on, I'll check it out. Thanks.
>>448722
I understand a lot of technical analysis is bullshit prediction but it still has some validity and can be useful in conjunction with regular DD.

[Anonymous No.448741]

>>448730

There is literally no evidence that TA works, and there's a reason brilliant finance minds treat it as of it were a pseudo-science.

Why do you folks keep insisting otherwise?

[Anonymous No.448743]

candlesticks, vsa/wyckoff/williams, heikin ashi, fibs, pivots, lines, elliott wave, donchian

>not just regression

[Anonymous No.448745]

>>448741
I think it would be somewhat foolish to completely ignore a whole field of study when it comes to stocks. I want to learn how to understand it and then pick and choose what I want to use based on what I think works and what doesn't. For example with the EMA setup at 50,100,and 150 I found that you can identify huge rallies by looking at them. I've checked with over 30 stocks and most whenever they broke the 100 EMA or even 150 EMA they rallied up hard and then were hugely over the trendline before they started to slow down or even drop. I'm looking for more stuff like that can identify great buying opportunities in companies I already like and want to get in to. I'm not planning on relying 100% on it. Fundamentals first. Always.
>>448743
I already know about candlesticks and how to read them, I just don't know how to take conclusions from them and read trends from it. Any particular place I can go to read more about all that stuff?
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.448770]

>>448653
BUY DOGE SHORT PRAN :^ )

[Anonymous No.448787]

>posts warren buffet pic
>asks about technical analysis
>doesn't realize that Buffett and Benjamin Graham's school of thought asserts that technical analysis is bullshit

[Anonymous No.448802]

>>448546
>>not understanding what I'm talking about when I say that you can't time the market
Timing the market is making any investment decision on the basis of your guess/hunch/feeling about the future market direction. Its the same fallacy whether you're buying or selling, and its the same fallacy whether you're trading or waiting to trade.

You are not a wizard. You do not know where the markets are going to go tomorrow regardless of ANY past activity.

[Anonymous No.448818]

>>448741
>no evidence that TA works
>tfw I made 800 sheckles last week using TA

[Anonymous No.448820]

>>448527
The biggest hurdle is collecting accurate and relative data. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Anonymous No.448824]

>>448818
>>no evidence that TA works
>>tfw I made 800 sheckles last week using TA
What is "confirmation bias" and why are you so fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.448837]

>>448824
Only people who can't use TA effectively claim TA doesn't work. I know people who are very profitable using TA. Why would you walk in a dark room without a light to guide your way?

[Anonymous No.448862]

>>448787
Oh I realize, just doesn't make me not want to use the picture.
>>448802
There are definitely warning signs to look for like post 2008 George Soros and a bunch of other people made a killing from it because they saw what was coming and prepared for it. I don't know much about it but my finance teacher mentioned how the Fed asked them what they did to know that it was coming.
>>448837
There's no doubt people make money using it, it's just harder to keep up consistently. Like investing in stocks long term, some win and some lose.

[Anonymous No.448874]

>>448837
>Why would you walk in a dark room without a light to guide your way?
The markets aren't a "dark room" (except perhaps to you). The markets aren't tea leaves, tarot cards, or chicken bones. The secrets of the universe are not hidden in their ebbs and flows. Only retarded people think this.

What the markets are, in fact, is a random walk. But, they're a random walk with a positive bias to the tune of about 10%. This is the only pattern that matters, and it has nothing to do with "technical" analysis.

>>448862
>There are definitely warning signs
You are weak minded. This makes you typical, sadly. Look forward to a lifetime of trading loses.

[Anonymous No.448876]

>>448874
Markets are not a random walk.

[Anonymous No.448879]

>>448874
Don't know how many times I need to say this but I am not looking to start trading. And also how does that make me weak minded by stating a fact about something?

[Anonymous No.448880]

>>448876
>Markets are not a random walk.
Well, Christ on a popsicle stick! The Lord God has descended from Heaven above to debunk 50 years of peer-reviewed economic research. And God has chosen 4chan as the place of revelation! What an awesome and glorious day!

