Comparing Stock Market Strategies
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: billryan
One investor will have more money and owe more in taxes. The other has less money, but doesn't owe taxes. Dos caminos, un destino.
My problem with buy-and-hold is simple A stock may be an industry leader________etc.
re the tax part of your post
that is often not the case
age is also a factor in investing - again, if the buy and holder begins withdrawing after he is retired he may still owe no taxes because he has no other income and the amount of the capital gain re his withdrawal may not be enough to trigger taxation
re buy and hold I am referring to one of the indexes - not to individual stocks
of course some stocks in the index may perform terribly but others will overachieve
.
link to original post
Of course it is completely impossible for multiple stocks to go down at the same time....
Quote: Archvaldor1*Facepalm* It doesn't become anything. You need $30000 a year to buy food and pay rent with. You aren't growing anything at all. OBVIOUSLY. That was the point.
Did you think we were talking about playing at trader while we live off Daddy's trust fund or something?
I have no problem earning $30000 per year outside of stock trading and parental support to pay for living expenses. This hypothetical person who doesn't understand that could be possible isn't going to earn 30% yearly returns. Anyone who doesn't know people can do things like sell their labor is not going to be the greatest investor in history. Thanks for confirming this schtick is just trolling. Now let's hear the next reason why someone who easily earns 30% on the stock market must always be worse off than the people earning 12%.
Quote: Archvaldor1
Doing that with limited personal funds is not. 30% would be a good return on investment from stocks, but you would not be able to live on and grow your bankroll if you invested $100,000.
Of course you could. The average salary in North Korea is just slightly over $1 per month. That would leave you close to $29,985 to reinvest. You would be wealthy in a decade or two.
Quote: TomGQuote: Archvaldor1*Facepalm* It doesn't become anything. You need $30000 a year to buy food and pay rent with. You aren't growing anything at all. OBVIOUSLY. That was the point.
Did you think we were talking about playing at trader while we live off Daddy's trust fund or something?
I have no problem earning $30000 per year outside of stock trading and parental support to pay for living expenses. This hypothetical person who doesn't understand that could be possible isn't going to earn 30% yearly returns. Anyone who doesn't know people can do things like sell their labor is not going to be the greatest investor in history. Thanks for confirming this schtick is just trolling. Now let's hear the next reason why someone who easily earns 30% on the stock market must always be worse off than the people earning 12%.
link to original post
Did it not occur to you that stock trading at a high level might require you to invest some time into research?
Quote: billryanAnyone who can alter reality enough to get a 30% return each year should be equally able to adjust time and space as needed..
link to original post
BTC has returned about 200% since 2010 without any reality mutation. Most Tesla investors have beat 30% also.
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: billryanAnyone who can alter reality enough to get a 30% return each year should be equally able to adjust time and space as needed..
link to original post
BTC has returned about 200% since 2010 without any reality mutation. Most Tesla investors have beat 30% also.
link to original post
Anyone who has held Tesla since 2021 has not seen any return on their investment. The roller coaster ride has them back to where they were in January 2021, with nary a dividend to boot. They'd have been better off with CDs. The strange thing is a snapshot of Tesla says it returned over 500% in the last five years. The two statements seem contradictory, but are true.
Quote: billryanQuote: Archvaldor1Quote: billryanAnyone who can alter reality enough to get a 30% return each year should be equally able to adjust time and space as needed..
link to original post
BTC has returned about 200% since 2010 without any reality mutation. Most Tesla investors have beat 30% also.
link to original post
Anyone who has held Tesla since 2021 has not seen any return on their investment. The roller coaster ride has them back to where they were in January 2021, with nary a dividend to boot.
link to original post
Well, I got in mid-2020, which was pretty late-there are a lot of Tesla millionaires. I imagine most people saw Musk waving a chainsaw around while off his face on ketamine and sold before the full crash, like I did. No genius investing or reality morphing powers required, just the simple observable fact the CEO had gone nuts.
Tesla is currently $284 a share, the average in Jan 2021 was about $267 a share so you'd have a small profit.Most of the upward trajectory occurred before 2021.
