Investing: Anyone subscribed to Private Wealth Advisory?

guerilla said:
No, you wouldn't be a moron if you have a good business.
Click to expand...

Yes, I tried that before. Was bringing in about $40k/month from software, and living good. Did what I thought was smart, and continued to invest in myself. Then 9/11 hit, and my sales literally dropped by about 80% overnight. Everyone became petrified, and closed their wallets.

How do I know for example, Israel isn't going to strike Iran, and Iran doesn't already have hundreds of people living in the US who will blow themselves up upon order in malls and subways, causing mass panic, and a drastic decrease in my cashflow? I mean, if I was Iran, that's exactly what I would have been working at over the past several years.

I'll just continue saving for a rainy day instead, thanks.
 


The guy I work with, the guy who has supported his wife and family for 15 years trading in the junior markets, built a business AFTER those 15 years selling his analysis to retail and institutional investors, has a favourite saying:

"It's never a dumb move to take money out of your trading account and pay down the mortgage."
 
I know the SP 500 is not a good indicator, but for a lot of you that dont know investing, the average annual return on the SP 500 is around the 12-13% range. Some years higher, some years in the negative.

Thats doing no fucking work at all and letting your money sit there in the SP 500. Even doing the Dogs of the Dow can get you about the same some years.

15% is for those that want to take a couple risks above those doing things like CDs, Bonds, and Money Markets. Personally I wouldn't even look at anything I couldn't get at least 25% potential gains in per year. If you are going to settle for 15% or below, you would be better reinvesting in yourself.

I love index funds and safe bets, but you have to know whats a good return and whats not. 15% is nothing to brag about if your in a private investing group as you can get that for free pretty much doing SP 500 on average per annual or doing Dogs of the Dow and such. Even some "safe" mutual funds doing overseas investing can do that for you. I for sure wouldnt pay money to get that type of return back.
 
jfizzle said:
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot to add, "rate" at the end of inflation as I was talking about real interest rates, not nominal. Once again, you have taken what I said out of context to try and prove your invalid argument valid.
Click to expand...
What?

You left off a word, which I don't think made a damn lick of difference, and due to you mis-stating the context, you claim I took you out of context?

If you receive 15%, you then subtract the rate of inflation, say 3% for a net 12%. Then you pay taxes.

15% is not a lot unless you're talking about massive investments, in which case, it is still not a lot relatively speaking.
 
WickedJoe said:
No it's really more about risk/reward tastes. Historically the DJIA or S&P500 give between 9-11% interest per year. Beating that average is considered great and many hedge funds don't even do it consistently over time. Over long periods of time DJIA is considered low/moderate risk.
Click to expand...
Still talking about stock market ...

WickedJoe said:
Now of course you can try to get much more but your risk factor increases many fold.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. All you can lose is your principal. The downside risk is limited, in many cases, the upside potential is, for all intents and purposes, not.

WickedJoe said:
Speculation (like I do with oil prices) is basically gambling and there's no reason to have a big discussion on that.. gambling can go in any direction. Many people's long term investment strategy does not involve gambling.
Click to expand...
Speculation is only gambling when you don't understand the speculation. There are a lot of very smart speculators who win regularly because they understand what they are doing.

I don't buy into ideas about risk and gambling like many people do. A winning hand wins 100% of the time, a losing hand loses 100% of the time.

Investing is not probabilistic.
 
WickedJoe said:
Speculation (like I do with oil prices) is basically gambling and there's no reason to have a big discussion on that.. gambling can go in any direction. Many people's long term investment strategy does not involve gambling.
Click to expand...

You can speculate with a strategy which has a strike rate of over 50%. and as long as your risk/reward ratio is correct you will make money..

However, speculating without backtesting and forward testing any strategy over long periods is gambling.. and you WILL lose.. you are better off at a roulette table.. at least you get free alchohol...
 
guerilla said:
Are you saying that there is no connection between cause and effect?
Click to expand...

