Buy and Hold

File: 15 KB, 640x385, PE10-percentiles.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Buy and Hold Anonymous Tue Mar 10 14:34:31 2015 No.680260 [Reply] [Original]

How is that buy and hold working out for you guys today?

Stock market is now officially negative for the year as of today's market.

You were told valuations were high, you were told forward guidance was down, you were told the strong american dollar was going to hurt our economy and exports, oil demand is down on a global scale because of recessions everywhere.

Why are you still holding an empty bag?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 14:59:55 2015 No.680290 >>680260 >Inb4 "It's just noise" and about 10,000 dumbasses lose everything

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 14:59:59 2015 No.680291 is this american statitic? any calculations for euro market and emerging markets?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 15:10:20 2015 No.680304 >>680291 This is an american chart. I don't have any charts for other countries.. but you could google for "average PE chart for XYZ market" I assume the russian chart would look like the opposite of this chart.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 15:11:34 2015 No.680307 >Timing the market

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 15:51:39 2015 No.680383 >>680290 You only lose everything if you panic and sell. >How is that buy and hold working out for you guys today? Pretty well, and considering my time horizon is still decades (plural), I'm not worried. At all.

Anonymous Tue Mar 10 16:01:07 2015 No.680395

>>680383
Actually, you lose the opportunity of buying in at a lower price point and making better dividends and gains.

And your assumption is that the market will go back up. (which i'm not disagreeing with as i think it is a fine assumption - however it is an assumption and should be called out)

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 16:36:52 2015 No.680428 >>680383 You do realize businesses go broke, right? You can lose everything if the stock shoots to zero. And during a recession, that's more likely. Buy and hold isn't the fail-safe strategy boglehead faggots seem to think it is.

Anonymous Tue Mar 10 16:40:21 2015 No.680432

>>680395
>you lose the opportunity of buying in at a lower price point and making better dividends and gains.
Sure, but that isn't everything.
>You do realize businesses go broke, right? You can lose everything if the stock shoots to zero. And during a recession, that's more likely.
It takes more than a recession for any significant portion of major companies like these to go bankrupt. You'd need a total economic collapse.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 16:42:06 2015 No.680435 >>680432 I know people who've lost tens of thousands of dollars because they "set it and forget it" and the blue chips they invested in went under.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 16:44:20 2015 No.680436 >>680435 Those people were retarded then.

Anonymous Tue Mar 10 16:48:13 2015 No.680438

>>680291
european markets are in the same spot as american ones.
>>680383
you can't grasp market behavior. when you buy a top you always lose. how much you lose depends on how long you hold the position. if you exit immediately you may only lose a little, hold to the bottom and you could be out 50%. if you keep the position you are guaranteed to lose returns, the unseen opportunity cost will destroy you relative to other people. those who bought gold at the peak in 1980 had to wait over 30 years before they could get out at the level they bought due to a bear market and inflation. 30 years with 0 gains. there's also the very real threat of inflation eating the asset completely like the 1970s stock market.

this "buy and hold" idea lies with the fact that anything that's happened in the near-term is considered fact. nobody would have bought real estate in 2006 if they thought house prices went down, they "always go up" until they don't. stock markets should have shaken the "buy and hold" mantra in 2000 after their 18 year run but we still see people pushing this idea. financial advisers are never going to mention rampant inflation or crashes, they'll tell you to hold on to keep your business.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 16:52:00 2015 No.680441 >>680438 >comparing stocks to gold The companies that stocks represent actually create wealth, whereas gold is just a shiny metal that tends to sit in vaults. There is no maximum "top".

>>	http://www.starcapital.de/rese(...) Tue Mar 10 17:18:57 2015 No.680470 >>680438 >european markets are in the same spot as american ones. proves? I really doubt it, please find link for the reference. yes american market are overvalued but you can find value in other markets

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 17:30:16 2015 No.680492 >>680441 >There is no maximum "top". ...Until there is.

Anonymous Tue Mar 10 17:31:40 2015 No.680495

>>680441
i wasn't comparing stocks directly to gold. i was showing that when people hold onto overpriced things, they lose. 30 years with 0% gains is pretty terrible. the funny thing is, you think stocks are out there creating wealth yet those bits of shiny metal have enormously outperformed stocks since 2000. if stocks were, as you say "always creating wealth" and didn't have a top then how would you explain that? buy and hold doesn't work? or does it only work in the "long term" meaning you noticed the dow goes up on a 100 year chart? here's something you didn't realize- you have ~30 years of making decent money and investing to save for retirement. starting at 25-35 going to 60-65 is your window. if you "buy and hold" starting in a bear market you will probably be ok because bear markets can be great times to invest. on the other hand, if you start in a bull market you're fucked. the returns will probably be negative unless you had major cash reserves(which people don't have) to buy in the panic selling. realize that markets have not exceeded their 2000 peaks, the s&p 500 took ~17 years to double and accounting for inflation that was a terrible time to buy. buy and hold is not an investing strategy, it's about being lucky.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 17:36:48 2015 No.680501 >>680428 That's why you diversify--so even if one or two businesses go broke, you don't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 17:43:04 2015 No.680510 >>680495 buy and hold usually mean buying diversified portfolio including bonds and not one index. you also do not buy once but periodically.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 17:51:43 2015 No.680516 >mfw plebs haven't even seen real blood in the streets yet

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 18:08:39 2015 No.680537 Well I bought long before this year started. And I will hold. OP probably rather wants to be "right" than earn money.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 18:10:33 2015 No.680541 >ITT some permabear makes his first post in 6 years Such a sad existence. And what's funny is that most permabears don't actually beat against the market. They're just bitter loser who failed to get in during the bull.

Anonymous Tue Mar 10 18:14:09 2015 No.680547

Where to start? Well I didn't read all of OP's post, but I'm sure it includes the same false assumptions as they usually do.

1. Nobody invests all of their money in a buy and hold strategy all in one shot. Rather, most buy and holders, especially those in index funds, invest smaller amounts over a stretch of time. So over the course of the years you are buying the peaks, the valleys, and everything in between.

2. You're probably failing to count dividends.

3. You probably also assume a portfolio that isn't diversified across classes and internationally.

Did I miss one?

>>	iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Tue Mar 10 18:16:27 2015 No.680550 File: 48 KB, 698x542, Clipboard01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>680260 >How is that buy and hold working out for you guys So far, so good. No complaints. Thanks for asking.

>>	Pizza Fund Manager !!n1HP3TUF4Ba Tue Mar 10 18:22:19 2015 No.680553 File: 126 KB, 1200x900, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>680550 >getting #rekt every time you post

Anonymous Tue Mar 10 18:27:49 2015 No.680558

>>680550
>>680553
I don't have a lot of capital which gives me a very risky 'catch up' mindset when investing

i swear the hardest part of investing is managing yourself, not choosing the right portfolio composition or anything like that.

any tips for managing my mindset?

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Tue Mar 10 18:33:35 2015 No.680565

>>680558
>a very risky 'catch up' mindset when investing
This doesn't work. At best, you can tweak your allocation strategy to squeeze an extra couple percent, at the cost of greater volatility.

If you have insufficient capital, that's an income problem, not an investment problem.

Pizza Fund Manager !!n1HP3TUF4Ba Tue Mar 10 18:34:49 2015 No.680567

>>680558

Try playing poker. Especially live. Though, you would want to start online to learn at the small stakes.

Try sitting in a room with nothing in it and see how long you can go. The longer you can go, the more patience you have.

Try planning ahead, making forecasts and contingency plans, so that when you start building your position, you will be able to relax a little more than you would if you had no plan.

With little capital, I play the devil's advocate and say that the hungrier you are for risk, the better. Though, you have to really know what you are doing. There's no sense in trying to grind out a portfolio when you only have $1,000.

Anonymous Tue Mar 10 23:11:16 2015 No.680900

>>680501
>>680510
diversification is not what you think it is. keep listening to the financial advisers and banks if you want to underperform.

>>680541
>>680547
you people don't get it, the average stock buyer never did. this isn't 1980, we don't have 14% interest rates, undervalued stocks, mark-to-market accounting and a resilient credit market.

interest rates have no breathing room. stocks aren't at 7x p/e. mark-to-market accounting allowed the banks to fake their balance sheets and stay alive but didn't help our credit markets and we didn't just get done pumping $4 trillion into the m1 money supply.

the scrubs still believe we're in an early bull market but all over you see fear regarding a .25% rise in interest rates. how can we be in a strong bull market if interest rates are so low and the market is weak after trillions were injected into the economy?

Anonymous Tue Mar 10 23:28:03 2015 No.680923

>>680900
>you people don't get it
No, you don't get it. No one is claiming this is a young bull (nice strawman) or that P/E's are 7x (nice hyperbole). The point is that none of the current market metrics point to a downward trend. If you have the sense that the market is "weak" then you're acting solely on emotion. That's generally not a sound way to approach investing.

Bottom line: I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I know which way the markets are heading tomorrow. Anyone who tries -- yourself included -- is an idiot, in my book.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 23:42:55 2015 No.680944 >>680550 yeah, that's great iHaz, but it's 2015 now. valuations ARE stretched. it does feel like we're at a peak you're a jew. surely you're a global investor and are looking at european equities?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 23:45:09 2015 No.680948 >>680944 >it does feel like we're at a peak >feel there's that word again. I'm guessing you have no money invested because there is always an excuse that keeps you out, because of your feelings.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 23:49:02 2015 No.680951 >>680948 what an idiotic statement. please don't post in this thread again

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 23:51:12 2015 No.680956 >>680951 Looks like I hit a nerve. Enjoy your no gains faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 23:52:54 2015 No.680957 >>680956 no, you're just a low-effort shitposter. I'll just filter you then

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 10 23:58:23 2015 No.680964 >>680957 Go for it. Anyone worth their weight in salt understands that you don't use feelings as a basis to time markets. I hope you did filter me, because you'll likely only embarrass yourself further if this discussion continues.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 00:10:02 2015 No.680980 >>680260 Meh. I'm like 4%. I was 6%, but I talked myself into staying in too long on my index funds. But your analysis is shit, you could at least quote Bill Gross or somebody that actually knows what they are talking about.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 00:18:51 2015 No.680995
File: 40 KB, 780x384, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>680944
>valuations ARE stretched
Citation fucking required.

