111–120 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he avoids SpaceX and Tesla, which I think is probably the driving factor in not using QQQ. Maybe he values that more than $500
tombert should instead long QQQ and short the bits they don't like
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he avoids SpaceX and Tesla, which I think is probably the driving factor in not using QQQ. Maybe he values that more than $500
If that was his genuine concern, then instead of trying to balance a portfolio of 103 stocks... you simply buy QQQ and short Tesla at 3.53% worth of your QQQ holdings.
And if we want to talk about "bad financial advice", I think telling people to try and time the market with a short is considerably worse than "buy the same shares that QQQ does".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, AI agents could help level the playing field. Citadel doesn't have any AI models that are better than what you or I have. Market data is more accessible than ever. As LLMs get better at trading, the difference in capability between you and a professional trader gets smaller. Also, Claude knows about a lot of the traps that consumers can fall into: spread, execution, risk concentration, etc. -- high chance…
What is the point of having a speculative market if everyone has access to the same information and capabilities? You might as well just direct deposit a proportional share of all economic growth relative to investment into every citizens account and be done with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he avoids SpaceX and Tesla, which I think is probably the driving factor in not using QQQ. Maybe he values that more than $500
I'm unsure what SpaceX's weighting would be in QQQ but with Tesla being <3.54% weighting it would take both companies being 0s within a year to offset the cost in taxes from reweighting...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm unsure what SpaceX's weighting would be in QQQ but with Tesla being <3.54% weighting it would take both companies being 0s within a year to offset the cost in taxes from reweighting...
Everyone keeps saying this but I'm a little confused; you're still paying the reweighting taxes with QQQ, it's just rolled into the management fees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>LLM's can actually be exceptionally good at research and pattern recognition, i.e. analysis. No they aren't, they're good at imitating analysis based on representations of analysis in their training data. Also, Its likely that out dated techniques would over represented in training data. Do you think Jane Street would have the returns they do if they just imitated all their competitors and everyone was using the sam…
[flagged]
(which I guess I will call your training data ;) )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absolutely and unfathomably terrible to such a great degree that I think it reinforces OPs point. It seems like using an LLM has given you the confidence to make an incredibly ill-informed decision that will cost you dearly. Every single time you rebalance your portfolio, you will need to pay short-term capital gains taxes on any gains, as opposed to an ETF in which you simply pay for the gains when you sell…
IBKR has payment for order flow if you use the Lite service, so it actually wouldn't be $30-40 a month. You still are paying the capital gains taxes with the ETF, they are just rolled into the management fees. You can avoid a lot of the short-term capital gains taxes by only rebalancing within certain thresholds and being ok with being "close enough" to QQQ instead of being completely aligned with QQQ. ETA: Looked it…
There is just so much wrong with this statement and several others that I don't even know where to begin.
At the end of the day... if you are having fun doing what you're doing, then by all means go for it, my main concern is that people might read what you're saying and actually get misled by it or believe that you're saying something that is true. Your statement seems sophisticated enough that someone could read it, think you have actual knowledge of this topic, and come away with the idea that this is actually a remotely good idea.
For those people... please understand that tombert has no idea what he's talking about, his reasons for what he's doing are not actually because he's trying to save any fees, or because there is anything optimal or rational behind it or he's in anyway outsmarting actual institutional ETFs.
His genuine reason for this appears to be entirely whimsical and for his own amusement and enjoyment, and honestly that is fine, people can do what they want with their own money and there is nothing inherently immoral about this. My main issue is him not being upfront about his actual incentive and instead misleading people into thinking that there is some kind of economic advantage behind this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone keeps saying this but I'm a little confused; you're still paying the reweighting taxes with QQQ, it's just rolled into the management fees.
https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/investment-products...
Now this idea is sounding pretty stupid. Damn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IBKR has payment for order flow if you use the Lite service, so it actually wouldn't be $30-40 a month. You still are paying the capital gains taxes with the ETF, they are just rolled into the management fees. You can avoid a lot of the short-term capital gains taxes by only rebalancing within certain thresholds and being ok with being "close enough" to QQQ instead of being completely aligned with QQQ. ETA: Looked it…
>You still are paying the capital gains taxes with the ETF, they are just rolled into the management fees. There is just so much wrong with this statement and several others that I don't even know where to begin. At the end of the day... if you are having fun doing what you're doing, then by all means go for it, my main concern is that people might read what you're saying and actually get misled by it or believe that…
I was definitely wrong; I misunderstood something about ETFs. ETFs probably are more tax efficient after all, or maybe some kind of direct indexing thing if I want to avoid Tesla and/or SpaceX.
I'll acknowledge that there's some validity in "doing things for my amusement". I do think that if I avoid selling things and instead only buy to rebalance, that could avoid a lot of tax bullshit, but that's definitely not what I was suggesting before so I'll acknowledge that I was absolutely in the wrong.
ETA:
I actually think I agree with you for the most part. I don't think it's the worst financial advice on HN but it's definitely not good financial advice either.
It's too late to edit the root comment directly but I did email HN support to ask if they could amend it for me.