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: billryanQuote: Archvaldor1Quote: billryanAnyone who can alter reality enough to get a 30% return each year should be equally able to adjust time and space as needed..
link to original post
BTC has returned about 200% since 2010 without any reality mutation. Most Tesla investors have beat 30% also.
link to original post
Anyone who has held Tesla since 2021 has not seen any return on their investment. The roller coaster ride has them back to where they were in January 2021, with nary a dividend to boot.
link to original post
Well, I got in mid-2020, which was pretty late-there are a lot of Tesla millionaires. I imagine most people saw Musk waving a chainsaw around while off his face on ketamine and sold before the full crash, like I did. No genius investing or reality morphing powers required, just the simple observable fact the CEO had gone nuts.
Tesla is currently $284 a share, the average in Jan 2021 was about $267 a share so you'd have a small profit.Most of the upward trajectory occurred before that point.
link to original post
Any profit was made on Friday. I liked Tesla. I bought at the IPO but sold 50% when it covered my investment, another 50% when it reached $50, and yet another 50% when it hit $100—closed out when it hit $200. I did well, but I missed later profits. I started buying 100-block shares when it dipped below $190 and sold when it hit $220. That worked nicely the first three times, but the fourth time I sold at $227, and it skyrocketed a week or two later. I recently bought at $230 and sold at $302, missing the run on $400. I almost bought last week, but my dislike of Musk talked me out of it.
I was actually planning to buy and hold with Tesla till 2030. I don't have a clue how you managed to trade into that volatility, wd.
I had large cash infusions from selling items over the last three years, and I cashed out my Empower account last summer. As a result, I did a lot of buying and some selling in 2024.
My portfolio was made with the assumption that Biden's economic policies would continue. I didn't expect someone would try to set the house on fire.
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: billryanAnyone who can alter reality enough to get a 30% return each year should be equally able to adjust time and space as needed..
link to original post
BTC has returned about 200% since 2010 without any reality mutation. Most Tesla investors have beat 30% also.
link to original post
Anyone can look in the past and say what did well. Please tell us a stock that will do 30% annually going forward.
Quote: DRichQuote: Archvaldor1Quote: billryanAnyone who can alter reality enough to get a 30% return each year should be equally able to adjust time and space as needed..
link to original post
BTC has returned about 200% since 2010 without any reality mutation. Most Tesla investors have beat 30% also.
link to original post
Anyone can look in the past and say what did well. Please tell us a stock that will do 30% annually going forward.
link to original post
What would you be willing to pay if someone guaranteed you a 30% return?
Quote: DRichQuote: Archvaldor1Quote: billryanAnyone who can alter reality enough to get a 30% return each year should be equally able to adjust time and space as needed..
link to original post
BTC has returned about 200% since 2010 without any reality mutation. Most Tesla investors have beat 30% also.
link to original post
Anyone can look in the past and say what did well. Please tell us a stock that will do 30% annually going forward.
link to original post
What would you be willing to pay if someone guaranteed you a 30% return?
Quote: DRichQuote: Archvaldor1Quote: billryanAnyone who can alter reality enough to get a 30% return each year should be equally able to adjust time and space as needed..
link to original post
BTC has returned about 200% since 2010 without any reality mutation. Most Tesla investors have beat 30% also.
link to original post
Anyone can look in the past and say what did well. Please tell us a stock that will do 30% annually going forward.
link to original post
It wasn't in the past. Many people predicted Tesla and BTC would shoot up in value before they did.
Not sure how you think any one who made an accurate prediction going forward would be any different.
41 Wall Street analysts twelve-month price targets for TSLA range from $19.05 - $460, with an average price target of $287.
The current 5 yr expected PEG for TSLA is 4.39. Anything over 1.0 suggests the stock might be overvalued.
The current Intrinsic Value for TSLA is $179. 37% overvalued. Others have TSLA Intrinsic Value lower than that.
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: DRichQuote: Archvaldor1Quote: billryanAnyone who can alter reality enough to get a 30% return each year should be equally able to adjust time and space as needed..
link to original post
BTC has returned about 200% since 2010 without any reality mutation. Most Tesla investors have beat 30% also.
link to original post
Anyone can look in the past and say what did well. Please tell us a stock that will do 30% annually going forward.
link to original post
It wasn't in the past. Many people predicted Tesla and BTC would shoot up in value before they did.