[Anonymous No.448882]

>>448527
Just giving you my knowledge here OP. Try this setting

50 SMA+10 EMA crossing, ADX(14) above 25 and place sl=tp=20 pips, with 1 hr chart, make sure volumes are high enough. Been trying that in demo for 20 days, so far so good

[Anonymous No.448901]

>>448880
Well, if you don't want to have an open mind about things, then enjoy not making money then.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.448905]

>>448901
>enjoy not making money then
Oops, my trip is showing.
>http://archive.foolz.us/biz/thread/301031/

[Anonymous No.448937]

>>448905
I'm guessing that this is a broken link that was supposed to lead to your AMA about you being a millionaire - that you can't seem to resist posting every single day?

I've never seen you contribute anything useful to any thread, you're just a sarcastic jackass, and the only thing you say if anyone disputes something you say is 'a-at least I have m-money!' - and you come to a Cambodian imageboard to get validation for that which is one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen.

Instead of seeking validation here, just remember that plenty of rich people commit suicide. You might not make the news if you're not famous, but it's always a valid way out and you can buy a really nice gun to do it :^)

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.448979]

>>448937
>I've never seen you contribute anything useful to any thread
Look harder. Or perhaps English isn't your first language?

>get validation for that
How exactly do you, or anyone else, validate my net worth? I have what I have, no matter how mad you are about it, Me posting about and you posting about it doesn't make it more or less true. I'm rich. Deal with it like a grown-up.

>plenty of rich people commit suicide
The unhappy ones, I suppose. Money doesn't make you happy. Living a fulfilling life makes you happy. I live a fulfilling life, and I'm happy. Being rich is just the icing.

But I am sorry you have neither cake nor icing. Life's not fair. Does that make you feel better?

[Anonymous No.448980]

>>448905

HOLY SHIT I laughed out loud.

Fucking wrekt.

I love you 10x more iHaz. You are really one of the only good trips on this board and the fact that you post without your trip (probably all the time) proves it even more.

Fucking 5 star post.

[Anonymous No.448991]

>>448568

Tell that to the 50% who outperformed the market or the other 50% who didn't?

[Anonymous No.448994]

>>448722
If everyone believed astrology, it would have predictive power. I believe technical analysis works, but only because everyone's gulping the same delusional magic number soup. There's enough of those morons to actually move the market.

What this means is you should sell technical analysis software to the traders, then have it influence the market for you.

[Anonymous No.448996]

>>448905
I have a friendly question for you, iHaz, since I'm "following" you since a fair number of weeks.

With the kind of money you earn, why do you have only 12 millions?

You said you're earning $950 per hour. Say you're only billing 50 hours each week: that's $47,500. Now you do it 48 weeks per year: that's $2,280,000. Taxes eat up 40% (?) and your daily expenses (no family) a good 10%. There's 50% left, so $1,140,000. Work ten years like that and that's almost $12,000,000 (not even invested, all in cash). So why do you only have $12,000,000, after a life of epic Vanguard investments?

[Anonymous No.449011]

>>448996
I don't think he is working 40 or 50 hours a week, currently. If I remember, in a Q&A thread, iHaz was winding down his work.
I think the general rule of thumb for law firms is that only about 2/3 of your actual time spent working are actually billable hours. Furthermore, iHaz might have costs (Westlaw/Lexis subscription, office space, paralegals/secretaries/other business expenses) that come out of the 950, so it isn't necessarily pure profit.

[Anonymous No.449013]

>>448979
Funny. If markets were truly a random walk, you wouldn't have made all that money. Fucking REKT.

Also
>I invest in passive index funds because I'm not able to do my own company valuations and stock price analysis.

Stick to law, Mr. Laywer.

[Anonymous No.449023]

since EMH is true the only explanation for technical analysis is risk management. there are numerous papers supporting the use of these indicators.

[Anonymous No.449031]

>>448530
>The idea that I, an Art History Major, can predict things like that accurately based on a set criteria of significantly consistent statistics using a science I never dared touch in schoole is a fantasy at this time and of course, forever.

FTFY

[Anonymous No.449033]

>>448876

Individual stocks are not a random walk, not exactly. But the market as a whole is a random walk.

In a large room, full of people talking, if you listen to an individual you can sometimes guess what he's going to say next, depending on how the conversation is going. But the room as a whole is a cacophony of unpredictable noise.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.449049]

>>448996
Most of what >>449011 commented is true. You can't bill your clients for every hour that you're awake, and you can't even bill them for a lot of hours that you spend working for them. Plus, your billing rate has to cover firm overhead, like secretaries, rent, utilities, computers, pension plans, benefits, entertainment, etc.

