[cardguy]

I've changed my mind. It is all a crock of shit. Nobody knows anything.

This isn't about Jim Cramer, it is about the industry as a whole.

Hey my fund made 10 percent last year. Cool? But the market was up 15 percent as a whole last year. So why should I invest with you again?

Give me your money - and I will double it in ten years. Cool - I think my bank can do the same since fucking inflation will double most people's money over that period of time.

Hey invest in this fund - it has made excellent returns of 10-12% for the past 15 years. Wow? Really? What about the other 200 funds that didn't that you have closed down over the years - thus giving the illusion you only ever had one fund which is the one which 'never fails'.

Hey? Give me a bunch of money. We will give you back a 10% return for each year that your money is tied up with us. Oh really? Cool. Wanna' put that in a legal contract - so that I can sue you if you don't meet those figures? Thought not - you are full of shit.

Hey? Give us your money - and we will make more money from it Sounds great. But if you have such a surefire thing - why are you wasting your time with me? Why don't you just go become rich on your own? Why do you need help from me?

Hey? Warren Buffett is a genius. Well two things - he probably is and you certainly are not. But secondly - even Warren Buffett admits that most of his money came through the magic of compound interest over a 65 year investing career. To quote a recent article:

Quote:

Of Warren Buffett’s current $60 billion net worth, $59.3 billion came after his 50th birthday, and $57 billion came after his 60th. Compound interest works its wonders only in very long periods of time.

The FTSE 100 has risen 300 percent over the past 20 years. Wow - really? And what about all the companies that dropped out the FTSE 100 over the past 20 years or went bust? The FTSE 100 is a collection of companies. And if you look at the FTSE 100 for ten or twenty years ago - you will see that most of those companies have done shit (with a couple of exceptions). It is like 'investing' in the pop bands who were in the Top Ten 20 years ago. Sure one or two of them are still doing well - but the rest of them have hit the wall.

Yet the Top Ten is selling more records than ever? Indeed. The 'Top Ten' and the people who make up the 'Top Ten' are two separate things often confused by the gullible.

And as for all the fees that the money men charge? I will leave it to Fred Schwed Jr. who wrote the observed the following 60 years ago:

Quote:

Long long ago, an out-of-town visitor to New York was admiring the elegant vessels harboured off the Financial District;

"Those are the bankers' and brokers' yachts!" exclaimed the guide.

"But where are the customers' yachts?" questioned the naïve visitor in response...

For those of you who hate the Banksters and the way they fucked over the world in the last financial crisis (and expect another one in the next decade since they come round like clockwork every 15 years) - you have to ask yourself why you are still trusting them with your money?

I have being feeling this way for awhile. But I wanted to put together this post after reading the following book which clearly sets out the statistics showing that for most people they will actually get a better return on their money by sticking it in a bank - versus handing it over to an investment guru (ie a recent university graduate in a badly fitted suit) to invest in the stock market:

http://monkeywithapin.com/

[The Lizard of Oz]

cardguy, what are you saying exactly?

It's one thing to say that you cannot systematically beat the market by "stock picking", or by investing in actively managed funds. That's arguably true. In other words, the average investor might do just as well if not better (especially after fees) simply investing in an index fund rather than in an actively managed mutual fund even if the latter has a track record of outperforming the market.

However, in parts of your post you seem to be saying that sticking your money in the bank provides better returns than investing in the market -- and this is demonstrably false over sufficiently long time periods. Yes, one has to correct for the rebalancing effects of major indices (meaning the current stocks in a large cap index tend to be stocks that have outperformed their peers so there is a survivorship bias), but that very certainly does not explain the entirety of stock market returns.

Just thinking about basic economics, investing in a stock entails risk (because the company could lose its equity), and this risk is compensated by excess expected return over time. A world in which stocks do not provide excess return (after adjusting for inflation) over bank deposit rates would be a world that makes no economic sense. Of course all of this is true over sufficiently long time horizons -- in any given year, the markets can crash and so on. So I'm not making any comment about whether now is a good time to be invested in the market or otherwise, only about what is true in the very long term.

In short, if you want to argue that investment advisors do not add much value, that's a defensible position although there are good arguments on the other side as well. But if you want to say that the stock market as a whole is somehow generally worthless, then this is a very strange idea that flies in the face of pretty obvious facts.

