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.
There's a "fast" way to wealth, and a "slow" way. The slow way is inefficient, exasperating, and... slow. But it generally works. The fast way is glamorous and stunning. But it generally fails. Those who have become truly rich, have gone the fast way. But of those who have tried the fast way, the overwhelming majority has failed.
As to the appropriateness of comparing indices to picking individual stocks, well, the whole point is to attempt to beat the index, is it not? If my picks have done no better than the index this year, maybe I was unlucky. If my picks have lagged the index for 10 or 20 years cumulatively, I'm a fool - who ought to just have bought the index.
Best way to get rich fast is to find fast growing things when they are small. Apple, Facebook, google, bitcoin, and countless other examples of this over the years. This is why my 2018 pick is EXPI and I own it personally, and why I'm still bullish on crypto currencies. 600 billion dollars in combined global investment is still pretty small. The crypto space should support around $2T or so of investing pretty easily and this will come as more big institutions start to support the space. The altcoins I own are what I'm most excited about.
Cloud based realtor that's rapidly growing with a tiny market cap...plenty of room for growth. Play money gets put into the risky stuff though. Always diversify
... Play money gets put into the risky stuff though. Always diversify
Of course. But unless the returns are truly spectacular (as opposed to merely very large), mere play-money won't make one rich. Two (at least) out of three ingredients are necessary: a large initial investment, good rate of return, and lots of time.
It's not a false equivalency, it's an accurate and true baseline for performance. It's not a matter of convincing anyone or anything it's a reference point. Underperforming an index, especially by 20%+ is abysmal and again underperforming the s&p straight up is one thing but then on a risk adjusted basis well is a fail. Maybe next year is better but that wouldn't change the current situation.
Is this why people say when they are trying to excuse a poor year's performance?
LowExpectations - We await your selections for the 2018 Game.
There's a "fast" way to wealth, and a "slow" way. The slow way is inefficient, exasperating, and... slow. But it generally works. The fast way is glamorous and stunning. But it generally fails. Those who have become truly rich, have gone the fast way. But of those who have tried the fast way, the overwhelming majority has failed.
As to the appropriateness of comparing indices to picking individual stocks, well, the whole point is to attempt to beat the index, is it not? If my picks have done no better than the index this year, maybe I was unlucky. If my picks have lagged the index for 10 or 20 years cumulatively, I'm a fool - who ought to just have bought the index.
So, who can prove that they're not a fool?
majority of people will fail to beat the index for the simple reason its a relatively small percentage of companies in the S+P which drive the market each year so your chances of picking the individual winners are quite small , most people are not smart enough and besides the market is manipulated in the short term by big money , take apple , there was no reason for it to be below $100 as recently as eighteen months ago when its at $ 170 and over today , that was big money shorting the life out of it
same thing happened with financials nearly two years ago , bank of america was shorted to $10 off the back of a false rumour that the banks were heavily exposed to the energy sector ( itself being shorted of course ) , bank of america is nearly $30 today
majority of people will fail to beat the index for the simple reason its a relatively small percentage of companies in the S+P which drive the market each year so your chances of picking the individual winners are quite small , most people are not smart enough and besides the market is manipulated in the short term by big money , take apple , there was no reason for it to be below $100 as recently as eighteen months ago when its at $ 170 and over today , that was big money shorting the life out of it
same thing happened with financials nearly two years ago , bank of america was shorted to $10 off the back of a false rumour that the banks were heavily exposed to the energy sector ( itself being shorted of course ) , bank of america is nearly $30 today
Do you think it was a false rumor that the banks had heavy exposure to the energy sector? I can assure you that wasn’t and still isn’t false. What didn’t happen is you didn’t have much default in that space but that doesn’t mean the exposure wasn’t there
Do you think it was a false rumor that the banks had heavy exposure to the energy sector? I can assure you that wasn’t and still isn’t false. What didn’t happen is you didn’t have much default in that space but that doesn’t mean the exposure wasn’t there
What was false was just how badly they were in bed with oil. After previous losses in the sector the banks have smartened up; they kept their investments to low single digits (3% or so +/-) and most loaned money was backed by assets which could be sold off to recover most losses.
It was a blood bath for sure but a temporary one at that and the smart folks jumped on the buying opportunities.
What was false was just how badly they were in bed with oil. After previous losses in the sector the banks have smartened up; they kept their investments to low single digits (3% or so +/-) and most loaned money was backed by assets which could be sold off to recover most losses.
It was a blood bath for sure but a temporary one at that and the smart folks jumped on the buying opportunities.
Low single digits 3% or so if what? Do you have support to the claim and that most of the loans were secured?
Low single digits 3% or so if what? Do you have support to the claim and that most of the loans were secured?
Earnings calls
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.