Plus, in a firm (where I spent most of my career), my earnings were never a direct reflection of my billings. As an associate, I earned a fixed salary regardless of how much I billed. Even when I became partner, the distributions depend on what 1000 other partners are earning (or not earning), and only a little bit on what I'm bringing in. In most firms, you don't eat what you kill (i.e., you don't earn what you bill). You all share the meal, and not always equally.

Also, in fairness, $950/hour was my peak billing rate. When I moved to a solo practice, I lowered my rate to reflect my lower overhead (and to steal clients from my old firm). And while I have indeed billed 200-300 hours monthly in my younger days, I haven't worked that hard in a long time.

Finally, its worth noting that I don't have a life of epic Vanguard investing. I used to do all the stupid shit that I warn people about: options, leveraged investing, margin buys, speculative plays, and over-concentration. I didn't become a committed Boglehead until the tech bubble crash in 2000.

Hope that answers your question.

>>449013
>I invest in passive index funds because I'm not able to do my own company valuations and stock price analysis
Actually I can do those things, and am required to do them regularly in my line of business. I'm fairly certain that I can read a company's financial statements with far more insight than you. That still doesn't mean that stock picking is a viable long-term investment strategy.

[Anonymous No.449057]

>>449049
>eat what you kill

Ghastly, tasteless expression. I'm not blaming you for it, I know it's widespread. It's still terrible.

[Anonymous No.449121]

>>449049
Thank you. I'm going to take your path (law field, same investment strategy, probably won't have a family, I'm even Jewish) so it's good to have the realistic viewpoint of older me!

[Anonymous No.449131]

>>449049
>>449121

Everyone and their mothers is telling me that law school isn't the brightest idea nowadays. Is it T14 school or bust? Also, which field of law is most lucrative? I'm assuming it's corporate law, estate/divorce law, pharma law, business/patent law, real estate law etc.

[Anonymous No.449135]

>>448530
>The idea that you can predict things like that accurately based on a set criteria of significantly consistent statistics is a fantasy at this time.

Then why is Jim Simons a billionaire?

[Anonymous No.449140]

>>448527
>How do you actually do technical analysis?
A decade ago the answer would be something like to have a black box program look for patterns that match a big buyer coming in and buying (or selling) a stock. Then you jump in and buy ahead of them. Nowadays there are tons of black boxes with massive capital behind them handling those low hanging fruit, so you'd have to look for something more sophisticated.

I have a BSCS and do a lot of programming, and have a little bit of a statistics and AI background, but not that heavy. Here is the thing - anything process a person does, a computer can do. So any technical strategy process a person can do, a computer can do. With AI, computers can probably act more sophisticated than you think they can in terms of pattern recognition, learning, classification and so forth. Especially when so much money is to be had - a black box which can predict the market over the short term is very valuable.

[Anonymous No.449157]

>>449135

He charges high fees to a lot of people. And he's not predicting stuff, he's detecting pricing discrepancies. That's completely different. He's in arbitrage, not stock prediction.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.449190]

>>449131
>Everyone and their mothers is telling me that law school isn't the brightest idea nowadays.
Tough question to answer. First, you need to understand that law firms, like many business, are very cyclical. Things are certainly down now, but they will almost certainly get better eventually. So the hiring picture might look very different in the 2-3 years before you enter the market.

However, I suspect that legal hiring will remain tight for a while yet. While there's some recent uptick in corporate activity, I think M&A and RE deals are going to stay relatively slow even as the economy continues to putter upwards. Businesses have become very conservative in the wake of the 2008 crash, and everyone is stockpiling cash and foregoing risk.

Litigation is actually relatively busy these days. In lean times, companies tend to sue each other more often. However, in the current economy, they're litigating on a budget. This means legal teams are smaller. There's less room for young associates to bill to their heart's content.

All things considered, I'm generally my friends with older kids to not make law their first and only goal. T14 and above, and you'll be fine. But otherwise it could be a (long) while before that degree pays for itself.

If you're not headed to a T14 law school, then I guess you have two options. (1) Get your law degree right away, but have a strong Plan B other than the practice of law in mind. (2) Go explore a different career path for a few years, then re-evaluate law. In my experience, a lot of top law school students do not come straight from college.

