4 ms·

Yes, listen to patio11. I do NOT want to invest in the stock market, or invest in anything long term like bonds or property. I want to somehow use the money to

Yes, listen to patio11. I do NOT want to invest in the stock market, or invest in anything long term like bonds or property. I want to somehow use the money to make more money quickly (within a 2 year time span). Excuse me if I'm too harsh, but you should spend some of the money on a membership in Gamblers' Anonymous. Because you talk like a bad gambler. The hallmark of bad gamblers is that, if ever they get ahead, they look desperately around for a way to lose so they can get back to their comfortable status quo: Grifting, in poverty. If you have money that you don't know what to do with, put it in some diversified investments that will make money over 30 years -- not two -- and forget about it. The exception I'd make is the one patio11 cites: If investing a portion of your current profits in your current business will pay off, do some of that. But don't invest all your profits in this one basket: One of the most important forms of diversification is to invest in things other than your current project. You don't need another get-rich-quick scheme: You have that, and it even seems to be working. Good for you. Now hedge your bets with a get-rich-slowly-but-safely scheme.

nandemo 17y ago
I disagree. Investing in the stock market is far from safe. Not even an index fund over a 30-year period; we don't know what will happen in the next 30 years.
- msg 17y ago
  It doesn't have to be safe. It just has to be safer. You wouldn't tell this guy to learn to day trade or go into real estate. He's not going to buy savings bonds or open a money market account. He's not going to put it all down on gold. So what is he going to do with his money?
  - Tichy 17y ago
    The only thing that could be "safer" about it would be to invest in the stock market as part of diversification. Seems to me for any kind of investment, there are risks that could destroy it - houses can burn, companies go broke, money can be devalued, and so on. So some diversification is essential.
- mechanical_fish 17y ago
  I didn't say to invest solely in the stock market. Some in stock funds. Some in international stock funds. Some in bonds. Some in a bank savings account. It's called diversification for a reason. You can buy more than one Vanguard fund almost as easily as you can buy one. Time to plug Bernstein again: http://www.amazon.com/Four-Pillars-Investing-Building-Portfolio/dp/0071385290 http://www.amazon.com/Four-Pillars-Investing-Building-Portfo... What you don't want to do is spend all your time reading hysterical ravings on the Internet and then somehow conclude that it is actually safer to blow all your money at the track, or on some crazy scheme to "double your money in two years". I don't care how scary the stock market is: It is less scary than whatever you plan to do to double your money in two years.
  - kirse 17y ago
    I always agree with you on these financial topics =) I remember back in October 2008 when we both commented that the best time to sink money into the stock market is exactly when everyone else is pulling out in fear. (I was 22 at the time and my most conservative index funds are currently up ~35%... individual investments have garnered even better returns) When the majority of people conclude that the "stock market is too risky", they usually look at the single problem of their investments tanking without looking at the bigger picture... which is: First, if you invest money without setting a stop limit (rule #1 of investing) then you shouldn't be investing. Second, if you invest in a quality index fund and you somehow do lose a majority of your investment (>50%), there are much larger problems at hand than just the loss of money. We're talking major economic / political / global unrest. After witnessing the Sept 11th downfall and the October 2008 crash, I've come to the conclusion that there needs to be some damn serious issues to cause a significant loss in investments... Again, all of which could be avoided through proper diversification and setting financial loss limits. ---- As a side note, I do think many people got lucky taking the "too big to fail" approach with many banks that ultimately received government guarantees. I do believe, however, that the snap-back we experienced in 2009 is NOT going to be the same in 2010. Obama has spent insane levels of money to prop up the economy and this sort of stomach-churning level of gov. spending simply cannot continue. 2010 will be the year for finding individual companies that have survived the recession trimming, but I honestly can't see the DOW/S&P indices going much higher.
- notauser 17y ago
  Up to a point that's correct, but not substantially so. Index funds are typically managed (for a very low fee) in such a way that they track the market. That means that to lose all your money the entire market has to completely collapse to $0, which hasn't yet happened and probably won't. This is different from investing in a single company (or indeed in a house) - single company stocks have frequently reached $0, and houses can get caught up in natural disasters. Gold melts, paper money burns, people die, startups fail... but the weighted average of the market only suffers from a little bit of irrationality every now and again. EDIT: It's also possible that the company managing the tracker could go bust and/or make a huge mistake. That did happened to one UK index fund and cost the participants about 10% of their accumulated capital. Spreading money around is the only way to limit your losses when the universe decides to hand you a truck full of bad luck.
randallsquared 17y ago
The hallmark of bad gamblers is that, if ever they get ahead, they look desperately around for a way to lose so they can get back to their comfortable status quo: Grifting, in poverty. You appear to be using a very roundabout way to say that there is no reasonably safe way to turn tens of thousands of dollars into hundreds of thousands in 2-3 years. If that's what you mean, just say so. Implying that everyone already knows this by insulting the OP doesn't really have the same effect.
- mechanical_fish 17y ago
  Okay. There is no reasonably safe way to turn tens of thousands of dollars into hundreds of thousands in 2-3 years. Was that tepid enough or should I also insert a series of sleep-inducing legal disclaimers? ;) The above advice is utterly conventional. Every reputable book on investing says it. Indeed, most books and pamphlets on how to get rich quick say it as well, in the footnotes that nobody reads. The brain slides off such disclaimers like water off a duck. So one tries to find a more dramatic way to say the same thing. And while I'm explaining things I thought were obvious: The OP is not a gambler -- or, rather, he has placed an intelligent bet and won: He is now making money hand over fist by building products that sell. Nothing wrong with that. Except that now the OP seems to be having that unnerving feeling -- which everyone gets at least once in their lives -- that he's missing out on something big, some kind of big secret to moneymaking that the cognoscenti know. And, indeed, there are people who make amazing amounts of money in 2-3 years. They do it by gambling -- and when gambling works, it works. It just doesn't work very often, and you rarely hear from the people who place risky bets and fail. One's mind often fails to register those people. Sometimes you have to take deliberate, dramatic steps to make yourself see them.