Not sure how you think any one who made an accurate prediction going forward would be any different.
link to original post
Sharpshooter fallacy.
Quote: billryan
What would you be willing to pay if someone guaranteed you a 30% return?
I would gladly pay $1 million dollars if it was guaranteed.
Quote: unJon
Sharpshooter fallacy.
That doesn't address the question of how picks going forward are any more valid, which was the point.
If someone makes a pick then eventually that pick will become part of the past, and presumably also be invalid.
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: unJon
Sharpshooter fallacy.
That doesn't address the question of how picks going forward are any more valid, which was the point.
If someone makes a pick then eventually that pick will become part of the past, and presumably also be invalid.
link to original post
Just to recap for those following along at home;
Archvaldor1: Could make 30% a year but doesn’t do any good because need $30k a year to live.
Others: Prove it.
Archvaldor1: Tesla and BTC
unJon: Sharpshooter fallacy
Archvaldor1: [???] Profit
No I didn't say that. That was a hypothetical scenario. Do you understand what hypothetical means Jeb?
I was saying 30k is not enough to live on and grow your investor capital which is a statement of the obvious.
Quote: Archvaldor1"Archvaldor1: Could make 30% a year ."
No I didn't say that. That was a hypothetical scenario. Do you understand what hypothetical means Jeb?
I was saying 30k is not enough to live on and grow your bankroll which is a statement of the obvious.
link to original post
I do. And it’s not the gist of your post. Everyone has been arguing with your statement that “Beating the market is relatively easy.”
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: TomG
"Unless you are a wunderkind"
Someone who can beat the stock market consistently qualifies as exactly that.
Beating the market is relatively easy.
Doing that with limited personal funds is not. 30% would be a good return on investment from stocks, but you would not be able to live on and grow your bankroll if you invested $100,000.
link to original post
Quote: unJonQuote: Archvaldor1"Archvaldor1: Could make 30% a year ."
No I didn't say that. That was a hypothetical scenario. Do you understand what hypothetical means Jeb?
I was saying 30k is not enough to live on and grow your bankroll which is a statement of the obvious.
link to original post
I do. And it’s not the gist of your post.Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: TomG
"Unless you are a wunderkind"
Someone who can beat the stock market consistently qualifies as exactly that.
Beating the market is relatively easy.
Doing that with limited personal funds is not. 30% would be a good return on investment from stocks, but you would not be able to live on and grow your bankroll if you invested $100,000.
link to original post
link to original post
No it is not the "gist" of the post, the words "would be" and "if you" clearly imply it is a hypothetical scenario. Obviously.
Beating the market is a separate issue. Any returns over and above the market average beat the market by definition.The 30% example is a deliberately extreme example of a very high return which I used solely to illustrate that you cannot live on the returns from investment without a large bankroll as Tom incorrectly implied you could.
Quote: Archvaldor1"Archvaldor1: Could make 30% a year ."
No I didn't say that. That was a hypothetical scenario. Do you understand what hypothetical means Jeb?
I was saying 30k is not enough to live on and grow your investor capital which is a statement of the obvious.
link to original post
Your investment pool should be different from your living expenses.
You take 15-20% of your income for investing and live on the remainder. Dale Carnegie talked about the importance of paying yourself first a hundred years ago. If you make $ 50,000 a year, live like you make $ 42,000, and invest the $8,000, I think it's more important to save for retirement than for your first house. Slow and steady wins the race. Over time, your pennies become dimes and your dimes become dollars. A dollar saved before thirty is the same as eight dollars saved at age sixty.
Quote: billryanQuote: Archvaldor1"Archvaldor1: Could make 30% a year ."
No I didn't say that. That was a hypothetical scenario. Do you understand what hypothetical means Jeb?
I was saying 30k is not enough to live on and grow your investor capital which is a statement of the obvious.
link to original post
Your investment pool should be different from your living expenses.
You take 15-20% of your income for investing and live on the remainder. Dale Carnegie talked about the importance of paying yourself first a hundred years ago. If you make $ 50,000 a year, live like you make $ 42,000, and invest the $8,000, I think it's more important to save for retirement than for your first house. Slow and steady wins the race. Over time, your pennies become dimes and your dimes become dollars. A dollar saved before thirty is the same as eight dollars saved at age sixty.
link to original post
That is sensible advice for someone saving up and putting their funds in a low-return low-risk investment vehicle.
