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.
Oh, really? You've seen research specifically addressing the performance of individual investors vs. mutual fund managers and providing a solid argument as to why they should be compared? I'd love to see that.
Well, since the question of whether the performance of individual investors vs. mutual fund managers is an apples to apples comparison is more a matter of OPINION than something that can be PROVEN, you've apparently 1) lost track of what we were debating, or 2) thrown in the towel with a nonsensical response. Since you seem like an intelligent person probably not prone to episodes of drastic short-term memory loss, I'll assume it's the latter.
Something that is almost never recognized is that keeping pace with the S&P 500 is a little more difficult than most neophytes imagine because the S&P 500 is made up of the best companies available. When you hear the word 'average' it is easy to assume that all companies are included. But we investors know better. Still, we forget.
Something that is almost never recognized is that keeping pace with the S&P 500 is a little more difficult than most neophytes imagine because the S&P 500 is made up of the best companies available. When you hear the word 'average' it is easy to assume that all companies are included. But we investors know better. Still, we forget.
I think the S&P 500 is made up of the largest 500 companies.
Everytime I look at a chart like the S&P 500, the one thing that stands out is the head and shoulders pattern, and the eventual collapse of the stocks. Might not happen, but sure looks like it.
Everytime I look at a chart like the S&P 500, the one thing that stands out is the head and shoulders pattern, and the eventual collapse of the stocks. Might not happen, but sure looks like it.
The S&P chart is very very scary IMO. You can't help but wonder, what do those 3 bubbles represent? Will it collapse because of a bond market collapse (higher yields)? China dwarfing the US in the next 20-30 years?
Notice how the rate of ascension increased since 1994 and 95. Greenspan's irrational exuberance. And not letting long term capital management fail in 98. Which fueled the 00/01 tech bubble, 05/06 housing bubble, mortgage sub prime bubble. Nothing was allowed to clear, and you had these wild boom/bust cycles.
The S&P chart is very very scary IMO. You can't help but wonder, what do those 3 bubbles represent? Will it collapse because of a bond market collapse (higher yields)? China dwarfing the US in the next 20-30 years?
Notice how the rate of ascension increased since 1994 and 95. Greenspan's irrational exuberance. And not letting long term capital management fail in 98. Which fueled the 00/01 tech bubble, 05/06 housing bubble, mortgage sub prime bubble. Nothing was allowed to clear, and you had these wild boom/bust cycles.
One thing is for sure. Things are not getting better, and won't for years to come. This massive debt cycle will not end in a pretty fashion. Too bad most people have absolutely no clue what is going on around them.
One thing is for sure. Things are not getting better, and won't for years to come. This massive debt cycle will not end in a pretty fashion. Too bad most people have absolutely no clue what is going on around them.
I think we've been living on borrowed time, probably since 1998 or 2000.
George Soros thought our super bubble would have popped in 98. The conventional wisdom would have been....our trade deficits would have reduced the dollar, driven up interest rates (can real interest rates be 1 or 2% if money is scarce/fixed, and we have trillion dollar deficits every year?? Interest rates are suppose to go up if you become a credit risk. And we're borrowing our heads off). Higher rates mean lower stock market, weaker economy, and the cycle goes down. And we go back to some kind of equilibrium.
What's the equilibrium with the FED not buying our bonds? Or with no government intervention?
Everytime I look at a chart like the S&P 500, the one thing that stands out is the head and shoulders pattern, and the eventual collapse of the stocks. Might not happen, but sure looks like it.
That's not a head and shoulders pattern. You're making interpretations based on an outdated chart. We have broken past the 2008 highs, which invalidates the head and shoulders pattern.
The fact that the 50 day SMA crossed the 200 day back in early 2011 is a bullish sign.
It must be nice to think that starting the premise of your statement off with an assumption that your claim is correct actually impresses anyone.
You don't like that the research shows that what you do is inherently riskier. Message received. I think you've beaten the dead horse enough, don't you?
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.