[Anonymous No.449194]

>>449131
not who you're responding to but

lawfag here.

if you're looking for a sure bet, it's T14 or bust.

if you're willing to take a bet on yourself, and are not a retard, and willing to work, you can make it in a market that readily employs the top students of lower tiered schools. New York, Philadelphia, DC, many huge cities regularly hire top students from second-rate schools to biglaw positions making $125k starting.

if you know someone, attend a decent school.
>me

[Anonymous No.449216]

>>449190
>>449194

Really appreciate the insight guys. I'm in Fordham in NYC as a finance major, doing a history minor (in case of law school). So if the market isn't right for law school, I'll probably continue on the path to doing something on Wall Street.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.449217]

>>449131
>Also, which field of law is most lucrative? I'm assuming it's corporate law, estate/divorce law, pharma law, business/patent law, real estate law etc.
Honestly it all depends on the quality of your clients. Doing corporate work for Comcast pays better than doing corporate work for neighborhood businesses. Doing litigation for R.J. Reynolds pays better than representing slip & fall patients. Doing bankruptcy work for GM pays better than filing consumer chapter 7's.

Every field has its high-paid specialists, and every field has its budget generic alternatives.

I know that probably sounds like a cop-out answer, but its true nonetheless. At my firm, there were a maybe two dozen lawyers making $3-6 million/year. And they came from every department in the firm: corporate, litigation, tax, IP, and bankruptcy.

[Anonymous No.449222]

>>449217

>$3-6 million/year

I'm guessing these are the more senior lawyers as opposed to the younger ones. Insanely impressive nonetheless.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.449227]

>>449222
>I'm guessing these are the more senior lawyers as opposed to the younger ones. Insanely impressive nonetheless.
Yes, of course. These are the guys who bring in the big-name clients.

[Anonymous No.449252]

>>449190
>in the current economy, they're litigating on a budget. This means legal teams are smaller. There's less room for young associates to bill to their heart's content.
Easy solution:

1. Law firms starting suing eachother
2. Make money from the ongoing cases
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!!!!

I swear you lawyers are a bunch of retards sometimes.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.449272]

>>449252
Hehe. Law firms don't represent themselves when they get sued. So each firm would have to hire another firm to represent them. Which would undoubtedly result in conflicts of interest, so more litigation amongst firms. And then ...

Holy cow, you may be on to something.

[Anonymous No.449287]

Send me $500 more m8.

[Anonymous No.449288]

[Anonymous No.449290]

[Anonymous No.449305]

>>449290

I find it funny how he waves around "peer-reviewed research" like a talisman. I'm a mathematics postdoc, I'm surrounded by people doing "peer-reviewed research". They're not geniuses, plenty of times the stuff they do is of limited significance. They just want to get papers out the door.

[Anonymous No.449319]

>>449305
>I find it funny how he waves around "peer-reviewed research" like a talisman.
He actually doesn't and never has. He only talks about it vaguely whenever he brings it up. See his fourth post in this image >>449287 (the one where he tried to not post under his trip but forgot IDs still exist).

To index fund fundies, it's inconceivable that anyone could beat the market. They believe everyone should be limiting themselves to 5-8% a year gains. Meanwhile, even low P/B stock baskets have beaten the hell out of the S&P 500.

Muh index funds.
Muh studies.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.449322]

>>449287
>>449288
Thanks for posting these. I never get tired of reading how I #rekt those dudes.

I think the idiot from the second thread quit /biz/ altogether after the ripping I gave him. I kinda feel bad about it now. (Not really, hehe.)

>>449305
Your post doesn't make much sense. Who cares if the research is "significant" (according to what standard, by the way) or not. What matters is (a) is the research of sufficient quality and standards to merit publication, and (b) whether the research is capable of being duplicated by others. You should know this if you work in the field.

Anyway, I cite to peer-reviewed reviewed studies on /biz/ because there is a metric fuck-ton of bad economic and market research floating around the net. All the TA sites, all the day-trading sites, all the stock screening sites ... they're chock-full of blog-quality bullshit theorizing. People can and do say anything to get suckers to trade, trade, trade. Sadly, some of the morons on this board slurp it up because their so desperate to confirm their biases. Pointing to peer-reviewed, legitimate research is the only antidote.

Unless you have a better suggestion? Anything to contribute beyond snark, son?

>>449319
I trip when I want to trip. I don't when I don't. I posted five times in this thread before putting on my trip to bust the faggot who thought I would never make any money.
>You don't read so well, huh junior?

[Anonymous No.449331]

>>449322

My point is that research needs to be interpreted carefully. What precisely was analyzed, what assumptions were made? Can the conclusions be generalized - if so, under what circumstances?

Rather than quickly summarizing a result, let's see the actual papers, and see what was actually done, and how it was done.

The mathematical standard in economics research tends to be quite poor, and is often used to justify preconceptions.

[Anonymous No.449337]

>>449322
>Thanks for posting these. I never get tired of reading how I #rekt those dudes.
>I think the idiot from the second thread quit /biz/ altogether after the ripping I gave him. I kinda feel bad about it now. (Not really, hehe.)

>Too stupid to realize I was the guy in both and anyone that spends five minutes reading either thread realizes you were shown as an absolute retard and couldn't even respond.

>I trip when I want to trip. I don't when I don't. I posted five times in this thread before putting on my trip to bust the faggot who thought I would never make any money.

No, in the image, you were getting pwnt so you decided to take off your trip as if you were someone else responding. But you forgot IDs exist, and after you were caught in that, you put your trip back on.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.449355]

>>449331
Agree 100%. I wish more people exercised skepticism when it comes to what they read on the internet about stocks, trading, and retirement. I've tried to carry the flag, but the headwinds are stiff.

>>449337
You seem to be confused. Someone made those images to thank me for my contributions to /biz/. I've schooled a lot of idiots over the months, and they picked a couple of my finest moments. It was very nice of them, and I appreciate the effort.

And I appreciate you re-posting them. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.449358]

>>449355
>You seem to be confused. Someone made those images to thank me for my contributions to /biz/. I've schooled a lot of idiots over the months, and they picked a couple of my finest moments. It was very nice of them, and I appreciate the effort.

I made them to show everyone what a retard you are whenever you try to post advice, as a warning not to listen to you. I realize you're trolling in your response, but at least try to pretend that other people have the ability to read. Bk2bogleheads.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.449365]

>>449358
As you know, everyone who has ever commented on those images has said that I was right and that the people I was arguing with were wrong. So again, I thank you for commemorating my triumphs.

And I thank you for being so dedicated to me that would put so much of your valuable time into creating them. While others might find your obsessive behavior creepy and sad, I'm honestly flattered by your attention. It's nice to be appreciated.

[Anonymous No.449406]

>>449365

are you a curl bro?

[Anonymous No.449414]

Great input to my topic guys, really appreciate it. Anyone else want to contribute?

[sky No.449442]

>>449414
Technical analysis is mostly to do with charts and ignoring the fundamentals.

Some like to use indicators (moving averages, stochastic, RSI, MACD etc etc).

Other look at support and resistance, trend lines, VSA which brings volume into the picture.

Imo, the first group is pure trash. These things have been backtested to infinity so there is no edge in them whatsoever. Also a lot of the rules make no sense. eg. Buy here because this squiggly line says oversold.

The 2nd group tries to explain price and volume moves via supply/demand. Which (imo) does a decent job in many situations. Eg. the intraday reversal was on strong volume which suggests capitulation, and the buying demand overcoming supply. More up-days ahead as buyers rush in.

Finally there is more stats based 'technical analysis'. Which looks at past history. eg. In the past 3 years what is the average bounce for stock XYZ after a 3% or greater fall.

Hope that's what you're after.

[Anonymous No.449445]

>>449406

[Anonymous No.449625]

>>449445
>>449365
>>449358
ayy lmao

It's you two again. It's p funny watching you guys throw shit at each other every other week or so. You're like each others' archenemy.

[Anonymous No.449633]

>>449625

I think they're one dude. IHaz uses his phone to post as the other guy.

[Anonymous No.449647]

>>449633
Maybe. I doubt it, though. The iHaz hater has much better grasp on the latest maymays and seems more lucid.

iHaz is everywhere and acts pretty dumb, so I'd be surprised if his default behavior was acting like a troll.

[Anonymous No.449718]

The non indexers in this thread basically have the following argument:

"Wall Street institutions told me they outperformed the market, so I believe them!"

