Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i have found it pretty easy to beat the market just sector trading . it really is not hard at all . lots of people do it. in fact some newsletters have been sector trading for decades with excellent records .
i don't trust my fun trading so i only commit a limited amount of money to trading . but the funny thing is i beat the markets most years . i made lots of money trading oil stocks last year and this year gold was my biggest trading vehicle . just quick hits and repeat over and over . i am up to 31 trades in gld this year.
i have posted my ytd trading statement here a few times . 92k profits , about 1100 in losses ytd .
Not everyone gets it. There are still people who think they can day trade and beat the market.
You can day trade and beat the market, but it's few and far between. Most are not 1) disciplined enough, 2) disciplined enough, 3)NOT lazy, and do their own research, and 4)Um...did I say disciplined already?
No where in there did I say smart enough, however, in the long term in an overall portfolio it's really hard to do. It's much easier for a straight day trader than a institutional hedge fund type (in a sense, b/c here you have to be...all together now...disciplined.) because you can be much more flexible in your trades.
I've seen many who have done it, but very far between each who can make a living out of it.
I care about what happened in 2007 and 2008 about as much as I care about what happened in 1929.
The situation has changed.
Lol.
You don't care what happened in 07-08 but you pretend to know what will happen next time and not only that you know 500 companies will certainly be subject to total failure but 10-12 won't? Seems solid
Ah yes, one of our perennial threads. What could possibly be added? What could ever be added?
It seems to me, that this whole managed-vs.-index debate is intractable. Partisans of one side or the other, will never be convinced. There's too much emotional association at stake. And yet, it's also a nugatory debate. Is there really much of a difference between the S&P 500, and a US large-cap managed equity fund? I'd aver, that the real difference is between sectors and types of investments, between domestic and foreign, and so forth - and not between active and passive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobster
Well, I mean specifically in the event of a drawdown.
The magnitude of the next draw down, when it occurs, will be much greater than the previous crisis in my opinion.
If your principal concern is surviving a catastrophic "drawdown" (interesting terminology, by the way), then perhaps it's better to keep a low (or zero) allocation in equities. Why guess and fret? But why do you assert that the next crisis will be more severe than 2007-2009?
It's also worth noting, that a company could "survive" in impressive resiliency, yet its stock goes nowhere, for decades. A current example is General Electric.
Ah yes, one of our perennial threads. What could possibly be added? What could ever be added?
It seems to me, that this whole managed-vs.-index debate is intractable. Partisans of one side or the other, will never be convinced. There's too much emotional association at stake. And yet, it's also a nugatory debate. Is there really much of a difference between the S&P 500, and a US large-cap managed equity fund? I'd aver, that the real difference is between sectors and types of investments, between domestic and foreign, and so forth - and not between active and passive.
If your principal concern is surviving a catastrophic "drawdown" (interesting terminology, by the way), then perhaps it's better to keep a low (or zero) allocation in equities. Why guess and fret? But why do you assert that the next crisis will be more severe than 2007-2009?
It's also worth noting, that a company could "survive" in impressive resiliency, yet its stock goes nowhere, for decades. A current example is General Electric.
The difference is high and low cost expense of Index vs Managed funds. The managed funds has not only higher cost expense ratio, which affects your actual yield, but often it also throws off more taxable capital gains due to high trading, which is very rare if not absent with Index funds such as Vanguard. You may still want to go with a Managed fund and accept the higher cost and also risk of the manager changing, in order to get a better yield, which may or may not be higher or the same as Indexed fund. There is a reason why more people are going with Index funds.
And there we have it... within 15 minutes after my posting, we have two diametrically opposing responses, both with sound reasoning behind them, both passionate and well-phrased. What's to be made of this? Well, sheer arrogance insists, that this all supports my point. A bit more modesty, however, implies that - well, what should it imply? - maybe that a final reckoning is impossible?
Until, that is, members of the doomsday cult intrude. Why have they been so graciously absent thus far?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