In the scenario I was talking about however the guy making 30% is probably devoting much of if not all of their time to investment. That's one of the main ways to get an edge over betting or investment markets-you simply spend more time on it than other people. In that scenario our "genius" can't actually do much with his talent. He'd be better off settling for the type of approach you describe and settling for easy, passive,lower returns-because he could make better use of the time spent investing to do a second job or side-hustle.
For investment in the markets even for a talented active investor to become attractive you need a large amount of liquid capital to work with - a larger amount than most people ever actually acquire.. That was my objection to Tom's assertion that "genius" investors can;'t exist because they would be making so much money. If geniuses exist in the general population who can make 30% per annum it is very unlikely they would ever have the opportunity to take a shot and prove it.
only 15% of mutual fund managers beat the market over the last 10 years
85% trailed the market
from the link:
"the average US fund made a total return of 200.5% over the period whilst the S&P 500 flew ahead at 327.8%, meaning investors would have been better off with a tracker in most cases - and for a fraction of the cost"
the very top mutual fund manager of AB American Growth Portfolio - earned 452.2% over the last 10 years
that is not even remotely close to profiting by 30% per year
30% per year would have realized a return of just under 1400% over 10 years
https://portfolio-adviser.com/the-15-of-us-funds-that-beat-the-sp-500-over-the-past-decade/
.
- Wall Street Journal - "Peeved members of investing club turn on leaders"
- Baltimore Sun - "Beardstown ladies took us for mediocre ride but sold 732,000 books"
- Time Magazine - "Jail the Beardstown Ladies!"
That was in the 1990s. And "books" were still a thing. I think now the ladies' daughters or grandkids really are missing a bet with their inheritance 'till they do a spinoff dressing themselves as sportsbetting sharps. Maybe get some cool retro fedoras. Do some short-vid clips including a glimpse of some indecipherable notebook squiggles and flashing lights on a screen. And nothing that could possibly ever be audited, for chrissakes.
Quote: billryanDoes anyone remember the Beardstown Ladies? A group of 16 women pooled their money and investments and supposedly produced a long-term return of almost 25%, nearly double that of the DJA. They became minor celebrities and sold a shitload of books. Everyone was retro-engineering their trading history to discover the secret sauce, only there wasn't any. A bookkeeping error from the beginning changed a 9% return into a 25% return. Their methods didn't beat Wall Street, but the income from their book sales more than made up for it.
link to original post
Quote: lilredrooster.
only 15% of mutual fund managers beat the market over the last 10 years
85% trailed the market
from the link:
"the average US fund made a total return of 200.5% over the period whilst the S&P 500 flew ahead at 327.8%, meaning investors would have been better off with a tracker in most cases - and for a fraction of the cost"
the very top mutual fund manager of AB American Growth Portfolio - earned 452.2% over the last 10 years
You keep posting this. It means nothing.
If you ran a survey you'd find less than 1% of blackjack players can beat the house. let alone 15% - but it is trivial to prove you can obtain a long-run advantage over the house counting cards with a system you could teach to a child.
The same is true of poker, horse racing, sports betting and most other forms of gambling where it is trivial to prove you can obtain a mathematical advantage.
.
Quote: Archvaldor1
The same is true of poker, horse racing, sports betting and most other forms of gambling where it is trivial to prove you can obtain a mathematical advantage.
I don't think in poker you can prove a mathematical advantage unless you know exactly how every player at the table plays.
Quote: DRichQuote: Archvaldor1
The same is true of poker, horse racing, sports betting and most other forms of gambling where it is trivial to prove you can obtain a mathematical advantage.
I don't think in poker you can prove a mathematical advantage unless you know exactly how every player at the table plays.
link to original post
That was why I led with blackjack since the game has been solved.
But I doubt any one would seriously challenge the notion that you can beat poker given the observable number of players making consistently bad decisions.
I'd add that internet poker for non-trivial stakes is probably closer to the random walk model than the stock market is.