>it does feel like we're at a peak
>does feel like
>feel

Sorry, but >>680948 hit the nail on the head. If you want to talk about your feelings, get a diary you pussy.

The irony of you calling someone else a shitposter is hilarious.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 00:20:52 2015 No.680998

>>680923
>If you have the sense that the market is "weak" then you're acting solely on emotion.

so we've gone through all this QE, europe just started pumping and japan is still pumping, central banks everywhere are cutting interest rates and the market is terrified of a .25% increase but i'm "acting on emotion" for believing the market is weak? the funny thing is you say that isn't a sound approach to investing but no one buying the s&p at 19-20x earnings is investing, they're speculating. investing would assume your choices were well thought out and rational, not "buy and hold".

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 00:27:10 2015 No.681005

>>680995
lmao. do you know how p/e works? do you see those giant spikes that represent the tech bubble and the financial crisis?

those spikes happen DURING THE CRASH because earnings plummet

just because some of you read the intelligent investor and think you're hardass investors that don't use "emotions", doesn't mean you have any fucking clue what you're talking about

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 00:35:40 2015 No.681013 >>681005 I don't remember claiming to be a hardass investor, I can just sniff out know-nothing wannabes that aren't involved in the market.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 00:47:39 2015 No.681027

>>680998
>the market is terrified
You're projecting your own fears and insecurities onto an emotionless costruct. The market is never terrified of anything, The market doesn't get happy or sad. The market has no feels.

Everything that you mention in your post has been priced into the markets long ago. Efficient market theory is a thing. None of it is a sound basis for making a market prediction, let alone trying to time the markets.

Also, its seems pretty clear that you don't understand the basic philosophy of "buy and hold." In particular, you seem to have no grasp of the concept of an investing horizon. What happened to the markets today, what will happen tomorrow, or next week, or next month, or next year ... these things are relevant to a "buy and hold" investor. Unless you have a valid critique of the market's long-term bias, then you're just taking potshots at a strawman.

>>681005
I'm not sure why your jimmies are so rustled. Maybe that comes with trying to time the market. Seems like you're not handling the stress very well.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 00:51:26 2015 No.681032 >>681027 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 00:51:43 2015 No.681033 >>680900 >diversification is not what you think it is. keep listening to the financial advisers and banks if you want to underperform. Oh? Then please explain to an unenlightened ignoramus like me what diversification really is.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 00:57:51 2015 No.681039

>>681027
I'm just shoving their shit back at them. EMT is a joke and it seems like you're just as complacent as the rest of them.

It looks like you don't have an argument aside from "don't time the market". Great analysis, champ.

All we're saying is that there is almost nothing worth investing in for value investors on the market today.

>>	iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 01:03:12 2015 No.681047 >>681039 >It looks like you don't have an argument aside from "don't time the market" I have decades of the market's long-term positive bias, coupled with scores of studies showing that market timing is a failed strategy. And you have? Feels?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 01:08:06 2015 No.681057 >>680260 ALWAYS WANTED TO TAKE ADVICE FROM BROKE FUCKS ON 4CHAN POSTING COSTANZA GIFS

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 01:09:05 2015 No.681058

>>681047
>I have decades of the market's long-term positive bias

Yay, we all know this!

>coupled with scores of studies showing that market timing is a failed strategy.

If you're a value investor that doesn't invest in overpriced stocks, are you timing the market?

>And you have? Feels?

Maybe you should understand what OP's picture is saying, first.

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/PE-Ratios-and-Market-Valuation.php

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 01:11:57 2015 No.681064 >>681058 >>680260 http://www.multpl.com/table HERP DE DERP!!!!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 01:14:01 2015 No.681069 >>681064 >>681057 Quality posts. 10/10

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 01:14:19 2015 No.681071 durrrrrrrrrr im fucking retarded http://www.gurufocus.com/shiller-PE.php

>>	Pizza Fund Manager !!n1HP3TUF4Ba Wed Mar 11 01:15:45 2015 No.681074 >>681064 it's gonna be about another 25 years before it hits 7.5

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 01:17:13 2015 No.681077

The value of knowing market timing for certain is north of $10 Trillion dollars. That is not an exaggeration. If you can predict the timing of any market, on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis… The first thing you do is shut your mouth. You quit your job and you hide in a tax free jurisdiction to trade an account. You borrow at any rate imaginable (10%+? who cares! give me the debt!) Why? If you can predict the turn of a security in that short of a time duration you’re going to make 10x the return immediately on an option (Puts or calls). In fact if you know a single security is going to move by 10%+ within a day, you should quit everything you’re doing lever up, and go all in. If it’s really that easy you’re rich by the end of the day, not month, not even a year.

The value of shitposting is $0

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 01:22:42 2015 No.681084

>>681058
I'm not going to pick a fight with value investing as a concept. However, I don't accept that it's a viable strategy to the exclusion of a more diverse selection of equities, including growth stocks. There's no compelling evidence that value investing, in a vacuum, outperforms fully-diversified buy and hold.

That being said, a full 35% of my portfolio is invested in value-oriented funds so I'm not going to go out of my way to disparage it as a useful tool in an investor's toolbox.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 01:25:42 2015 No.681090 IT IS HAPPENING NOW GUIZE. I JUST SOLD OFF ALL MY POSITIONZ CAUSE JIM CRAMER SAID SOOOOOO

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 02:25:10 2015 No.681153 File: 10 KB, 226x223, Great Scott.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>681077 So you're saying I need a complete record of the stock markets and a time machine.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 02:59:03 2015 No.681166 >>680383 This >down turn happens >moron speculators get spooked and sell >drives down market even more >savvy people buy when everything is low and hold

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 03:02:48 2015 No.681167 >>680435 It means you invested in a financially unhealthy company to begin with.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 03:04:22 2015 No.681170 >>680438 But individual stocks could be undervalued even if the market is up. It's all about what you buy it for.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 03:05:26 2015 No.681172 >>680495 >buy and hold is not an investing strategy Retard alert

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 04:49:28 2015 No.681198 >>680432 Are you implying the economy isn't going to collapse? Kek

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 07:19:57 2015 No.681276

>>681033
diversification is how you prevent yourself from going broke. that's it. if you go out and buy 15 stocks there's a good chance some will go up and you won't kill your portfolio next week. it's constantly promoted because most people aren't doing the research necessary to screen stocks and the financial industry doesn't want your stupidity causing bankruptcy. that's not to say diversification doesn't have it's place, but it's promoted to such a large degree because average investors are terrible at picking winners.

>>681084
>There's no compelling evidence that value investing, in a vacuum, outperforms fully-diversified buy and hold.

you did not just say "in a vacuum"...anyway if this were true then all those activist/value investors wouldn't be on top of the investing world. all of the great investors were taught or had beliefs that the market isn't efficient. buffett discussed this in his superinvestor's speech, at the same time he thinks most people should buy index funds because they're not smart enough to do what he's done.

>>681170
that isn't always the best idea. if you're a wealthy activist or liquidation investor then go for it, you can decide the fate of the potential company. on the other hand if you're a regular guy you may want to seek some protection. credit collapses tend to affect the entire market and panics are not rational times.

>>681172
you took a piece of what i said and ignored everything else. *golf clap*

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 07:47:33 2015 No.681295 > be a forex trader > buy and hold lmao what is this absolute horse shit? no thanks, ill stick to making easy money whenever i want.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 10:00:21 2015 No.681373 >>681167 They weren't when they bought them. A lot can change while you hold a stock for years. Gee, who could imagine that?

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 13:09:01 2015 No.681610

>>681276
>all those activist/value investors wouldn't be on top of the investing world
Citation required. If you have some evidence that value investing produces superior long-term returns when compared to a fully diversified portfolio, let's see the numbers.

>buffett
Here we go again. Warren Buffett doesn't do "value investing." Warren Buffett heads an investment company principally focused on acquisitions.

Of BRK's $19.4 billion in 2014 revenues, only $3.3 billion (17%) came from investments. The percentage is similar in prior years (22% in 2013 and 15% in 2013). The substantial majority of BRK's income, now and historically, is derived from acquisitions (principally in the insurance, transportation, and manufacturing sectors).

Anyone who picks individual stocks and think he's investing in a a manner remotely similar to Buffett is pathologically delusional.

(And for the record, Buffett doesn't advise people to buy index funds because they're not as smart as him. He advises people to buy index funds because most people don't have the capital to engage in large scale M&A.)

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 14:09:16 2015 No.681664

>>681610
>Citation required. If you have some evidence that value investing produces superior long-term returns when compared to a fully diversified portfolio, let's see the numbers.

buffett's original partnership, graham's partnership and klarman's hedge fund are the easiest results to find that destroy market averages.

>Warren Buffett doesn't do "value investing."

when you've got billions to invest, finding smaller companies that have price discrepancies isn't going to net large returns. he's been pretty open about this stuff, buffett acknowledged he's got a large numbers problem and would be doing things differently with less money. i never said buffett is still doing the same thing, just that in his speech he discussed how value investors have blown away market returns. some people with billions still engage in basic value investing from time to time like ackman on wachovia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIZUhkKne6g there's another video where he describes the steps he took to invest in the company but i can't find it and this one sums up his thinking fairly well. buying a bank for less than the cash in the vault should be fairly straightforward.

>He advises people to buy index funds because most people don't have the capital to engage in large scale M&A.

no. it's because everyone is not smart/patient/diligent enough and making the average is better than most can hope for. we know that people jumping around tend to underperform averages and everyone cannot beat the market.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 14:25:01 2015 No.681684

>>681610
>He advises people to buy index funds because most people don't have the capital to engage in large scale M&A

He also said that if your broker wasn't getting you 50% year over year you should fire them..

So I guess he believes there are some people out there that are smart enough to beat the market.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 14:25:46 2015 No.681687

>>681664
>buffett ... graham ... klarman
These aren't stats; they're celebrities. You can't Google "value investors," post the top three results, and call it evidence.