As far as "banksters" go, they're a bunch that is easy to malign, but except for cases of outright fraud (which exist but are not all that frequent) they make their money by providing services that other people want -- they don't force anyone to use their services. So if you really admire Milton Friedman as much as you say you do, you should consider the possibility that the invisible hand is collectively smarter than yourself or any given individual, and if so many people willingly pay so much money for the services provided by the bankers then maybe there is some value being added to the economy as a whole. And if there isn't, you should ask yourself, as Friedman certainly would, who you would entrust to be the arbiter of this.

[WestCoast]

Buy spy and dollar cost average into the index then.

Otherwise have fun losing all of your money year after year after year returning 1% when inflation runs at 2-3%. You are going broke if you don't own assets.


Warren Buffet's famous quote:
"Diversification is protection against ignorance"

[cardguy]

Well - any value that investment advisors add is subtracted by all the fees and hidden fees thay charge.

Once you factor in the fees - most people would be better off just having their money in an instant savings bank account.

That is the crux of what I am saying. And that is with the 'good' ones. And not taking into account all the dodgy investment advisors out there.

[WestCoast]

^ then just SPY as I have noted in my post. 0.09% fee for the creation of the index (it's an ETF not a managed fund)

[Onto]

Everything in life is cyclical. You don't need to look further than the fact you sleep and wake every day. The sun rises and sets. So goes the stock market. It goes up, but can't do it in a straight line. It must come down as well. As far as making money in the market, it's very difficult. You need very good timing. Warren was investing during a very long uptrend. Good timing.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(01-24-2014 06:27 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Well - any value that investment advisors add is subtracted by all the fees and hidden fees thay charge.

Once you factor in the fees - most people would be better off just having their money in an instant savings bank account.

That is the crux of what I am saying. And that is with the 'good' ones. And not taking into account all the dodgy investment advisors out there.

Hold on -- you're making a strange logical jump here.

Your first sentence implies (if true) that investment advisors don't add any value over randomly investing in the market (aka an index fund such as SPY).

How do you get from there to an "instant savings bank account"?

It's just flatly untrue that stocks as a whole do not provide an excess return over time; they do. With the key caveat being "over time".

[cardguy]

In the UK - only 60% of the companies in the FTSE 100 are still there compared to 1999.

And - accounting for inflation - the FTSE 100 has lost 40% since 1999. Even though it is currently close to a 'record high' since those reported record highs never take into account inflation (which is why each year - the hit summer blockbuster is the 'largest grossing' of all time).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/perso...-1999.html

I admit I am no expert in this area. My bullshit sensors are just starting to flare up. The stock market is something that people invest in unthinkingly - thinking it must always go up over time. And I am calling bullshit. It is the same mentality which has lead to the bubble in university debt as well. The idea that 'university is a good investment - because everybody says so'. And as with the stock market - corrupt and silly statistics are created to justify the folk wisdom.

The only people who get rich in the stock market are the bankers. They take the reward whilst saddlling the investors with the risk.

Maybe I'm a moron. I am certainly wrong on alot of issues. But I am listening to my gut on this one.

[WestCoast]

^ lol spoken like someone who has read zero books on investing.

You realize in the USA the SPy replaces companies in the f500 on a rolling basis right?

Pull up a chart bro.



"Bankers" also make zero dollars on the market going up, sideways or down bro.

Let's end this discussion with a blatant and obvious questions

is shit going to be more or less expensive in 30 years?

More.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(01-24-2014 06:41 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

In the UK - only 60% of the companies in the FTSE 100 are still there compared to 1999.

And - accounting for inflation - the FTSE 100 has lost 40% since 1999. Even though it is currently close to a 'record high' since those reported record highs never take into account inflation (which is why each year - the hit summer blockbuster is the 'largest grossing' of all time).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/perso...-1999.html

I admit I am no expert in this area. My bullshit sensors are just starting to flare up. The stock market is something that people invest in unthinkingly - thinking it must always go up over time. And I am calling bullshit. It is the same mentality which has lead to the bubble in university debt as well. The idea that 'university is a good investment - because everybody says so'. And as with the stock market - corrupt and silly statistics are created to justify the folk wisdom.

The only people who get rich in the stock market are the bankers. They take the reward whilst saddlling the investors with the risk.