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: lilredrooster.
only 15% of mutual fund managers beat the market over the last 10 years
85% trailed the market
from the link:
"the average US fund made a total return of 200.5% over the period whilst the S&P 500 flew ahead at 327.8%, meaning investors would have been better off with a tracker in most cases - and for a fraction of the cost"
the very top mutual fund manager of AB American Growth Portfolio - earned 452.2% over the last 10 years
You keep posting this. It means nothing.
If you ran a survey you'd find less than 1% of blackjack players can beat the house. let alone 15% - but it is trivial to prove you can obtain a long-run advantage over the house counting cards with a system you could teach to a child.
The same is true of poker, horse racing, sports betting and most other forms of gambling where it is trivial to prove you can obtain a mathematical advantage.
.
link to original post
In addition to that, every blackjack AP has painful memories of his chips being transferred to the stack of an unskilled player next to him at the table. We have those memories because it happened in the past, not the future, which our EV is a prediction of.
The S&P 500 is not the market, it is a sample of the market, and I could find other samples of the market where the fund managers did better. You can only know "Pick the S&P 500" after the outcome, just like you can only know "You should have stood on that 16 vs. 7" after the hand is dealt out.
I heard a similar spurious argument made years ago when [an economist who won a Nobel Prize despite being of questionable intelligence] noted that [a businessman known for building large buildings with his name on them] would have earned more from his inherited family fortune if he had just invested it in index funds rather than doing all that building. Perhaps so, but one would have to know the future to be sure of that. Otherwise it is like a man taking a day off from work and going to the racetrack, having a great day betting, then coming back to work and telling his colleagues they are the fools for working for a day's pay rather than betting on horses.
The other flaw in that argument is without people in those companies building things, what are the stocks in the index worth? What would happen if the companies on the index decided this was too much work and risk, shut their doors and invested their operating capital in the index funds instead?
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: TomGQuote: Archvaldor1*Facepalm* It doesn't become anything. You need $30000 a year to buy food and pay rent with. You aren't growing anything at all. OBVIOUSLY. That was the point.
Did you think we were talking about playing at trader while we live off Daddy's trust fund or something?
I have no problem earning $30000 per year outside of stock trading and parental support to pay for living expenses. This hypothetical person who doesn't understand that could be possible isn't going to earn 30% yearly returns. Anyone who doesn't know people can do things like sell their labor is not going to be the greatest investor in history. Thanks for confirming this schtick is just trolling. Now let's hear the next reason why someone who easily earns 30% on the stock market must always be worse off than the people earning 12%.
link to original post
Did it not occur to you that stock trading at a high level might require you to invest some time into research?
It did occur to me, which is why I originally showed how someone could invest both time and capital. But in your desperate attempt at trolling, you couldn't accept any of it.
Would the time it takes to earn this 30% return be more or less than what it would take to earn $30,000 in the workforce? (Or other of the ways we use our time to earn money, like casino games)
-If less, do both. Earn $30,000 on stocks, then use the extra hours to earn additional income at a job. Earn an extra 30% every year on all the money earned outside of stock investments.
-If more, then invest that time into the higher earning venture and use the extra profits on non-time intensive stock bets that might not beat the market. Then transition into spending that time on earning 30% whenever that reaches a level where it pays higher than anything else.
-In either case, there will eventually become enough money that can compound at 30% which should end up in the billions if done for just half a lifetime.
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: billryanAnyone who can alter reality enough to get a 30% return each year should be equally able to adjust time and space as needed..
link to original post
BTC has returned about 200% since 2010 without any reality mutation. Most Tesla investors have beat 30% also.
-most Tesla investors have also been buying other stocks (and often buying TSLA with less-than-ideal timing), bringing down their total returns. Usually to very close to overall market average. Same with people buying BTC. Very few of them have earned anywhere close to 200% annual returns across all investments over the past 15 years.
-are the people who have been investing in Tesla and BTC over the past 15 years expected to beat the market over the next 15 years?
Quote: Archvaldor1
You keep posting this. It means nothing.
If you ran a survey you'd find less than 1% of blackjack players can beat the house. let alone 15% - but it is trivial to prove you can obtain a long-run advantage over the house counting cards with a system you could teach to a child.
The same is true of poker, horse racing, sports betting and most other forms of gambling where it is trivial to prove you can obtain a mathematical advantage.
At what liquidity?