Oh boy you guys really are like sheep to the slaughter.

[Anonymous No.449720]

>>449442
That helps a lot. Thanks for the insightful input. Any particular place I could go learn about that?

[Anonymous No.449829]

>>449287
>>449288
Waiting for the big crash ("correction") before doing my first investments. Would a portfolio of S&P500, US short term bonds, some foreign index and Berkshire Hathaway B shares do alright, if I made sure to re-adjust every year or something (25% in all of them), or would that just be a stupid strategy? I haven't read into stock portfolios yet, or diversification and whatnot, so don't go too hard here. Also, wouldn't evening them out to 25% each effectively do a buy low/sell high for you (as long as one of them were up)?

[Anonymous No.449836]

>>449829
Seems to be doing pretty good to me? Guess the B-share is for regular people, seeing as the A-share costs as much as a house?

[Anonymous No.450334]

>>449633
>>449647
Nope, I'm not him. You'll notice how I critique the perception that he's a good investor just because he has a lot of money (even disregarding the fact that he's retarded and freely admits he doesn't know anything about active investing).

See:
$5,000,000 compounded at 5% for ten years (along with all the pensions and soccer mom investors)=$8,144,473.

$5,000,000 compounded at 20% for ten years=$30,958,682.

$5,000,000 compounded at 30% for ten years=$68,929,245.

Pic related again.

>>449718
I can name about 30 famous investors who have beaten the market for decades and they all say it's simple as cake and even write how to. You do realize that even low P/B screeners beat the market by a lot, correct? Your arguments are that "No one can ever beat the market," which is, a very stupid argument. Most retards/=/everyone.

[Anonymous No.450371]

>>450334
>implying you'll get 20% returns

[Anonymous No.450373]

>>450334
>You do realize that even low P/B screeners beat the market
this is just utter bullshit

[Anonymous No.450386]

>>450371
>Implying anyone who invested in MA, DTV, PCLN, UNP, and NVO in the past 3-5 years didn't make multi-hundred percentage returns.
>Implying that even if beating the market were actually hard, it wouldn't be worth the risk anyway instead of just letting your money beating inflation.

>>450373
Oh but it is true. Pic related. See, you've been sucked into the belief that, for some reason, it is "impossible" to beat the market. I never understand why people think this or try to suck others into it. It's like a cult, but worse because it's unfounded. The only way it's impossible is if you're like all the retards who buy TSLA, GOOG, APPL, and WMT. Go ahead and look up "Dogs of the Dow" or any of its variants. Even lazy people (like lazy index fund people) beat the market using other lazy methods.

Anywhoo, I'm done posting in this thread. Cheers m8s.

[Anonymous No.450387]

>>450371
>Implying anyone who invested in MA, DTV, PCLN, UNP, and NVO in the past 3-5 years didn't make multi-hundred percentage returns.
>Implying that even if beating the market were actually hard, it wouldn't be worth the risk anyway instead of just letting your money barely beat inflation.

>>450373
Oh but it is true. Pic related. See, you've been sucked into the belief that, for some reason, it is "impossible" to beat the market. I never understand why people think this or try to suck others into it. It's like a cult, but worse because it's unfounded. The only way it's impossible is if you're like all the retards who buy TSLA, GOOG, APPL, and WMT. Go ahead and look up "Dogs of the Dow" or any of its variants. Even lazy people (like lazy index fund people) beat the market using other lazy methods.

Anywhoo, I'm done posting in this thread. Cheers m8s.

[Anonymous No.450415]

>>449829
>>449836
Pls respond.

[Anonymous No.450420]

>>450387
jezus fucking christ even a retarted baby has more academic finance logic than this, are you really trying to prove something by backtesting it 4 years? how about you take a look at how that low p/b group preformed from 2004-2009, i bet it's worse. that group just has a beta that's >1. it's called systematic volatility, and yes that means more gains than market on the upside (and therefore more on the downside) but that doesn't mean it's a strategy that beats the market

[Anonymous No.450436]

>>450420
more losses than market on downside that is (in the part between parentheses)

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.450480]

>>450420
While you are 100% correct, don't bother arguing with this guy. He's a sad, deluded little person from some third-world country. He'll never admit any error, let alone how stupid he is in general.