Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Investing Returns on the S&P500

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 357 posts

Re: Investing Returns on the S&P500

#181

Post by specialist »

mac01021 wrote: post #17
jakozaur wrote: post #12

I don't think it is fair to say that next 100 years will be same as last 100 years: 1. GDP growth is not as high as it used to be anywhere in developed world: http://www.oecd.org/std/productivity-stats/oecd-compendium-o... 2. USA is superpower at the peak. Plenty of other stock market economies hasn't been so successful. E.g. Argentina used to be one of the richest country in the world. Investing in history is easy,…

So what alternative method do you propose for predicting growth (or decline) over the next century?

Demographics. Africa, Nigeria in particular, looks like China and India of decades past.

Re: Investing Returns on the S&P500

#182

Post by cloudjacker »

chollida1 wrote: post #116
mailshanx wrote: post #100

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...

if you enjoyed that too bad you'll never do any of it on the job

Re: Investing Returns on the S&P500

#184

Post by xiaoma »

jakozaur wrote: post #12

I don't think it is fair to say that next 100 years will be same as last 100 years: 1. GDP growth is not as high as it used to be anywhere in developed world: http://www.oecd.org/std/productivity-stats/oecd-compendium-o... 2. USA is superpower at the peak. Plenty of other stock market economies hasn't been so successful. E.g. Argentina used to be one of the richest country in the world. Investing in history is easy,…

>"anywhere in developed world"

I hate this terminology. If the US has, in fact, "finished" developing, then the future of the S&P will be bleak. I don't think that's the case at all, though. I think development has just started and we'll see fantastic advances in bio-informatics, solar power, 3D printing and a number of other fields in the upcoming decades.

When I was a teenager, I pirated music. I seriously hope my children pirate gourmet cheeses and burritos as teenagers. I download apps that organize my notes. May they download the bio-app that lets them dunk from the free throw line.

Re: Investing Returns on the S&P500

#185

Post by [deleted] »

Redoubts wrote: post #142
JackFr wrote: post #23

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.

[deleted]

Re: Investing Returns on the S&P500

#186

Post by clock_tower »

Redoubts wrote: post #142
JackFr wrote: post #23

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.

> What would a more powerful USA look like?

Passenger rail; durable houses; less unemployment and more labor-force participation; a population not balkanized along political/cultural lines.

Re: Investing Returns on the S&P500

#187

Post by cloudjacker »

Chris2048 wrote: post #96
charlesdm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 for using industry knowledge. Most of my money is invested in ETFs, however, I've been able to beat the market by significant amounts when I invested in tech stocks because I understood what drives the price. There are plenty of small cap tech stocks that have doubled / tripled the last few years. Understand the market, understand the product and technology well, and you can do significantly better than any wall s…

But how do you understand the market? Is looking at the company numbers enough, or do you have to look at companies in detail? Is domain knowledge enough, or do you need to look at corporate culture, people and business plans? How fast do you need to be, in term of reacting to events?

Supply and demand... if you know a stock is heavily shorted and Martin Shkreli owns 70% of all the stock and tells his broker to turn off the borrowability, then there's A) a lot less stock to short B) current shorts have to deliver C) less shares to buy when they cover

what happen?

Re: Investing Returns on the S&P500

#188

Post by dragonwriter »

xiaoma wrote: post #184
jakozaur wrote: post #12

I don't think it is fair to say that next 100 years will be same as last 100 years: 1. GDP growth is not as high as it used to be anywhere in developed world: http://www.oecd.org/std/productivity-stats/oecd-compendium-o... 2. USA is superpower at the peak. Plenty of other stock market economies hasn't been so successful. E.g. Argentina used to be one of the richest country in the world. Investing in history is easy,…

> "anywhere in developed world" I hate this terminology. If the US has, in fact, "finished" developing, then the future of the S&P will be bleak. I don't think that's the case at all, though. I think development has just started and we'll see fantastic advances in bio-informatics, solar power, 3D printing and a number of other fields in the upcoming decades. When I was a teenager, I pirated music. I seriously hope my…

"Developed" is a relative term (more fully, it would be "More Developed"), not a statement of completion (this is somewhat confused by the currently-accepted alternative, "developing", but it was more clear with the more accurate, previously common, alternative "Less Developed".)

Re: Investing Returns on the S&P500

#189

Post by vox_mollis »

Redoubts wrote: post #142
JackFr wrote: post #23

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.

It doesn't appear that the country is after an empire the same way the British had one 100 years ago

US empire is defined more by squashing incipient threats to its global hegemony than by UK-style colony management.

Re: Investing Returns on the S&P500

#190

Post by jlebar »

Retric wrote: post #27
stevenmays wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So at Year 1, we take every point on the S&P500 curve, look at every point on the S&P500 that's one year ahead, add in dividends and subtract inflation, and record all points as a relative gain or loss for Year 1. Point #3 is wrong.

While inflation was adjusted for it was not accurately adjusted for as it ignored taxes. If your returns are 10% and inflation is 10% you get taxed on that 10% and lose money. PS: Now if this is for 401k accounts or something that's another story.

This is misleading. The question is, what is a better strategy? Like, you lose real value after this scenario, but you would have lost more if you'd have kept the money under your mattress. The only relevant question is: compared to other strategies, do you come out ahead?
Post reply on HN