11–20 of 136 posts
The same thing happened to me. I had lost 2M in bad deals. "The illusion of control, overestimate your risk" and failure to understand "probability", the tail risk was responsible for my ruin.
You could live like a king in a lot of places with $2mil...almost for life. Not in NYC but the world has a lot of countries
As a junior trader navigating the markets during that time I noticed that nobody has a clue about anything. Pundits, researchers, analysts, Junior guys, Senior guys... They all pretend to know. I'm not suggesting the markets are truly random. Systematic profits are feasible year over year... But only to the select few who are in the right product or looking at the market in the right way. I suppose it's those guys th…
You seem to be falling for the same myth: That "certain wizards" can get +EV. Every casino on Earth makes money from this myth. I believe that there are no wizards in the stock market (or in business in general), and everyone's gains and losses vs the total market are for the most part random chance.
I'm reminded of the coin flip exercise one of my statistics professors did. Everyone in the class stand up and get a coin. Flip the coin, if it's tails, sit down, and the rest of the class repeats the exercise until only one person remains standing. Then interview that student and ask them how they became such a good heads-flipper, and what great strategy he/she used to flip so many heads in a row. This illustrates the survivorship bias we fall victim to when we look at someone successful and try to determine what wizardry they used to become that way.
As a junior trader navigating the markets during that time I noticed that nobody has a clue about anything. Pundits, researchers, analysts, Junior guys, Senior guys... They all pretend to know. I'm not suggesting the markets are truly random. Systematic profits are feasible year over year... But only to the select few who are in the right product or looking at the market in the right way. I suppose it's those guys th…
> Systematic profits are feasible year over year... But only to the select few who are in the right product or looking at the market in the right way. You seem to be falling for the same myth: That "certain wizards" can get +EV. Every casino on Earth makes money from this myth. I believe that there are no wizards in the stock market (or in business in general), and everyone's gains and losses vs the total market are…
My stock picks have been:
* Google in 2003, because I worked in a call center and saw EVERYONE using it all the sudden to find answers on tech support calls.
* Chipotle at their IPO because I saw the huge lines at every location in my city.
* Amazon in 2008 after the big stock market crash, simply because it just seemed super undervalued considering everyone was still using it / loved it.
* Broadcom in 2014 because it was obvious the cellular industry was going to keep growing and they were well-positioned / undervalued at the time.
None of that thinking required me being a wizard. Nor was it luck. More just seeing obvious momentum and being willing to act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Systematic profits are feasible year over year... But only to the select few who are in the right product or looking at the market in the right way. You seem to be falling for the same myth: That "certain wizards" can get +EV. Every casino on Earth makes money from this myth. I believe that there are no wizards in the stock market (or in business in general), and everyone's gains and losses vs the total market are…
Your comment seems so ignorant to me. Maybe that's true if you are day trading, or picking dozens of short-term holds each year instead of long-term buys. My stock picks have been: * Google in 2003, because I worked in a call center and saw EVERYONE using it all the sudden to find answers on tech support calls. * Chipotle at their IPO because I saw the huge lines at every location in my city. * Amazon in 2008 after t…
This ignores the people who also "saw the obvious" in 2003, 2008, and 2014 who lost their shirt.
The same thing happened to me. I had lost 2M in bad deals. "The illusion of control, overestimate your risk" and failure to understand "probability", the tail risk was responsible for my ruin.
2 mil was all you had, more or less? Must've been devastating. You could live like a king in a lot of places with $2mil...almost for life. Not in NYC but the world has a lot of countries
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment seems so ignorant to me. Maybe that's true if you are day trading, or picking dozens of short-term holds each year instead of long-term buys. My stock picks have been: * Google in 2003, because I worked in a call center and saw EVERYONE using it all the sudden to find answers on tech support calls. * Chipotle at their IPO because I saw the huge lines at every location in my city. * Amazon in 2008 after t…
That a great example of survivorship bias! Take a successful outcome and look back for decisions that must have led to it. This ignores the people who also "saw the obvious" in 2003, 2008, and 2014 who lost their shirt.
The examples I listed were not random chance. They are companies that had absolutely dominated their market positioning and were later massively rewarded for doing so. It's fairly easy to see when a company is eating everyone else's lunch.
Again, it isn't just random chance. It also isn't rocket science..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2 mil was all you had, more or less? Must've been devastating. You could live like a king in a lot of places with $2mil...almost for life. Not in NYC but the world has a lot of countries
You can retire comfortably almost anywhere with $2M. 3% is an extremely safe "withdrawal rate" if you invest the money in index funds, and that gives you an annual income of $60k. That's a solid middle-class income anywhere in the US, and luxury in South-East Asia.
All I'm saying is that retirement planning is a bit weird because if you do it when you're 20 you might miss some expenses that older people have that you are not yet aware of :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That a great example of survivorship bias! Take a successful outcome and look back for decisions that must have led to it. This ignores the people who also "saw the obvious" in 2003, 2008, and 2014 who lost their shirt.
The issue with your argument is pretending the stock market is similar to a coin flip. That's a very facile comparison. In reality each company is a very complex black box in which you can only see very limited internals. The examples I listed were not random chance. They are companies that had absolutely dominated their market positioning and were later massively rewarded for doing so. It's fairly easy to see when a…