(This is why I loathe getting into arguments on /biz/. Like Godwin's law, someone always ends up pointing to Buffett, Graham, or Lynch and stating, "if they can do it, I can do it." Its exhausting.)

Seriously, I think you're just being lazy or intentionally obtuse. I know for a fact that there are studies out there on the efficacy of value investing. They're not dispositive, but they raise interesting questions. Are you too stupid or too dense to have an academic discussion about the topic? If so, why should I waste my time?

>when you've got billions to invest....
Another tired line. This isn't value investing; it's M&A. Go read BRK's income statement and learn for yourself how much Warren makes from actual investing activity. Or don't because I already gave you the numbers above.

>people with billions still engage in basic value investing from time to time
As well they should. Did you miss my post above where I said that value investing is a useful tool in the toolbox? You quoted my post, so I hope you read it.

To be clear, everyone should own value stocks. No one seriously disputes that proposition, But what we're talking about here is pursuing an exclusively value-oriented approach versus a more diverse buy-and-hold strategy. If you're going to try moving the goalposts, you can go play by yourself.

>no
Citation required. (I'm getting tired of your factual fabrication, btw.)

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 14:27:36 2015 No.681692

>>681684
>He also said that if your broker wasn't getting you 50% year over year you should fire them
Um, that's a condemnation of broker services, and in particular broker fees, not an endorsement of active investing.

>"smart enough to beat the market"
>sigh

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 14:36:11 2015 No.681707

>>681692
>Um, that's a condemnation of broker services, and in particular broker fees, not an endorsement of active investing.

No, when he said this it was 2013 and the indeex averages were up 20%.

What he was saying was that people that pick stocks for a living should have been crushing it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 14:41:58 2015 No.681714 Been holding my 24K BTC since 2009. Pretty fucking good.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 14:47:53 2015 No.681721 File: 13 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>680260 >we didnt listen Almost all of my positions are down.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 14:52:56 2015 No.681728

>>681721

I have about 250k at play... By selling I have so far saved myself about 12 grand. It would be much more if i had been able to time the top perfectly, but I sold just a little early.

Probably should have waited till later in the earnings season which is what was driving everything...

But the earnings season was almost over and now that it is officially almost entirely done there is very little prop up the market for the next several months in my opinion.

I'll look to get back in after a 10% drop, or in Q4 2015 if forward earning guidance gets better.

I did make a little money on TVIX and oil recently... but I only had 10% of the portfolio value at play in those risky endevours so the reward wasn't huge. Still, much better than being in this shit storm right now.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 15:40:07 2015 No.681804

>>681728
>much better than being in this shit storm right now
>this shit storm
>shit storm
Mid Cap Growth stocks up 4.28% YTD
Large Cap Growth stocks up 4.12% YTD
Growth Blend stocks up 4.09% YTD
Small Cap Growth stocks up 3.16% YTD

>this shit storm
>shit storm
Healthcare stocks up 5.04% YTD
Real Estate stocks up 0.06% YTD
Telecom stocks up 1.98% YTD
Tech stocks up 1.31% YTD

>this shit storm
>shit storm
NASDAQ up 2.61% YTD
S&P MidCap 400 up 1.64% YTD
Russell 20000 up 0.50% YTD
S&P 500 down 0.31% YTD

>this shit storm
>shit storm
Long-Term bonds up 1.22% YTD
Intermediate-Term bonds up 1.18% YTD
Short-Term bonds up 0.64% YTD

>this shit storm
>shit storm
MSCI Europe up 8.41% YTD
MSCI Japan up 8.24% YTD
Nikkei 225 up 7.29% YTD
FTSE 250 up 5.37% YTD
Shanghai Composite up 1.74% YTD

Are there some down sectors? Yes, there always are.

Are we in a "shit storm"? kek. Double kek. All my kek. Why can't I hold all this kek?

>2015
>giving in to fear and media sentiment

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:06:25 2015 No.681827 >>681804 dow jones, s&p, nasdaq, all down for the year. i'm up 15% for the year. kek!

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:09:17 2015 No.681830 >>681827 Congrats. Do it for 12 months, then repeat for 10 consecutive years. Then someone will be impressed. Until then, you're just throwing darts.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:10:25 2015 No.681831

>>681687
>You can't Google "value investors," post the top three results, and call it evidence.

i can and i did.

>To be clear, everyone should own value stocks.

many assume value investing is basically someone doing tons of analytical work, selecting 5 stocks and sitting on them until they reach some "full value". i'm saying that buying stock indexes no matter how high and buying/holding until retirement is a fool's game. the ackman example i provided is nothing like your ideas of value investing, in fact you call it "value stocks" and "value-oriented funds" instead of what it is: a value approach to the stock. you didn't read security analysis, that much is obvious. otherwise you would have seen my bill ackman example and understood where i was going with this. billionaire funds have to approach investing differently then you or i, they have to invest in large companies and dictate actions to the company(the wachovia example being an exception). they look for companies with lots of potential and try to push them into it. if you or i do value investing we could find a little bank earning 10mil/yr with a 20mil market cap and 50 mil in assets. in effect, a company liquidated at 2.5x purchase price and trading at 2x earnings. no matter what happens you've probably already won. index funds don't compare with this kind of investing, they're completely separate in scale/scope. the value approach also has major limitations due to time/energy, you can't look at 20k securities and figure out how much they're worth and where they're trading.

so i think we're talking about 2 different things regarding value. value funds(afaik) look at metrics and sectors that are unfavored. small investors can stick money in short-term bonds 80% of the time and find rare but large opportunities. both can be value approaches but very few practice the second which is arbitrage.

ackman on wachovia in detail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS-1eZ2Mge4#t=10m00s

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:12:05 2015 No.681832 >tfw i made more from bitcoin than all of you stockstards in here

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:15:30 2015 No.681836 >>681830 >anyone that outperforms me is just getting lucky and would be better off doing what i do ok, pal.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:20:21 2015 No.681839 >>681831 >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS-1eZ2Mge4#t=10m00s stupid embed doesn't skip to 10min like it should. either copy/paste or skip to 10:00 if you watch that...

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:23:27 2015 No.681842

>>681831
I'm sorry, but I read your wall of text three times and still can't figure out what you're trying to advocate. If you can't cogently explain your investing strategy, then I have to question whether you have a strategy at all. The only practical suggestion you seem to make is keep your money in bonds until "rare but large opportunities" arise. Good luck with that. It's called stock-picking, and the academics have already weighed in on the efficacy of that approach.

>>681836
Anyone who judge's their performance by short-term metrics isn't worth my time. Every money manager, fund advisor, hedge fund manager, analyst, and even individual investor can beat a benchmark over a short measurement period. However, the likelihood of repeating this over a sustained period is minuscule.

Do I know whether you'll be the 1 in 1,000 to beat benchmarks over 10 years? Nope I don't. But I'll bet against you every time. And I'll make a lot of money doing so.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:26:46 2015 No.681848 >>680260 If you realize your losses by selling right now, you're absolutely retarded. But then again, this IS /biz/, the kings of buying high and selling low

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:31:47 2015 No.681857

>>681842
>It's called stock-picking, and the academics have already weighed in on the efficacy of that approach.

Oh... you're the boggle head shill that likes to say this shit all the time.

Do you even realize you're not saying anything when you say that?

>they've weighed in on the efficacy of stock picking

What the fuck do you think a mutual fund manager does? Have academics weighed in on the efficacy of that too?

You're a fucking idiot... you show up in every thread and you say the stupidest shit over and over again.

I beat the markets last year, and i timed the market so far this year.

instead of being cool and congratulating me, you just shit all over the place.

even if it is luck, i'm outperforming your shitty strategy of "trust someone else to do this for me."

>buy and hold baby! buy and hold!!!! I'll retire rich if I just buy and hold!!!!

I'll be rich long before you retire.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:33:41 2015 No.681858 >>681857 >What the fuck do you think a mutual fund manager does? Have academics weighed in on the efficacy of that too? Yes. They overwhelmingly fail to beat the market in the long term after costs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:37:06 2015 No.681861 File: 170 KB, 800x800, smugness.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>681858 >They overwhelmingly fail to beat the market in the long term after costs. >Mfw I only invest in index funds >Mfw I AM the makret

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 16:37:27 2015 No.681862
File: 339 KB, 1279x8191, media-20150122.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>681857
>What the fuck do you think a mutual fund manager does? Have academics weighed in on the efficacy of that too?
Yes. Pic related.

>you're the boggle head
>your shitty strategy of "trust someone else to do this for me."
Someone doesn't know much about Boglehead investing principles. Why am I not surprised?

>even if it is luck
My work here is done.

>I'll be rich long before you retire.
I am retired. Are you rich yet?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:48:31 2015 No.681876 >>681832 We heard you the first time. Thanks for posting again.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:48:41 2015 No.681877
File: 27 KB, 578x519, spy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>681862
>I am retired. Are you rich yet?
boggle head shill detected again. i'm half your age and i guarantee i have more money than you did at this age. furthermore because i've seen your claims of gains in other threads, i know my returns and investing strategy is beating yours.

and you're not a millionaire and you're not retired. your story doesn't add up and i've proven it in other threads, which you conveniently disappeared out of.

that's the shittiest graphic i have ever seen and it's horribly skewed.

"Even the most successful investors have periods of under performance. Warren Buffett's berkshire hathaway has underperformed the s&p in 3 of the last 10 years!!!"

... and outperformed it 7 of the last 10 years...

"1000 invested in 2003 would be worth 1610 in s&p 500."

1000 invested in 2003 in berksire.B would be worth 3000 today

so your investment strategy is to hold indexes no matter how overvalued they are. have fun with that. pic rel, loser.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 16:54:34 2015 No.681886 >>681877 >1 month

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 17:00:43 2015 No.681891

>>681886
>missing the point

The point is that things are overvalued because of the last month of earnings season, and the forward guidance that was given.

I wasn't on here telling people to liquidate positions 2 months ago, and there weren't dozens of news stories telling people about the overvaluation months ago.