I can click a button 50 times a day and beat the sports betting market by 6% each time (ie from -4.5% to +1.5%). Usually with limits around $300 and very rarely over $1000.
Shares on the stock market are on corporations with billion and trillion dollar market caps.
Quote: TomGQuote: Archvaldor1Quote: billryanAnyone who can alter reality enough to get a 30% return each year should be equally able to adjust time and space as needed..
link to original post
BTC has returned about 200% since 2010 without any reality mutation. Most Tesla investors have beat 30% also.
-most Tesla investors have also been buying other stocks (and often buying TSLA with less-than-ideal timing), bringing down their total returns. Usually to very close to overall market average. Same with people buying BTC. Very few of them have earned anywhere close to 200% annual returns across all investments over the past 15 years.
-are the people who have been investing in Tesla and BTC over the past 15 years expected to beat the market over the next 15 years?
link to original post
If someone invested $1,000 in bitcoin fifteen years ago, and sold it today, I don't think I'd be worried about beating the market.
The safest investment in the world would give you millions a day in interest buying t-bills
Quote: billryan
If someone invested $1,000 in bitcoin fifteen years ago, and sold it today, I don't think I'd be worried about beating the market.
The safest investment in the world would give you millions a day in interest buying t-bills
As you pointed out with Tesla since '21, there is a huge difference between "15 years ago" and "over the past 15 years". The former got the 2,000,000% total returns on whatever they bought in 2010. With the latter, there are plenty of cases of doing no better overall than the average of the stock market, depending on when they were buying and what else they were investing in.
Would the time it takes to earn this 30% return be more or less than what it would take to earn $30,000 in the workforce? (Or other of the ways we use our time to earn money, like casino games)
-If less, do both. Earn $30,000 on stocks, then use the extra hours to earn additional income at a job. Earn an extra 30% every year on all the money earned outside of stock investments.
-If more, then invest that time into the higher earning venture and use the extra profits on non-time intensive stock bets that might not beat the market. Then transition into spending that time on earning 30% whenever that reaches a level where it pays higher than anything else.
-In either case, there will eventually become enough money that can compound at 30% which should end up in the billions if done for just half a lifetime"
I'm not sure that you understand most people live paycheck to paycheck.
About 78% of those earning less than $50,000 annually
Roughly 65% of middle-income earners ($50,000-$100,000)
Around 40% of those earning over $100,000
These people NEVER grow their capital to any extent.
You can't infer anything from an absence of successful traders in society in general. Life is expensive.
"-most Tesla investors have also been buying other stocks (and often buying TSLA with less-than-ideal timing), bringing down their total returns. Usually to very close to overall market average. Same with people buying BTC. Very few of them have earned anywhere close to 200% annual returns across all investments over the past 15 years."
That doesn't sound like the Tesla investors I encountered. They had, and some still have, huge %'s of their wealth tied up in the company. I did. A good investor is prepared to commit a large Kelly fraction to a given trade if they believe it is good enough.
"At what liquidity?
I can click a button 50 times a day and beat the sports betting market by 6% each time (ie from -4.5% to +1.5%). Usually with limits around $300 and very rarely over $1000.
Shares on the stock market are on corporations with billion and trillion dollar market caps."
Lilredrooster was making the assertion that no one could beat the market because so few money managers did so. I was pointing out that very few blackjack players can beat the game, but we know the game can be beaten. Therefore there is no reason to believe an absence of successful investors means the market cannot be beaten.
The question of liquidity is not relevant to that point.
For the record AP's can get very large absolute profits. The simplest method for a high-roller is to play short sessions at baccarat and hustle rebates. A number of whales have done this for seven or eight figures.
Quote: Archvaldor1
I'm not sure that you understand most people live paycheck to paycheck.
-most all data around that is based on survey results without clear definitions.
-if $50,000 and $100,000 earners are both living pay-check-to-paycheck, the higher earner could remove themselves from that group simply by living the same way the lower earner does.
-because there is no clear definition, some of the higher earners saying the live paycheck-to-paycheck are saying that while still putting sufficient amount into retirement or other investment accounts. Investments that grow into sizeable amounts while merely meeting market returns. Trying to pretend that if the money was used to beat the market it would no longer be a sizeable amount is obvious trolling.