Maybe I'm a moron. I am certainly wrong on alot of issues. But I am listening to my gut on this one.

Well, 1999 was an all-time high market bubble. Picking that as a starting point is the definition of "cherry-picking".

If you look at how stocks perform over time -- meaning many decades -- they provide excess returns adjusting for inflation, as basic economics says they must to compensate for the risks they entail. And these returns are easily available to the humble average investor using the simplest buy and hold strategy.

Of course those risks also mean than in the short or intermediate term, any stock and the market as a whole can lose value. Otherwise they wouldn't be risks, would they?

[WestCoast]

^ no need to waste your time he can't even tell you how dollar cost averaging works. He didn't read and is now spinning wheels like a brand new Ferrari.

Simple man. If S&P goes from 1500 to 600 to 1500 again... You should be UP several percentage points (using the latest recession recovery it would be a CAGR of about 6-7% outpacing inflation by 4% roughly.)

If you want to blindly invest dollar cost spy. End of discussion trying to make you money here.

[cardguy]

I'm putting my money in property.

I think clearing your mortgage - or not having to pay rent - is better than investing in the market. There is no better feeling than not having to write a check to the bank or your landlord each month.

And I appreciate the input from WestCoast and The Lizard of Oz. You guys know alot more than me. But I just wanted to get this off my chest. I am skeptical as fuck about the finance game right now.

[WestCoast]

^ that's fine better make sure the interest rate is low my man.

If you're buying at 4 selling at 7 you're flat quicker than quick sand.

[Dexter Moser]

(01-24-2014 05:46 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

I have being feeling this way for awhile. But I wanted to put together this post after reading the following book which clearly sets out the statistics showing that for most people they will actually get a better return on their money by sticking it in a bank - versus handing it over to an investment guru (ie a recent university graduate in a badly fitted suit) to invest in the stock market:

http://monkeywithapin.com/

That's probably true, for most people. But most people are idiots. They buy when the market is at its peak and sell when it is at its low. And you are EXACTLY right about not paying fees to people who probably don't know any more than you do. But there is an alternative: Put your long term investment portfolio - money you won't need for 20-40 years - in a low cost equity index fund. That has returned about 9-10% annually over the past 100 yrs, and it has been remarkably consistent: it has returned 9-10% in just about every individual decade since the 1920's. The 2000's might be the one exception; I need to check. 9 or 10% is a LOT higher than you will ever get from a bank, unless of course inflation is over 10%.

[RexImperator]

OP should read A Random Walk Down Wall St. by B.Malkiel. It expresses some of the same sentiments although in a more nuanced fashion. It would recommend Index Funds over a bank/mattress.

Some retirement products and managed funds definitely are a "scam" but only in the way they they eat up returns with excessive fees. It's like compound interest but in reverse.

[reaper23]

(01-24-2014 06:46 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

^ lol spoken like someone who has read zero books on investing.

You realize in the USA the SPy replaces companies in the f500 on a rolling basis right?

Pull up a chart bro.



"Bankers" also make zero dollars on the market going up, sideways or down bro.

Let's end this discussion with a blatant and obvious questions

is shit going to be more or less expensive in 30 years?

More.

i'm usually in agreement with your posts.

but nothing is ever certain, ever.

people said the same shit about real estate (never going down).

we are fighting like mad against deflation right now. that fight might end being a loser. you never know for sure

[WestCoast]

^ okay how about this one then what is smarter.

1. Guaranteed losses in a savings account (fact)
2. Risk making money by indexing, buying bonds, assets (real estate) and other investment vehicles

If you don't believe a checking/savings account will lose you money, look up the inflation rate over the last 100 years. Only 2-5 of those years did prices not inflate.

I'll take my chances.

Markets will oscillate up and down of course, even if the market is down 10-20% this year IDGAF I am still buying assets no matter what. A checking/savings account is straight up dumb.

[Veloce]

Yeah no offense cardguy but there's some serious facepalm-worthy stuff in your OP. You need to read up some more.

You brought up the point of "My fund is up 10%. Well hey the market is up 15%. "

Great, invest in the "market", or SPY ETF. Worried about brokerage fees? Great Vanguard doesn't have any. Want to buy common stocks with low fees? Great do it through Merrill Edge.