Those stories are out now though because of earnings season.

>>681862
>Someone doesn't know much about Boglehead investing principles. Why am I not surprised?
Given your claims in other threads of what you are invested in and how much money you have...

How does it feel to be down $560,000 over the last couple weeks because you didn't listen to "stupid idiots" on 4chan, that were still smart enough to realize the valuation was cooked and got out before you?

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 17:04:07 2015 No.681894

>>681891
Which sounds like a better solution?
1. Trying to time the market, sell at the top and buy at the bottom.
2. Holding through the (slight) downturn until the market recovers, as it always has.

Hint: one of these has been proven to be wildly more successful than the other.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 17:09:25 2015 No.681902
File: 8 KB, 225x225, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>681877
How does someone get this mad over a discussion of investing strategies? You'd think I came to your door, punched you in the face, and fucked your mom. If you don't want me to make a fool out of you, then stop making it so easy. Lashing out isn't going to accomplish anything.

Frankly, my net worth and investment income is irrelevant here. I don't have to hold myself as an example of Boglehead investing because there are countless others doing the same thing, and countless studies saying we're doing it right.

Now, kindly stop splurging nonsense all over an otherwise relatively civil thread (by /biz/ standards).

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 17:16:12 2015 No.681909 >>681902 >wah wah wah Can you stop crying already? Shit woman you whine in every thread you post in.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 17:23:12 2015 No.681916

>>681842
>can't figure out what you're trying to advocate.

I'm saying that constantly sticking money into index funds is a rather poor idea. As far as strategy goes, you know where I stand with stocks- I'm not in them. When the market moves I'll be watching bonds. Trying to find cheap bonds in defaulted or troubled companies with more than enough assets to cover the liabilities, companies with high debt levels(thank you QE3) and loss of earnings and unfavored/dumped sectors.

>>681862
That's a curious chart, it starts in 2003 which was basically a bottom. If we looked at how long it took the s&p to double we'd see a much different picture. It took ~16.5 years to go from 1k-2k so it'd look like this:

(2000/1000)^(1/16.5)-1=4.29% return on the s&p. This is of course BEFORE inflation and any applicable taxes. Bonds have done better than that.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 17:23:26 2015 No.681917

>>681894
>Hint: one of these has been proven to be wildly more successful than the other.

Actual fact, there is no such evidence.

I suppose you think that the most successful investors and billionaire hedgefund masters all left their money in index funds and that's how they make their money?

lewls.

>>681902
>op, you should stop posting in your own thread
>you should stop telling people they are holding an empty bag even though that is the original post
>you're splurging your own thread
>i'm not splurging in it at all

fucking kek. you look stupider than ever.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 17:29:07 2015 No.681925 >>681917 >I suppose you think that the most successful investors and billionaire hedgefund masters all left their money in index funds and that's how they make their money? >Most successful = average

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 17:49:17 2015 No.681955

>>681916
>When the market moves I'll be...
Sounds great in theory. Hard to execute in reality, however. Individual investors like you constantly mistime the markets (despite their best intentions) and end up underperforming. Go read any of the Dalbar studies for the last 10 years.

I know you think you're an exceptional case. You're too smart or too diligent or too careful to make the same mistakes as other investors. Unfortunately, the odds are strongly against you. On a risk-adjusted basis, you're a losing proposition.

>That's a curious chart
If you have some statistical data to contravene these findings, let's see it. However, every time I've asked you to provide evidence for a statement, you've flaked out and changed the subject.

>>681917
Just because you created the thread doesn't mean you get held to lesser standards. You've obviously run out of arguments to make, and have resorted to name-calling. Sorry "your thread" didn't go the way you wanted. Life is rough sometimes.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 17:55:04 2015 No.681961

>>681955
>Sorry "your thread" didn't go the way you wanted. Life is rough sometimes.
This. Don't worry OP, iHaz gets called out for being a retard in every thread and takes it like a champ. He must be used to being on the recieving end after the lube runs out.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 18:06:30 2015 No.681980

>>681955

Care to comment on how it feels to lose $560,000 in a couple weeks?

I ran out of arguments because I showed the infographic was retarded, and pointed to the down trends in the market.

If it's fair for you to keep ignoring it and no answer the question of how it feels to lose half a million for being stupid, then it's fair for me to keep asking.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 18:26:29 2015 No.682010

>>681980
My portfolio is down about $210K over the last two weeks, not whatever you guessed. I won't hold that mistake against you because you don't know my full asset allocations.

As for being down $210K .... meh. My portfolio regularly swings up or down $100K in an active day, and sometimes as much as $150K.

As much as numbers that large might stir strong emotions in someone like you, its nothing unusual for me. For me, $210K is nothing more than two good days or two bad days.

For context, $210K movement is only about 1.4% of my net worth. By way of comparison, my net worth increased 3.3% in February alone (about $460K). Looking back, my net worth has increased by over $1.2 million, on average, for each of the last four years.

So $210K? Meh.

You'll excuse me if this sounds like bragging. Its not. I'm simply educating you that someone of my wealth is used to dealing with large numbers. And since you asked the question (twice), now you have the answer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 18:30:12 2015 No.682012 >>682010 >210k is 1.4% net worth >this comes out to over 20m >has bragged about being worth only 10m >even though it was 60% "salary" and 40% "capital gains"

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 18:40:31 2015 No.682025 [DELETED]

>>682012
>>210k is 1.4% net worth
>>this comes out to over 20m
Math not your strong suit, huh sport?

>has bragged about being worth only 10m
$10m at Vanguard. I have other assets.

>60% "salary" and 40% "capital gains"
This is still pretty much true. The 60% includes both salary and investment income, all of which are taxable income of some sort. The 40% is unrealized capital gains, not subject to tax. That's also a gross approximation over a long period of time (about 10 years).

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 18:42:03 2015 No.682027

>>682012
>210k is 1.4% net worth
>this comes out to over 20m
Math not your strong suit, huh sport?

>has bragged about being worth only 10m
$10m at Vanguard. I have other assets.

>60% "salary" and 40% "capital gains"
This is still pretty much true. The 60% includes both salary and investment income, all of which are taxable income of some sort. The 40% is unrealized capital gains, not subject to tax. That's also a gross approximation over a long period of time (about 10 years).

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 18:53:42 2015 No.682044 >>682027 Are you implying that 1% of 20m isn't 200k? Kek

>>	iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 18:59:26 2015 No.682052 >>682044 >Are you implying that 1% of 20m isn't 200k? Actually, I'm implying that 1.4% isn't the same thing as 1%. >I'm also inferring that you're not too bright.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 18:59:27 2015 No.682053 >>682027 >spends the bulk of his time on /biz/ where everyone ridicules him >is supposedly worth 8 figures I kekk'ed hard.

>>	iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 19:01:25 2015 No.682055 >>682053 Sorry kid, this isn't an AMA thread. I may be the closest thing /biz/ has to a celebrity, but let's stick to the actual topic: buy and hold. Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 19:04:08 2015 No.682060 >>682055 >celebrity on 4chump Wahahah. I'm embarassed for you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 19:04:46 2015 No.682062 >>682052 >what is rounding for the sake of simplicity Either way, being off by 1% as you would put it would be a negligible thing, right? >>682053 This.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 19:05:16 2015 No.682065 >>680260 I'm still up somehow even on my broad market etf probably because I bought it on a correction last year.

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 19:19:58 2015 No.682088
File: 35 KB, 313x382, 1426106298485.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>682055
>I may be the closest thing /biz/ has to a celebrity

HAHAHAHAHAHA

We have an obnoxious tripfag like you over at /a/ as well: Lelouch

But contrary to /biz/, all he gets as an answer 90% of the time is "Fuck off Lelouch"

I hereby encourage other /biz/raelis to follow this example

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 19:20:39 2015 No.682091 When is oil going back up?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 19:21:07 2015 No.682092 >>682088 >fuck off haznothing

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 19:22:32 2015 No.682095 >>682092 fuck off iHaz is enough

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 19:23:35 2015 No.682097 >>682055 >made all money being a 50 year old lawyer and getting an inheritance >hey guise lissen 2 me i em investing pro guise

Anonymous Wed Mar 11 19:32:11 2015 No.682102

>>682097
It's true chump.

Most of you guys will have less than $150,000 in networth at the age of 50 using todays dollars (i.e. not inflation adjusted)

iHaz is the definition of success and he is willing to share information on how he made it.

Listen up.

Fool.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 19:35:01 2015 No.682105 >>682102 My point is he made most of his money through other means. He is, by no means, better than the average investor.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 20:21:18 2015 No.682177

>>682105
> he made most of his money through other means
Naw, as of today, well over half my wealth is from investment growth, investment income, and private equity investments. I make close to $450K a year in investment income alone.

Yes, the core of my net worth is from my job, That's what I had to start with, and so that's what I invested. But my lifetime aggregate salary is maybe $5 million. My house has appreciated maybe $500K. That means ~$8.5 million of my current net worth comes from investments and investment income.

>better than the average investor
Actually, since the average investor underperforms the benchmark indices by 4-6% according to Dalbar, I am, by all means, "better" than the average investor.

What you probably meant to say is that I don't perform better than index benchmarks. This is true. But indices aren't the average nor the mean performance level. They're actually above average.

Which is part of the reason why Boglehead investing works so well: there are so many people trying and failing to beat the index. Thanks to you, we do better.

If more of you started to invest the way we do, it would actually cause problems. Economists estimate that if north of 80% of the market bought the indices, then index investing would no longer be the optimal strategy. Fortunately we're only at like 20% today, and looking around /biz/ there's a lot of you young dummies that will keep mu strategy viable for the foreseeable future. Thanks.

>Also, not that it matters, but I'm not 50.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 20:31:00 2015 No.682192 >>682177 Why would more people indexing make indexing a worse idea? Also which indexes do you own?

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 21:01:02 2015 No.682232

(1 of 2)
>>682192
>Why would more people indexing make indexing a worse idea?
Remember that part of the reason why indexing works is because the markets are very efficient. There are very few (if any) real price inefficiencies to exploit because there are so many dollars chasing every possible spread. As such, the best ways to grow wealth are (a) time-in-market and (b) low fees. These are the two biggest strengths of index investing.

If more and more people were purchasing the same subset of stocks on a programmatic basis (i.e., indexing) then there would be fewer dollars pursuing pure value or pure growth strategies. Overall demand would drop for stocks not included in the indices, leading to greater price inefficiencies in these shares. Opportunities would then be created that don't exist today to find undervalued stocks. In this universe of larger and more frequent price inefficiencies, a smart stock picker would be likely to outperform the index on a regular basis.

That's the theory, at least.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 21:02:45 2015 No.682237

(2 of 2)
>which indexes do you own?
In no particular order:

Vanguard 500 Index Fund Adm
Vanguard Devel Markets Idx Admiral
Vanguard Emerging Mkts Stk Idx Adm
Vanguard Extended Mkt Index Adm
Vanguard Mid-Cap Index Fund Adm
Vanguard Small-Cap Gr Idx Admiral
Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund Adm
Vanguard Small-Cap Val Idx Admiral
Vanguard Tax-Managed Small-Cap Adm
Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF
iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF
PowerShares QQQ
SPDR® S&P Homebuilders ETF
Vanguard FTSE All World ex-US Adm
Vanguard Growth Index Fund Adm
Vanguard Large-Cap Index Fund Adm
Vanguard REIT Index Fund Adm
Vanguard Total Stock Mkt Idx Adm
Vanguard Dividend Apprec Idx Adm
Vanguard Total Bond Mkt Index Adm
Vanguard Inter-Term Bond Index Adm
Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index Adm
Vanguard Tot Intl Bond Ix Admiral

But I don't recommend that most people construct their portfolio the same way I did. Four to seven broad indices are all that's truly required.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 21:06:47 2015 No.682241 >>682237 How do you feel about the classic 3-fund portfolio? Is that what you're essentially suggesting just maybe seasoning it with a couple different indices that spark your interest?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 21:11:41 2015 No.682246 >>682102 Fuck off iHaz

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 21:11:44 2015 No.682247 >>682237 And why the cubes instead of VGT?

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 21:12:54 2015 No.682249

>>682241
>How do you feel about the classic 3-fund portfolio?
I generally recommend the 4 fund portfolio because I believe that international bonds can add meaningful yield and help insulate you from U.S. monetary policy. Your fifth fund, were you so inclined, would be a REIT index.

Additional fund could then be added ("seasoning" ... I like it). For example, I'll never sell my Health Care fund fund or my PRIMECAP funds, even though they're actively managed funds. They're that good, IMHO.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 21:15:30 2015 No.682251 Fuck off iHaz

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 21:18:59 2015 No.682254 >>682251 This. Anyone know if there is a setting where you can ignore users?

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 21:20:19 2015 No.682256

>>682247
>And why the cubes instead of VGT?
I bought QQQ as a flier not long after the 2000 tech crash. This was before I really started to construct a complete Vanguard portfolio. I've held it since then, and it's up 176%. Haven't really had any reason to sell it, nor any compelling reason to add more to my tech exposure.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 21:20:58 2015 No.682257 >>682254 Yeah man. It's a little feature called being older than 12.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 21:23:54 2015 No.682261 >>682257 >you must be young because you're not on his cock! Kek From the looks of this thread it looks like I am in the majority on this one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 21:29:55 2015 No.682269 >>682261 >2015 >using proxies to pretend that someone agrees with you Why are you such a faggot?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 21:31:28 2015 No.682271 >>682261 You must be one of the haz-nots.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 21:34:33 2015 No.682274 >>682269 >implying I need to Multiple people in this thread have said the same thing. Is everyone in this thread a samefag? Take your tinfoil off lol >>682271 Topkek

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 21:39:41 2015 No.682279 >>681804 there is absolutely no way you can really consider bonds to be up for the year. The 10 year is practically pricing in a rate hike in June. kek. you don't know the difference between price and yield... TOP KEK!!!!

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 21:46:54 2015 No.682283 >>682254 actually you can filter his trip

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 21:51:24 2015 No.682287 >>682283 Good point. Thanks bro, I'll do that when I get back on my comp.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Wed Mar 11 22:00:28 2015 No.682296

>>682279
I'm going by fund NAV, or rather I should say, Morningstar is going by fund NAV since the information comes straight from their website.

http://news.morningstar.com/index/indexReturn.html

If you have a problem with Morningstar's methodology, feel free to take it up with them. Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 22:02:21 2015 No.682298 >>682287 >blah blah blah i can't hear you Topkek!

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 22:28:40 2015 No.682329 >>682298 Pretty much. I hide all the shitcoin threads too. Theyre both equally annoying.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 22:35:27 2015 No.682340 not affraid of market going down, i have a job, and real estate investments, market goes down, i wait for it to settle, then i pick up more shares. Doesn't matter if the down trend takes a year. Stocks are not my main source of income

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 11 23:42:35 2015 No.682440 File: 27 KB, 629x511, qwerqwer.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You guys realize you are freaking out about this? Is this your first month with money in equities or...?

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 00:05:59 2015 No.682457

>>682237
>Vanguard 500 Index Fund Adm
>Vanguard Mid-Cap Index Fund Adm
>Vanguard Small-Cap Gr Idx Admiral
>Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund Adm
>Vanguard Small-Cap Val Idx Admiral
>Vanguard Growth Index Fund Adm
>Vanguard Large-Cap Index Fund Adm
>Vanguard Total Stock Mkt Idx Adm
>Vanguard Dividend Apprec Idx Adm

What are you doing? You could drop all these in favor of VTSAX and you'd end up ahead. You are losing out on gains due to higher expense ratios.

The reason there are small cap funds is for people who only want to hold small caps. Not for people who are going to buy small, medium, and large caps.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 00:09:47 2015 No.682466 >>682237 >>682457 wtf lol this fuckin guy

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 00:33:12 2015 No.682483

>>682457
You make a valid point that I probably hold too many index funds. If I was starting over from scratch, I probably would have constructed my portfolio a little differently. But I didn't start out out as a Boglehead investor and only switched to mutual funds little by little over time. As such, my portfolio came together a bit haphazardly, I admit.

Unfortunately (well, fortunately, actually), there's nothing I can reasonably do about it now. This is because I currently have substantial unrealized capital gains in all of my funds (several million in the aggregate). So selling or consolidating any of my holdings would trigger a significant tax burden. Economically, selling is not an option at the current time.

Furthermore, for me, I do need the ability to tweak my allocations with much more granularity than a 4 or 5 fund portfolio would permit. I have significant non-Vanguard investments in things like real estate, private equity, and non-public companies. These things all have their own risk and income considerations, and need to be harmonized with my Vanguard holdings to achieve my overall portfolio goals. Having separate holdings in all the asset classes lets me adjust my Vanguard holdings as needed.

Fortunately, these funds aren't significantly more expensive than Total Market. The S&P 500 fund (my largest single holding) has the same fee. Others are only 3-5 basis points higher.. Regrettable, but acceptable to me for the increased flexibility.

So you are correct that someone with a clean slate should never try to emulate my portfolio fund for fund. I didn't post my holdings as a template for what to buy. Someone asked what I owned, and I responded.

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 01:57:47 2015 No.682543

>>681955
>If you have some statistical data to contravene these findings

I'm not getting you. Seriously. I posted a simple calculation of the s&p and how long it took to double. The rate came to 4.29%. This is not a big spreadsheet or major study but something that everyone can plainly see, it took that long to double your money and that was the rate. Bonds have beaten the s&p over that time period and commodities have eviscerated that return. The problem with the buy and hold strategy is that if you were born in 1960 and began investing in 1980 you've done extremely well. On the other hand if you were born in 80 and began investing in 2000, you've gone nowhere. That is being at the right place at the right time. Luck. The person buying the average in 80 did amazingly and will probably attribute this to his own cleverness or "market efficiency" working but the person investing in 00 doesn't see it that way at all. The same goes for the guy starting in 1945, he does great through 1965 but the guy starting in 1965 goes nowhere for 20 years through huge inflation.

>>682177
>Actually, since the average investor underperforms the benchmark indices by 4-6% according to Dalbar

This is a total mystery to me. Someone makes a study and people blindly believe it. I can take market bottoms and say, "see you would have done this well if only you invested here!". None of it means anything, academics have been pounding the ground regarding market efficiency for decades and 2 nobel prize winning academics went out there to prove that academia was superior to finance. They proceeded to lose their entire fund and almost crash the financial system. LTCM was run by 2 of the brightest minds in academia and they lost almost everything(they would have lost everything if it hadn't been for the bailout).

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 02:07:17 2015 No.682546

>>680550
This pic is probably the most curious. You claim to be someone who's made over half their money from investments and be worth north of 10mil, yet at the same time you say you're no better than the market and promote buy and hold. Then you post a pic of doubling your assets in under 5 years which mirrors the s&p 500 returns very well. This makes 0 sense. You either JUST started investing in 2010 and doubled your money or there's a huge cliff drop behind 6/2010. As someone claiming to have made $5mil in salary and 8.5mil in investments this doesn't add up. You have either CLEARLY beaten the market in the past or you took 5mil and dumped it into indexes at a low and now claim market efficiency is truth.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 02:27:52 2015 No.682553

>>682543
>if you were born in 1960 and began investing in 1980 you've done extremely well. On the other hand if you were born in 80 and began investing in 2000, you've gone nowhere
Without reviewing the data myself, I won't comment on the qualitative assessment at this time. But I will say categorically that you cannot do an apple-to-apples comparison of a 35-year investment history with a 15-year investment history. If you want to compare them directly, you have to test them over a full, equivalent investment horizon.

>Someone makes a study and people blindly believe it.
We're talking about peer-reviewed published studies that use publicly available historical data. If you're going to stand in denial of academic market research, we don;t really have much to discuss.

>>682546
Huh? Of course there's a big drop before 2010. It was called the 2007-2008 market crash. Before that was the tech bubble. You do know that I've been investing since the early 90's right? I don't make any secret of this, and for someone so interested in my finances this would be pretty relevant information.