-if someone is living paycheck-to-paycheck, that means they have a paycheck. Which means they are spending their time earning it. Which means less time available to trade stocks. And time spent stock trading is a requirement to beating the market, according to you. The only possible way someone from this group of people could be beating the market but not earning much money from that skill is if your logic on this topic is wrong. Once again, thanks for confirming this entire bit is just trolling.
Quote: Archvaldor1
That doesn't sound like the Tesla investors I encountered. They had, and some still have, huge %'s of their wealth tied up in the company. I did. A good investor is prepared to commit a large Kelly fraction to a given trade if they believe it is good enough.
You are only basing this off people who self-report as a "Tesla investor". If someone buys shares of Tesla along with some combination of Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, any other individual stock, any index funds, bonds, 401k, TSP, or whatever else people invest in, you're not going to hear that they are a Tesla investor.
Quote: Archvaldor1The question of liquidity is not relevant to that point.
Liquidity has a lot to do with how efficient a market is. Beating something with hundreds of dollars in liquidity is far different than beating something with billions of dollars in liquidity.
The dude is just doing this for the lolz. He has some valid points but is just stating stuff even he doesn’t believe because he is getting the reactions he is.
Quote: TomG
-if $50,000 and $100,000 earners are both living pay-check-to-paycheck, the higher earner could remove themselves from that group simply by living the same way the lower earner does.
No that does not follow. A young healthy person has very few financial commitments. An older person may have medical bills, dependents etc. You have no choice in those things.If your roof falls in during a storm or your house floods or your family requires medical expenses that insurance does not cover, you can't simply wave a magic wand and switch places with a 20-something kid with no liabilities.
To actually grow your bankroll significantly at the marginal level requires a long and sustained period without any of the cataclysmic life-shocks which in aggregate occur frequently.
Quote: mmmoretti11Totally agree. it's not just about income, it's about life stage and responsibilities. 25-year-old with no dependents isn’t dealing with the same reality as someone juggling a mortgage, kids, or medical bills. Real life throws curveballs, and saving gets a lot harder when those hit.
link to original post
That is where discipline comes in. You MUST pay yourself first. If your take-home pay is $1,000, live on $850. If it is $3,000, live on $2550. That 15% off the top is sacred and untouchable.
Picture yourself on a boat journeying to a new land. You bought food for the journey, but you also bought breeding pairs of pigs so you'll
have food in the new land. If you eat the pigs now, you and your descendants will have no pigs in the future. Therefore, you'll go hungry on the journey, but you'll have plenty of food later.
Quote: billryan
Picture yourself on a boat journeying to a new land. You bought food for the journey, but you also bought breeding pairs of pigs so you'll
have food in the new land. If you eat the pigs now, you and your descendants will have no pigs in the future. Therefore, you'll go hungry on the journey, but you'll have plenty of food later.
I would find it much easier to just pack seeds as opposed to pigs.
Quote: DRichQuote: billryan
Picture yourself on a boat journeying to a new land. You bought food for the journey, but you also bought breeding pairs of pigs so you'll
have food in the new land. If you eat the pigs now, you and your descendants will have no pigs in the future. Therefore, you'll go hungry on the journey, but you'll have plenty of food later.
I would find it much easier to just pack seeds as opposed to pigs.
link to original post
What young men would join you in a land without bacon?
Quote: billryanQuote: DRichQuote: billryan
Picture yourself on a boat journeying to a new land. You bought food for the journey, but you also bought breeding pairs of pigs so you'll
have food in the new land. If you eat the pigs now, you and your descendants will have no pigs in the future. Therefore, you'll go hungry on the journey, but you'll have plenty of food later.
I would find it much easier to just pack seeds as opposed to pigs.
link to original post
What young men would join you in a land without bacon?
link to original post
I have Amazon Prime shipping to get everything else I need.
Quote: billryan
That is where discipline comes in. You MUST pay yourself first. If your take-home pay is $1,000, live on $850. If it is $3,000, live on $2550. That 15% off the top is sacred and untouchable.
That advice worked in the 60's through the 90's.
Nowadays for most people there simply isn't any excess to save. Indeed, a huge number of people are surviving on credit.
No amount of discipline is going to help them.