In a way, I am. Entangled quantum systems present serious difficulties when you try to make the notions of cause and effect precise. At that level, you have only correlations. Very predictable correlations, but correlations nonetheless. And these aren't the only systems that present problems for causation either. Interestingly, though, they are the most fundamental of systems, the ones which, when taken together, should be able to reproduce the rest of reality, so if you don't have causation in the most basic building blocks, how will it ever emerge in the macroscopic picture, unless it emerges as some sort of apparent or illusory causation?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't live your life as though your actions have clear effects, or your thoughts clear causes. It's the best we can do, and for the most part, in our macroscopic world, it's a pretty good approximation of reality, a good strategy. But fundamentally, the Universe is not deterministic, and events don't have clear causes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jacky8
Arguing about investing on WF is like arguing about Xrumer on Daily Pips...

Contrary to popular belief, reading an economics textbook does NOT make you an investment expert...

And no, I will not be reading this thread to see the amazing rebuttal.
 
The opposite of a deterministic universe is not a probabilistic one. It is an indeterminate universe. Is the universe indeterminate?

Rhetorical question.
 
danke said:
Contrary to popular belief, reading an economics textbook does NOT make you an investment expert...
Click to expand...
I don't think that's anyone's belief. Economics is not investing. Economics is understanding cause and effect, which may or may not be useful for investors.

danke said:
And no, I will not be reading this thread to see the amazing rebuttal.
Click to expand...
Everyone ALWAYS reads the rebuttal.
 
guerilla said:
No, you wouldn't be a moron if you have a good business.
Click to expand...

1368181-j7654k858545_super.jpg
 
guerilla said:
The opposite of a deterministic universe is not a probabilistic one. It is an indeterminate universe. Is the universe indeterminate?

Rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

Actually, guerilla, probability is nothing more than a measure of indeterminism. We don't know what will happen, so we assign various weights to the possible outcomes. So while you're right that the opposite of a deterministic universe is an indeterminate universe, you're wrong because an indeterminate universe is indeed a probabilistic universe.
 
Isn't this the oldest trick in the book? You're at the top of a pyramid, buy stocks, you then tell people 1 notch below you to buy stocks (who pay a premium to be at the top of the pyramid), then you have all the masses below them, also paying you, who lap up your "investment advice", pumping up the stock price, you sell, you then tell your people 1 notch below to sell, finally, you tell the masses to sell.

You make a big profit, the people 1 notch below make a bit of profit, and the masses occasionally make profits by going in fast enough, but generally lose out because of the massive influx of sell orders, the fact that no one wants to buy the stock anymore because of all the sell orders, and the further dropping below the original price because of all the chaos. All explained away by the head with "look at the graphs, it doubled between when I said buy and when I said sell!"

Pump and dump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
-joe- said:
Isn't this the oldest trick in the book? You're at the top of a pyramid, buy stocks, you then tell people 1 notch below you to buy stocks (who pay a premium to be at the top of the pyramid), then you have all the masses below them, also paying you, who lap up your "investment advice", pumping up the stock price, you sell, you then tell your people 1 notch below to sell, finally, you tell the masses to sell.

You make a big profit, the people 1 notch below make a bit of profit, and the masses occasionally make profits by going in fast enough, but generally lose out because of the massive influx of sell orders, the fact that no one wants to buy the stock anymore because of all the sell orders, and the further dropping below the original price because of all the chaos. All explained away by the head with "look at the graphs, it doubled between when I said buy and when I said sell!"

Pump and dump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Well, if you exclude the fact that some companies create value, and some very few companies create value exponentially, you would be right.

But those are some very big exclusions you just made.

No doubt a lot of very smart people said to Steven Jobs back in early 2000s, something like "What? A music player? There's no money in that, look at all the cheap players coming out of China. Jeepers Steve, turn off that reality distortion field. Next thing you know, you will want to build a phone. Stick to computers."
 
I know 15% doesn't make my ears perk. I'd rather invest that money into a business where I can likely get back more than 50% return over the same period. But if you wanna do nothing and watch your money grow, then yeah 15% isn't half bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom