161–170 of 357 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That remains to be seen What would a more powerful USA look like? It doesn't appear that the country is after an empire the same way the British had one 100 years ago, so raw aggression is out. I can't imagine a realistic scenario that doesn't require the implosion of other nations to embiggen America.
Embiggen?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're right 51% of the time when you invest you're going to get rich. Sorry, but this is completely incorrect. The approximate formula for success in investing or trading is "percentage right" * "average win profit" - "percentage wrong" * "average loss" = overall profit. Many traders are correct only 20% of the time (I'm looking at you, stock options traders) but make fortunes because they understand this formu…
Yes, and you can also be be right most of the time, and have below market returns because of transaction costs or management fees.
Investment houses don't start from the same place as an index fund. Their returns are penalized from the start due to the fee structure. So not only do they have to beat the market, they have to do it by a sizeable margin before the end user sees a profit advantage.
For a retail investor it is hard to justify not choosing an index fund.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That remains to be seen What would a more powerful USA look like? It doesn't appear that the country is after an empire the same way the British had one 100 years ago, so raw aggression is out. I can't imagine a realistic scenario that doesn't require the implosion of other nations to embiggen America.
Embiggen?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> USA is superpower at the peak. That remains to be seen > Argentina used to be richest country in the world. That is not true. In the early 20th century they were top 10, but never surpassed Britain or the US in GDP per capita.
> That remains to be seen What would a more powerful USA look like? It doesn't appear that the country is after an empire the same way the British had one 100 years ago, so raw aggression is out. I can't imagine a realistic scenario that doesn't require the implosion of other nations to embiggen America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Understand the market, understand the product and technology well, and you can do significantly better than any wall street analyst. Don't rush into it, but do your research. Look at the numbers and the growth potential. This is very dangerous advice because it just ain't true. Under efficient markets, you can do equally well as "any wall street analyst"
1. Markets aren't efficient. They're full of emotion and greed. They can be irrational. Just look at Brexit - even stocks that had zero exposure to the UK (directly or indirectly) sold off significantly. 2. Why would you assume you can't do better than an analyst, in your area of expertise? Someone who understands tech well will be able to make better tech investments, than, let's say, investments in mining. That see…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> USA is superpower at the peak. That remains to be seen > Argentina used to be richest country in the world. That is not true. In the early 20th century they were top 10, but never surpassed Britain or the US in GDP per capita.
> That remains to be seen What would a more powerful USA look like? It doesn't appear that the country is after an empire the same way the British had one 100 years ago, so raw aggression is out. I can't imagine a realistic scenario that doesn't require the implosion of other nations to embiggen America.
Not saying it would happen but I think that's one scenario that would be even "more powerful".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested in walking the quant path. Just how high is the bar? And would there be an equivalent project that would put a prospective quant to the top of the resume pile?
I've attached two pdf's on what you should expect. The latter was the take home an old company used to give quants as a test. If you can answer the questions on teh practicum then you probably have enough math skills to start as a quant. https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1iikX5PwNx4d2dKQ3FT...
1) Last 100 years has ZERO chance to be the same as the next 100 years.
2) The SP 500 adds and subtracts companies as they grow, fold and go bankrupt. So the only way this would be maybe work is if you invested in the ETF.
3) Macro-economic events are notoriously hard to predict and anticipate, and your returns are very much tied to how you time your entry point. If you invested in the beginning of 2008, you would have a 33% return, same for a 2001 entry. In the beginning of 2009, around 100%.
Or a mid 2013 entry would get you a 17% return for three years, around 5% a year.
And if you invested in mid 2014, you haven't seen ANY return, 0%.
The point is that entry points are insanely important. Getting 33% return for 15 years is horrible, especially given the opportunity costs.
This is the problem that you get when Warren Buffet fools you into "buy and hold". Yes, it has worked for him, but he is an insanely great investor. You can't replicate his returns. You can't even sniff his returns.
So what's the answer? I don't know, do what you want with your money, just don't listen to anyone who thinks they know the answer.
There are a lot of issues with this data. 1) Last 100 years has ZERO chance to be the same as the next 100 years. 2) The SP 500 adds and subtracts companies as they grow, fold and go bankrupt. So the only way this would be maybe work is if you invested in the ETF. 3) Macro-economic events are notoriously hard to predict and anticipate, and your returns are very much tied to how you time your entry point. If you inves…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For most practical purposes, there's not much difference between ETFs and Mutual Funds. Some point out some greater risk in ETFs because they can lend their securities : http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/21031-understanding-...
As other person pointed out, mutual funds are much more expensive.