/lit/ - Literature

The intelligent investor is the only good investment book ever written ever in the history of anything.

Also, you'll never become rich.

>>6137486
that's a rather pessimistic view

>>6137502

What money will you use to invest you stupid bitch?

You have to have millions of dollars to acquire millions of dollars.

>>6137515
I have a quarter million in the bank, I'm aiming for another quarter.

>>6137535

No you don't, and if you did, you didn't earn it yourself.

random walk
a
n
d
o
m

w
a
l
k

>>6137482
whos dat qt?

>>6137540
yes I do, no I didn't

das kapital, volume 3 in specific

>>6137553

Ok if you want to invest, don't think about the stock market. Find startup companies with good potential and ask for 15% equity for a 100k seed round. That's your best bet.

>>6137482

> Best in theory:

The Intelligent investor

Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits

> Best For Plebs

A Random Walk Down Wall Street. Why? Because unlike the two above this will not lure your pleb ass into thinking you can beat the market. Theoretically Random Walk is wrong. Some people can beat the market. But as a non-professional who doesn't have hours a day to study the markets, you might as well believe that it's impossible to beat the markets, and invest in index funds and bonds.

>>6137568
is there any books on that kind of investment to read up? how do I find these companies? how to determine the quality of each etc?

>>6137577
I'll read both

>>6137582

How the fuck does a retard like you even get 250k?

You might as well just go spend it on poker.

You sound like you know nothing about how the world works.

>>6137598
you jelly?

>>6137670

Yes.

>>6137482

>>6137568
This is really bad advice. Might as well buy a lottery ticket.

>>6137482
find the Wall Street Journal investment guide thingy, it's pretty good. Your best bet is safe stocks in the long run, you won't make an obscene return but it's reliable

>>6137710

Investing in stocks for the long term is fucking boring, and it won't make you a lot of money. You´ll probably make more money in real estate.

And, no its not like buying a lottery ticket you fuckwit. If you know a market, and have a functioning brain, you'll be able to make sound decisions about what companies will grow and which won't.

>>6137676
Idiot by fedora dosto

topkek

>>6137740
>You´ll probably make more money in real estate.
Nah. People who don't know anything about investing often think this, though. Return depends on how exactly you measure it, but stocks are definitely a better long term investment than real estate

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/09/real-estate-versus-stock-investments.asp (13.4% vs. 8.6%)

http://www.thornburginvestments.com/pdfs/TH1401.pdf (page 7, 9-11%% vs. 4.01%)

http://www.financialsamurai.com/which-is-a-better-investment-real-estate-or-stocks/#sthash.7TyIHdge.dpbs (8% vs 2-4%)

http://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsblog/2013/07/17/real-estate-vs-stocks/

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/money101/lesson4/

The problem with targeting startups is that everybody thinks they "know a market and have a functioning brain."

>The Silicon Valley trade is also pretty close to being zero-sum. Even on a purely financial basis, if you add up all the profits from successful investments, they barely cover the losses on all the unsuccessful ones. A few big-name angels and VCs can do OK for themselves, but in aggregate the industry of investing in startups does not make money.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/21/the-most-expensive-lottery-ticket-in-the-world/