Oh, and yes I have definitely beaten the market on a aggregate basis. I have private equity investments that have performed astronomically. However, most people here don't have access to these opportunities, so I usually exclude them from my discussions and my advice. Instead I try to focus on my Vanguard assets, which follow a strategy universally available to everyone.

None of this really has anything to do with the merits of buy-and-hold, though. Perhaps you could stay on topic?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 02:33:55 2015 No.682555 >>682553 hi.

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 03:07:00 2015 No.682573

>>682553
>You do know that I've been investing since the early 90's right? I don't make any secret of this, and for someone so interested in my finances this would be pretty relevant information.

I noticed in 1 post you described your returns and another discussed total net worth. My brain turned on and was like "huh?". What I can gather is that at some past point you either beat the market(as you claim) or did as I said and dumped money into indexes in 2010. I believe the latter. This would also show that buying the index over a 20 year period is not what you've done at all, you didn't buy and hold.

All I need are 2 posts:
>>680550
>>682177
>my lifetime aggregate salary is maybe $5 million. My house has appreciated maybe $500K. That means ~$8.5 million of my current net worth comes from investments and investment income.

So leaving aside the time before 2010 I can clearly see you've made ~$7.5mil and these returns mirror the overall market. Next we see you claim to have made 500k on your house bumping you up to 8mil leaving(at most) 500k in the dark. You claim to have ONLY made 500k BEFORE 2010 on large salaries for 15-20 years. Your total net worth(as you've claimed ITT) is 13.5-15mil and I've already shown that almost all of your investment gains can be traced to a 4.5 year period beginning with a depressed market. Your total salaries seem to match perfectly with the initial amount invested in vanguard so I'm guessing that's where you got the 5mil.

Of course, this is assuming you're even telling the truth. But either way you can't claim the market is efficient and buy-and-hold works then only buy when the market is low.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 03:07:56 2015 No.682575

>>682546
Since you seem to be studying the chart I posted in >>680550 and reconciling it to my net worth (currently, approximately $14MM), it occurred to me that it might be helpful to point out that that I own an approximately $1.8MM private equity investment not included in that chart. More accurately stated, I carry the investment on my books at my current basis, which is less than $50K.

Admittedly, the $1.8MM valuation I place on the investment is a rough estimate, and based on discussions with investment bankers, the realized IPO value could be +/-$300k. But since this is 4chan, its easier for me to say that my net worth is $14MM rather than the more accurate "$13.7 - $14.3MM depending on th results of a going public transaction."

Anyway, since you (correctly) noted that my personal performance metrics far exceed those of a pure index strategy, I felt it was worth an explanation. I've discussed this private investment a few times in the past, but I usually don't go into the details for the reasons discussed in >>682553.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 03:30:43 2015 No.682588

>>682573
Sorry you typed up that whole thing, only to have our posts cross. As explained in >>682575, you were missing a fairly critical piece of the puzzle.

Also, your assumption that my $5 million net worth is 2010 somehow equates to my lifetime salary is wrong. That's purely coincidence, and although I am currently retired, I continued to earn a healthy salary well after 2010. However, any attempts to model my income are going to fail, because my earnings were never linear. I've posted information about my law career earnings in the past, but really this is so far afield that I'm not getting into it further today.

In any event, the only proof of my net worth that I've ever claimed are the copies of my Vanguard statements that I posted in my AMA thread (https://archive.moe/biz/thread/301031).). While I'll use other and more recent information about my finances to illustrate a point from time to time, I prefer to keep the discussion to my Vanguard assets (as discussed above). I have no intention or ability to provide proof of any kind regarding any other assets or investments, as it serves no purpose.and would reveal an unacceptable level of personal information.

The real point, however, is the statement I made 10 hours (!) ago in >>681902. My personal net worth has nothing to do with the merits of buy and hold investing. You are welcome to assume that I am a destitute pauper and an incorrigible liar, and yet everything that I've argued and demonstrated about buy-and-hold is still 100% true.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 08:17:10 2015 No.682728 >>682588 Fuck off iHaz

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 09:21:47 2015 No.682743

Just came back to /biz/ after a long hiatus. I don't understand where all this hostility and animosity towards iHaz is coming from. His investing strategy is not that uncommon. It may be mediocre but it's really not as terrible as you all are making it out to be. At his age he should be commended for still browsing finance boards trying to learn something new. Most old people are too stubborn. Lay off him for a bit, he's had enough abuse.

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 09:45:56 2015 No.682763

>>681027
LMAO

The market is driven by emotion and speculation. Warren Buffet has even said, "the stock market is manic depressive". Fuck, Ben Graham even personified the thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Market).). This is really basic shit.

Furthermore, there is a myriad of data that suggests the market consistently over-reacts or under-reacts to news. In other words, the market never perfectly prices in new information. The "efficient market theory" is literally textbook theory - it is inherently flawed in the real world.

"Buy and Hold" does not look at tomorrow, or next week, or next month, or next year. It looks at the value drivers and pricing of a company before taking the position and then periodically ensures that the business is well-managed/not becoming obsolete or complacent. Reacting erratically to short-term data is fucking horrible in this strategy.

You make money by sticking to a viable process that enacts a winning methodology. The best way to make money is to bet against the popular sentiment in the market, when factors are in your favor. I've made a fortune from contrarian speculation and I've consolidated it with a 80/20 low-risk+low-beta/speculation which can heavy tilt.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 09:59:33 2015 No.682770 >>682763 >I've made a fortune How many millions is that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 10:02:10 2015 No.682773 >>682743 >being surprised when worthless losers hate on people more successful than them do you even /pol/ ?

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 10:31:41 2015 No.682801

>>682770
Enough to make the rich list.

A lot of what iHaz has said is correct. For example, you do need significant capital if you want to grow. I built a start-up and sold it off. iHaz isn't an amazing investor and he isn't claiming to be. He's just saying that the *statistically* best way to make money on the stock market is to buy the market. It's correct, and also the most stress-free way.

However, there is a lot of information that isn't factored into pricing and there are external pressures such as margin calls or mutual funds that pervert the market. It's far from perfect. Our views only seem to diverge on market efficiency and the human element of the market.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 11:47:45 2015 No.682843 >>682743 10/10 You know you've really pissed iHaz off when he starts samefagging.>>682773 (tbh he samefags a lot though)

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 12:13:19 2015 No.682862

I have about 50k I want to invest in index funds and commodities at about 75/25. My current problem is that I highly believe in a major event in the short future (somewhere between this fall and 2017).

If I'm right it would be stupid to buy into western markets at this point. If I buy after the event I could potentially make much more money in the same time.

Can I guarantee that something is going to happen? Of course not, but the only time in history things have been as fucked up as now was during the world wars. I don't see how this could go away without a major new technology popping up. And since nobody is investing in anything (deflation) this isn't likely to be happening soon.

I think the standard "buy and hold" strategy isn't really considering the possibility of total failure of the current world order. Just imagine you where invested in one of the last big empires before the switch to a new power? I don't see you getting your money back in the next few hundreds if not thousands of years.

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 12:45:54 2015 No.682885

>>682862
You are trying to time the market. This does not work.

Buy and hold is for those with a longer time horizon (10+ years) or for most, a lifelong strategy (i.e. A significant portion of your networth is always in the market and at some point you can live off of the variable dividends).

After 15-20 years bear markets are just blips. You aren't retiring within the next 10 years so what does it matter?

Your $$ is not making anything within a savings account. It is not even keeping up with inflation and is losing it's purchasing power every year. Your $ in savings today will buy less goods next year and so on.

Keep 6 months to 1 year in an emergency fund and invest the rest.

If the financial system goes to pot and their is a total failure then what does it matter if your $$ is tied up in a savings account or invested in the market?

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 12:57:08 2015 No.682895

>>682885
>You are trying to time the market
I'm just waiting for a crash, this isn't really hard to do. Since major crashes happen about all 7 years.

>It is not even keeping up with inflation and is losing it's purchasing power every year
We have deflation. Of course there are opportunity costs if you hold cash, but on the other hand you have the ability to buy when the time is right.

>If the financial system goes to pot and their is a total failure then what does it matter if your $$ is tied up in a savings account or invested in the market?

It matters, because I can buy the indexes for less monies. And then make lots of gains. If I have my money in the markets I have to wait a long time to get to the same place again, maybe even longer than my life time.

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 13:23:14 2015 No.682917

>>682895
>I'm just waiting for a crash

The definition of trying to time the market.

>you have the ability to buy when the time is right

The sedition of trying to time the market. When is the right time? If you know for sure then it is time to lever up and make millions in 1 day via shorting.

>wait a long time to get to the same place again

You are investing 50k for the rest of your life? Didn't think so. Dollar cost average the market. A down market is just a blip at the end of the day. What if the market keeps going up for another 2 years. You will still have 1 toe in the pool water.

I can tell that you are young, inexperienced, highly risk averse, don't have an emergency fund, or just don't understand what investing means.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 13:31:36 2015 No.682924

>>682801
I suppose I should amend my earlier statement: I do agree that market inefficiencies exist, but I do not believe they are reliably predictable on regular basis. I've said (a couple times already) that I don't have a problem with value investing, which seems to take advantage of price inefficiencies in specific equities. The fact is that value stocks have out-performed growth stocks on a long-term historical basis. Further, value opportunities do repeatedly present themselves in the markets, especially in the small-cap sector.

However, I have at least two problems with pursuing a pure value-oriented approach. First, it produces greater volatility than a more diverse broad equity strategy. In many years, growth stocks will outperform value stocks. I prefer a little more consistency in my portfolio. Second, value investing is inherently less tax efficient than buy-and-hold. It makes no sense for me to reach for a marginal gain in alpha, only to increase my taxes by an equal amount.

I don't agree, however, that emotional drivers are a useful tool for investing. While I won't argue whether investor emotion can or cannot actually move the markets (especially in the current age of computerized trading), I nonetheless contend that any such movements would be unpredictable and unmodelable (the proverbial "random walk"). So if I discount emotion as a relevant factor in making investing decisions, its not because emotion doesn't exist, its because emotion is not a tool that a non-speculative investor can rely on.

>>682773
>do you even /pol/ ?
Hehe. A rich, Jewish lawyer who trips getting angry responses on 4chan? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 13:33:27 2015 No.682926

>>682917
>When is the right time
After a crash, you can't miss it. If everything is down at least 30% you can buy.

>If you know for sure then it is time to lever up and make millions in 1 day via shorting
I didn't claim to know what happens at a specific time. I can just tell, the the market need to go down and soon (next 3 years). If I would know when this will happen I could buy now and sell at the peak. But I don't know what a peak looks like, but I know what a crash looks like. It's as easy as that.

>What if the market keeps going up for another 2 years
That doesn't concerns me at all. It would suck though, when it went up or had no particular movement for the next 25 years or so.

>I can tell that you are young, inexperienced, highly risk averse, don't have an emergency fund
Young depends on your perspective, I'm around 30. I am risk averse, I had to work for my money and I don't gamble. I don't know what an emergency fund is and I don't care. I don't trust in third parties.

> or just don't understand what investing means.
I understand enough, that I know that even holding on to cash is investing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 13:41:54 2015 No.682945 >>682926 >I don't know what an emergency fund is and I don't care *facepalm You are not in a position to invest. Read up. I'm out.

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 13:56:48 2015 No.682964
File: 2.42 MB, 174x174, 1415134098704.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>682862

I'm just making sure I have a nice healthy allocation of gold.

I think there is an epic currency war underway already, a world wide fiat race to the bottom. Central bankers will simply do anything to prevent a market crash, major debt restructure, or heaven forbid, slow deflation; including massive monetary expansions. The market will do fine in nominal gains but gold is the only form of money that wins the currency war.

Don't get me wrong I'm hardly a goldfag, I'm balls deep in equities, I just see a way to profit off governments irresponsibility with paper currencies. But if there is a major crash, morons will pile into gold and it'll go straight to the moon, you sell when everyone is freaking out.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 13:57:33 2015 No.682965
File: 56 KB, 765x504, chart.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>682895
>I'm just waiting for a crash, this isn't really hard to do.

Although >>682917 already said it better than I could, allow me to make an anecdotal observation.

The last crash in the markets came in 2008. A lot of people pulled money out of the markets (incurring substantial losses) and a lot of people held money on the sidelines planning to buy low. The theory was the same as yours: buy at the bottom.

Then two things happened.

First, the markets turn back up much faster than anyone expected. No one called March 6, 2009 as the market bottom because there was no indication that the floor had been reached. So many (most) people stayed on the sidelines throughout 2009. And 2010. Remember the brokerage ads featuring a scared couple asking, "Is it time to get back in?" And because 2011 was modestly negative, a lot of people stayed out in 2012 and 2013 too.

Lesson: People (individuals and professionals) are really bad at recognizing market tops and bottoms as they happen,

Second, as people came back into the markets after the 2008 crash, they invested in the wrong assets. See pic related. As the markets began their 6-year climb to all-time highs, investors eschewed stocks and dumped their money into "safe" bonds. Just as QE was sending us into a zero interest rate environment. And, amazingly, not only were people dumping sideline money into bonds -- they were pulling money out of domestic stocks to buy even more bonds. Even as the S&P was already on its way towards all-time highs, most people were still selling stocks.

Lesson: People (individuals and professionals) are really bad at taking advantage of market opportunities.

I'll close by saying anyone who thinks they're "smart" enough that they wouldn't have made these mistakes needs to read the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 14:03:04 2015 No.682972 >>682924 >A rich, Jewish lawyer who trips I don't know if this is the response you were going for but I kekked. Also, by all your samefagging it seems like you are the angry one, friend.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 14:11:57 2015 No.682989

>>682972
>it seems like you are the angry one, friend
Huh? This is probably the calmest thread I've participated in since my AMA. Plenty of intelligent debate and a decent amount of productive discussion about market strategies. I've also gotten to talk about my own successes, and mistakes, which I enjoy doing.

If you're going to try to b8 me m8, you'll have to w8 for some d8 when the h8 is real. 0/8.

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 14:18:46 2015 No.683001

>>682965
Unfortunately I can't tell you how I would have acted back then. I simply didn't have the money to do anything. But the whole thing got me interested and I learned a lot since then. Especially about the fundamentals of economy and monetary politics.

You are absolutely right that spotting the exact bottom is almost impossible. To be fair, the main reason for the markets to recover so fast, was unbelievable intervention from governments, national banks and propaganda. Of course this isn't sustainable and beyond any prudence. And since it's almost like a deus ex machina, many people weren't able to foresee it.

What I will do during the next crash is buying in small pieces on the way down. So basically the opposite of what most index fund investors do.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 14:48:44 2015 No.683026 >>680260 BUT MUH EMF

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 15:32:31 2015 No.683071 >>683001 That sounds like a good idea, unless there's no crash for 10 years and you have a huge opportunity loss.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 15:40:49 2015 No.683076 >>680260 Let me guess: you're another stock picking or market timing genius who beats the market every year? Awesome. That makes you 2430th person on /biz/ to be able to do that. We're so privileged to have so much talent on one board!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 15:53:38 2015 No.683091 >>683076 Kek. You forgot the master day traders that pull 3% on average daily and have risen from 10$ to millions in a year. Beat that, stupid Wall Street!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 16:06:03 2015 No.683108 >>682237 So you just buy indices and leave them there for better or worse? How old are you btw?

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 16:09:59 2015 No.683111
File: 538 KB, 1034x594, media-20140818.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>683108
>So you just buy indices and leave them there for better or worse?
With my Vanguard portfolio, I buy mostly index fund (65%) and selective low-fee actively managed mutual funds (35%). And I hold them for better or worse. Because the better is much better than the worse, over the long term. Up markets predominate down markets by a considerable degree, both in duration and in magnitude.

>How old are you
Mid-40's.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 16:27:00 2015 No.683137 >>683111 Thanks m8, just reading the archived thread now and I saw that. When you were 24/25, how much a year were you investing from your salary?

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 16:48:47 2015 No.683156
File: 11 KB, 656x184, Clipboard01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>683137
>When you were 24/25, how much a year were you investing from your salary?
I did have a very well-paying job and a decent amount of excess earnings, despite some youthful conspicuous consumption that I regret. In my early years, I was saving somewhere in the range of $40-60K per year.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 17:33:07 2015 No.683208 >>683156 This clipboard image is "savings" from salary or net salary?

>>	iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 17:48:08 2015 No.683231 >>683208 Investment account balances at year end. So its overstated as a measure of savings because it includes deposits and account growth. But this was the easiest chart to pull without spending hours filtering data.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 17:49:19 2015 No.683235 >>683231 So what happened in 1994 with a 500% increase and a 100% increase in '97?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:01:25 2015 No.683251 >>683156 what was the dotcom bubble like

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:03:30 2015 No.683253

Think of the US Stock Market on a world scale.

The world middle class is larger than ever in history.

Right now, it seems like every other economy around the world is at some type of risk. The Eurozone and their PIIGS, and recession. Russia will be in a recession. South America has gone to shit. China is cutting growth rates and there is constant talk of shadow debt and local government debt defaults.

Bottom line, there are very few 'sure' places to put your money right now. The US dollar and US Stock market being two of them.

In this modern world, it's easier than ever to move assets around. Chinese are big buyers in west coast real estate.

IMO, the US stock market will correct itself when the rest of the world becomes safe/investable again.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 18:08:02 2015 No.683258
File: 12 KB, 658x167, Clipboard01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>683235
>what happened in 1994 with a 500% increase
I got a job.
>and a 100% increase in '97
I did good at my job.

>>683251
>what was the dotcom bubble like
Very fun on the way up. Not so much on the way down.

But it could have been worse, I suppose.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:12:23 2015 No.683260 >>683253 Adding: commodities, oil, & gold haven't been easy either. Bonds as well. Lots of fear from 2001 & 2008. Boomers don't want to gamble with their retirement funds anymore. All lead to "flight towards perceived safety" and inflated us markets.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:16:47 2015 No.683265 >>682010 So you're now worth 15 million? When previously you were worth 10 and 14. You made a cool million even though the market is down for the year? Fuck off iHaz. You have nothing. None of your math every adds up.

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:26:52 2015 No.683276

>>682965
>No one called March 6, 2009 as the market bottom

I actually opened my schwab trading account on march 10th. I just went back and checked. And I dumped my life savings of 50k at the time in.

> because there was no indication that the floor had been reached

Average market P/E = 12 with strong 1st quarter earnings reports was my trigger.

Timing the markets is way easier than people realize.

If you don't have any faith in yourself.. then buy and hold and be my guest. But I timed 2009, I timed the eurocrisis bullshit that happened in 2011 and I'm calling top in the next 2 years here.. with a better than 50% chance that it happens in the next 6 months worth of shitty earnings reports in the US.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 18:37:33 2015 No.683291

>>683265
>So you're now worth 15 million? When previously you were worth 10 and 14.
Naw, I never claimed 15. Not yet.

Currently, ~$14 total (probably closer to $13.9), ~$10 at Vanguard ($10.3 as of today).

>You made a cool million even though the market is down for the year?
YTD my net worth is up $237,762.89 (not counting any changes in my non-liquid assets). To early to tell anything about this year. Shit, I was up $113K today alone. These are small swings for me.

Also, you do know that the markets are not down for the year, right? NASDAQ and Russell are both solidly positive, as are bonds, and both Europe and Asia are killing. You need to do some research before saying more stupid things.

Thanks for your questions, and best of luck with your market timing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:43:19 2015 No.683298 I'm gonna keep DCAing and there's nothing you can do about it, ayyy lmao

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 18:44:21 2015 No.683301 >>683156 >>683258 >keeps plots of annual wealth doesn't get much more jewish than that.

>>	iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 18:46:53 2015 No.683302 >>683301 It's called "Quicken." It's financial software that, among other things, can easily generate reports and graphs. http://www.quicken.com/

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 19:21:37 2015 No.683338 >>683301 >he doesn't keep track of what he's worth doesn't get much more pleb than that

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 19:22:41 2015 No.683339

>>682989

Topkek. Oh you silly ass iHaz. You know you are the biggest samefag on /biz/. You don't talk shit with your trip because you are a coward and post under different IDs. Next time man up and try not to be the true bitch that you are.

>inb4 "hurr durr i dont samefag"
Nigger I can point out multiple times you have samefagged just in this thread alone. I dont care if anyone else knows I just wanted to let you know that I know you do you taint licker.

>inb5 u just jelly
Keketty kek

>>	iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 19:40:09 2015 No.683358 File: 259 KB, 1024x712, depositphotos_6374619-Two-girls-giggling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>683339 >You don't talk shit with your trip Citation required.

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 19:40:12 2015 No.683359

>>683302
by the way, i have a question for you since you shill pretty hard for vanguard. say i can put away per year about enough to max out an IRA account. should i open an IRA account or just put that money in a vanguard ETF/index fund?

>>683338
there's not much to keep track of. 80% of my wealth is tied up in a condo i bought a year ago. i paid about two thirds per square foot of what the going rate in the area is right now, so i guess it wasn't a bad move.

i have been overpaying the mortgage quite a bit, but i'm debating whether it's a good idea as of late. on one hand if i were to sell in condo in a year then the money won't be taxed since it's my primary place of residence. on the other hand, if i stuck the money in an ETF then there's a chance i would get higher gains.

>>	iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 19:42:34 2015 No.683360 File: 120 KB, 957x340, girls-laughing-linkedin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>683359 >thinking that I'm going to help the guy who made a Jew crack

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 19:44:26 2015 No.683362 >>683360 >jew being stingy what a surprise

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 19:45:31 2015 No.683364 >>683358 Point proven faggot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 19:46:01 2015 No.683366 >>683360 i knew you jews were stingy with money, didn't realize it was the case with advice, too.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 19:49:11 2015 No.683372

>>683362
Meh. I give free advice constantly. The only reason I came to this board was to help people. But its not my job, nor do I owe anyone anything.

If you piss me off, you don't get my advice.

If any of you pretend you would do it differently, then I say that you should get some fucking self respect. Someone insults you and then in his next post asks for your advice ... and you would answer? Fucking pussies.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 19:55:44 2015 No.683382 >>683372 it would be an insult if i called you a kike. you seem a little too sensitive. not trying to shoah you here or anything.

>>	iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 20:11:25 2015 No.683393 >>683382 Sorry /pol/ster. You can stay poor for all I care.

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 20:19:47 2015 No.683398

>>683393
you care enough to get butthurt every time i make a jew remark when i see you posting in a thread.

i really don't know what is it with you merchants and the victim complex. it's as if that shit is hereditary for you along with mental and physical disorders.

Anonymous Thu Mar 12 20:22:45 2015 No.683400

>>683366

And you seem like the type of guy that would try to start shit with a multi-millionaire trying to provide information (w/ graphs and everything) on how he made it, for free.

I'm sure that you are a blast at parties. Actually, I know that you are far from it. Ask yourself, would anyone of means really want you around? Water seeks water and negative people keep company with other negative folks. I'm sure that your mates are an accurate reflection of you: haters that just keep dragging each other down. Call it trolling if ya want but you are fucking up this thread for folks that just want to keep the convo going.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 20:35:10 2015 No.683415 >>683400 >>683393 >2015 >falling for /b/ait nice

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 21:03:44 2015 No.683432 >>683400 There's no point in kissing ass on an anonymous image board.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 21:10:05 2015 No.683441 >>683432 It's called paying it forward, fool. I am lyCyE/Kl as well as other responses in here. The conversation continues to get derailed while folks are learning dem some-ting. But ya know what, fuck it. Make mistakes, I'm out.

>>	iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 21:21:14 2015 No.683460 >>683432 Cut the crap, kid. I never ask any one to kiss my ass. Hell, I don't even ask that you be polite. So don't angrily shake your fedora at someone who goes out of their way to be civil, whether to me or any one else.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 21:30:53 2015 No.683468 >>683441 >>683460 I expect this type of faggotry from /b/ but not here. You dissapoint me iFag.

>>	iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 21:33:26 2015 No.683470 >>683468 >missing the point this badly

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 21:37:03 2015 No.683475 >>683400 iHaz has no information worth listenting too. His entire strategy is 1) Become a very highly paid lawyer 2) Spend nothing 3) Put everything in index funds. Once you (1) falls into your lap, (2) and (3) are trivialities.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 21:39:05 2015 No.683478 >>683470 >implying any point you make isnt moot I am not going to say that you are a complete faggot... but if there was a recipe for you, 98% of the ingredients would consist of faggotry.

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Thu Mar 12 21:57:16 2015 No.683503
File: 22 KB, 600x398, ImageGen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>683475
>1) Become a very highly paid lawyer
Or become a very highly paid engineer. Or a highly paid consultant. Or a highly paid accountant. Or a highly paid plumber. Or a highly paid anything.

The point is: maximize your earning potential, whatever it is. Agree or disagree?

>2) Spend nothing
Spending nothing that causes you to sacrifice your long-term financial goals for short term conspicuous consumption.

The point is: spend in according with your needs and your long-term goals. Agree or disagree?

>3) Put everything in index funds.
Until such time as research shows a stronger, more consistent long-term investing approach, index funds are the way to go.

The point is: follow the strategy that is most likely to grow your wealth over the long-term. Agree or disagree?

I'm sorry you think that none of this is worth listening to. You obviously have it all worked out, and your're well on your own path to huge financial success. I'm sure you're on the cusp of turning your $10 into $10 million, and then you'll make me look really foolish. Go ahead and do it ... I'll be here waiting.

But lets at least be honest about what my advice actually is so that people can make up their own minds. And try not to be so fucking butthurt every time someone care more about what I have to say that what you have to say. It's not personal; I just have more credibility, a better track record, and reams of financial research supporting my advice.

Or do you have a problem with letting people decide for themselves whether my advice is worth listening to?

>pic related: its you

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 22:21:56 2015 No.683531 >>683503 Tl;dr

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 22:35:19 2015 No.683548 >>682298 >>683503 iHaz confirmed for samefag. I knew I recognized something from earlier in the thread. How often do you do that?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 12 23:11:26 2015 No.683588 >>683548 He does it all the time. Another reason tripfags are cancer.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 01:30:04 2015 No.683706 >>680260 My vfinx is doing preachy. Mutual funds are the way. Also any mutual funds you guys like? Suggestions?

Anonymous Fri Mar 13 07:58:32 2015 No.683862
File: 57 KB, 1280x720, 1421444313664.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>683503
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 10:24:52 2015 No.683982 >>680260 I sold right before.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 10:27:20 2015 No.683989 >>683982 Good for you. Long holders getting murdered again today looks like - but that's because they're smarter than us.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 12:40:41 2015 No.684126 I'm losing $40,000 right now I don't know what to do should I close it?

Anonymous Fri Mar 13 16:12:21 2015 No.684306

>>680260

CNBC: Economic indicators are turning negative

[talking of GDP estimates for first quarter]

"Earlier this week, Barclays cut its first-quarter estimate from 1.8 percent to 1.5 percent due to weaker-than-expected retail sales data for February. Moody's Analytics recently reduced its view from 2.2 percent to 1.7 percent, Rosenberg sees 1 percent growth, Bank of America Merrill Lynch on Friday reduced its projection to 1.9 percent, and Credit Suisse, also on Friday, slashed its projection from 2.5 percent to 1.7 percent."

Keep on holding that empty bag like a good goyum!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 13 22:31:43 2015 No.684634 >>681027 >muh efficient market theory my sides are completely gone hahahaha xD

Anonymous Sat Mar 14 00:12:44 2015 No.684739

>>683503
iHaz, a few questions

What is your IQ?

Do you feel that corporate law has given you an edge when it comes to your investment choices?

What degree do you feel would complement an investor the most? Finance? Corporate law? Economics? Math?

Much appreciated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 14 02:51:16 2015 No.684856 >>681861 Didn't warren buffet win a bet where he said that this fund manager wouldn't be able to beat an index fund?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 14 08:12:47 2015 No.685013 >>681955 #REKT

Anonymous Sat Mar 14 09:34:25 2015 No.685045

>>681877
How mad are you that I have 5.2 millions off Bitcoin at age 21? Just LOL at missing on the chance of our lifetimes to retire Young. Im so glad i don't have to deal with boring ass non crypto investments. Next step: x3 my millions with Maidsafe in the next 3 years. Stay mad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 14 10:31:02 2015 No.685074 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y15NnGZIBuM the grey slab in the middle is the SP 500

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 14 10:37:11 2015 No.685078 >>681039 >All we're saying is that there is almost nothing worth investing in for value investors on the market today. Are you familiar with Russian energy stocks by any chance?

Anonymous Sat Mar 14 17:16:43 2015 No.685429

>>683503
Hey iHaz, I got a question. I invest in index funds myself. Now, if we enter a bear market which we will at some time of course, I would probably realize my earnings, would you too? I know timing is impossible, etc, but you can use easy math guidelines like "if the nasdaq falls by 15% im gonna sell my nasdaq ETF". This would of course lead to the need to pay a lot of capital tax, but can still be a net profit considering how low the market can go and that you can buy in at a smaller price (would have to calculate at what price this makes sense given your tax).

Anyway, given that you would sell, doesnt it make more sense to invest in knock out certificates with a reasonable distance to the strike (let's say 20%). That way you make more on your investment if you anticipate that the whole market continues to go up.

Thanks for answering

Anonymous Sat Mar 14 17:22:36 2015 No.685434

>>685429

inb4 iHaz claims that you can't time it and that if you sold once the market moved down 15% you'd be locking in losses instead of gains. When in actuallity you would be locking in gains and avoiding losses.

What iHaz will say that is correct though, is that you can never tell when the market is going to continue to drop or turn around. That's fair, as no one can predict the future.

But with market valuations across the board in the US at almost all time highs, and almost nothing but poor economic news in the pipeline - now is a great time to sell.. not once it's already down 15%.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/biz/ - Business & Finance