Go read The Intelligent Investor. If there's parts you don't understand then come back and post about it, but it's a bit ridiculous to say "The Stock Market is Bullshit".

How exactly are you going to invest in real estate? Buying property? Good luck with that. You could simply buy shares of a REIT ETF and they're doing quite well.

Savings account with a bank = you losing money. Their interest rate can't and won't match inflation rate.

Also think about this, and this is why dollar cost averaging is key:

Oftentimes I talk to coworkers or other guys about investing. They ask me shit like, "Oh? You play the market?" This is stupid. "Playing the market" conjures imagery of me throwing $500 of chips on black and spinning a roulette wheel, when it's anything but.

If I buy $500 worth of Intel this month and it goes down 5% over the next 30 days, I'm fucking psyched. Why? Because something that I just purchased is now CHEAPER, so that the next month the $500 I put into Intel buys me MORE SHARES.

The key to investing is controlling your emotions. Everyone's heard "Buy low sell high" but it's incredible how few people actually do that.

[Veloce]

(01-24-2014 06:55 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

I'm putting my money in property.

I think clearing your mortgage - or not having to pay rent - is better than investing in the market. There is no better feeling than not having to write a check to the bank or your landlord each month.

And I appreciate the input from WestCoast and The Lizard of Oz. You guys know alot more than me. But I just wanted to get this off my chest. I am skeptical as fuck about the finance game right now.

There's a common misconception with many investors, beginners and intermediates usually, that there was some investing "heyday" that they've missed out on and it's too late now and who can trust these modern times?

This is why it's crucial for you to read read read on investing. This shit has always been going on. There have been speculation bubbles for hundreds of years, way before housing, before dot-coms, before nasdaq. If you're sitting around thinking, "Well, who knows what the future brings so I'm going to stuff my cash under my mattress." chances are you're doomed to miss out on huge opportunities.

By all means keep cash. Up to you how much. If you're really paranoid keep half in cash. I go between 10-25% I only keep 25% cash if I want a big wad for a buying opportunity that comes up though, otherwise I keep around 10% of everything in cash. But that's because I'm confident over my own emotions and how it relates to the economy.

[reaper23]

(01-24-2014 11:44 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

^ okay how about this one then what is smarter.

1. Guaranteed losses in a savings account (fact)
2. Risk making money by indexing, buying bonds, assets (real estate) and other investment vehicles

If you don't believe a checking/savings account will lose you money, look up the inflation rate over the last 100 years. Only 2-5 of those years did prices not inflate.

I'll take my chances.

Markets will oscillate up and down of course, even if the market is down 10-20% this year IDGAF I am still buying assets no matter what. A checking/savings account is straight up dumb.

agreed on the latter, but again, advise against saying things can never happen

[WestCoast]

^ come on bro you know I would never say "everything always goes up"

Prices flux, some years it is down. But I will happily bet things will be more expensive in 30 years than cheaper against anyone, any time any day.

People afraid to invest are all the same. Broke or uneducated. Even worse? Could be both.

They don't understand how inflation works.

[Remington]

Many forms of arbitrage can result in asset gains. Try investing in assets in different markets to exploit cost discrepancies due to currency exchange rates and reselling them quickly upon initial purchase.

[Tail Gunner]

(01-24-2014 06:23 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

It's one thing to say that you cannot systematically beat the market by "stock picking", or by investing in actively managed funds. That's arguably true. In other words, the average investor might do just as well if not better (especially after fees) simply investing in an index fund rather than in an actively managed mutual fund even if the latter has a track record of outperforming the market.

There is something to be said about simply investing in an index fund, versus listening to so-called experts:

Quote:

As we all know, experts aren't always correct. A recent eight-year study of 68 stock-market experts by CXO Advisory tracked 6,582 predictions over several years and found the experts to be much less than perfect, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The study found that the experts' collective accuracy was 47.4 percent — worse than a random coin flip.

http://www.moneynews.com/InvestingAnalys...de=164B0-1

[cardguy]

What money I have I am using to clear my mortgage.

And if I have any money left over I would rather buy a property (out-right) and rent it out.

Simple.

To me that is a better strategy than playing the stock market. Clear debts - and become a landowner.

[T and A Man]

What is SPY?

A cap weighted index ETF for the U.S S&P x00?