nandemo 17y ago

I disagree. Investing in the stock market is far from safe. Not even an index fund over a 30-year period; we don't know what will happen in the next 30 years.

msg 17y ago
It doesn't have to be safe. It just has to be safer. You wouldn't tell this guy to learn to day trade or go into real estate. He's not going to buy savings bonds or open a money market account. He's not going to put it all down on gold. So what is he going to do with his money?
- Tichy 17y ago
  The only thing that could be "safer" about it would be to invest in the stock market as part of diversification. Seems to me for any kind of investment, there are risks that could destroy it - houses can burn, companies go broke, money can be devalued, and so on. So some diversification is essential.
mechanical_fish 17y ago
I didn't say to invest solely in the stock market. Some in stock funds. Some in international stock funds. Some in bonds. Some in a bank savings account. It's called diversification for a reason. You can buy more than one Vanguard fund almost as easily as you can buy one. Time to plug Bernstein again: http://www.amazon.com/Four-Pillars-Investing-Building-Portfolio/dp/0071385290 http://www.amazon.com/Four-Pillars-Investing-Building-Portfo... What you don't want to do is spend all your time reading hysterical ravings on the Internet and then somehow conclude that it is actually safer to blow all your money at the track, or on some crazy scheme to "double your money in two years". I don't care how scary the stock market is: It is less scary than whatever you plan to do to double your money in two years.
- kirse 17y ago
  I always agree with you on these financial topics =) I remember back in October 2008 when we both commented that the best time to sink money into the stock market is exactly when everyone else is pulling out in fear. (I was 22 at the time and my most conservative index funds are currently up ~35%... individual investments have garnered even better returns) When the majority of people conclude that the "stock market is too risky", they usually look at the single problem of their investments tanking without looking at the bigger picture... which is: First, if you invest money without setting a stop limit (rule #1 of investing) then you shouldn't be investing. Second, if you invest in a quality index fund and you somehow do lose a majority of your investment (>50%), there are much larger problems at hand than just the loss of money. We're talking major economic / political / global unrest. After witnessing the Sept 11th downfall and the October 2008 crash, I've come to the conclusion that there needs to be some damn serious issues to cause a significant loss in investments... Again, all of which could be avoided through proper diversification and setting financial loss limits. ---- As a side note, I do think many people got lucky taking the "too big to fail" approach with many banks that ultimately received government guarantees. I do believe, however, that the snap-back we experienced in 2009 is NOT going to be the same in 2010. Obama has spent insane levels of money to prop up the economy and this sort of stomach-churning level of gov. spending simply cannot continue. 2010 will be the year for finding individual companies that have survived the recession trimming, but I honestly can't see the DOW/S&P indices going much higher.
notauser 17y ago
Up to a point that's correct, but not substantially so. Index funds are typically managed (for a very low fee) in such a way that they track the market. That means that to lose all your money the entire market has to completely collapse to $0, which hasn't yet happened and probably won't. This is different from investing in a single company (or indeed in a house) - single company stocks have frequently reached $0, and houses can get caught up in natural disasters. Gold melts, paper money burns, people die, startups fail... but the weighted average of the market only suffers from a little bit of irrationality every now and again. EDIT: It's also possible that the company managing the tracker could go bust and/or make a huge mistake. That did happened to one UK index fund and cost the participants about 10% of their accumulated capital. Spreading money around is the only way to limit your losses when the universe decides to hand you a truck full of bad luck.

randallsquared 17y ago

The hallmark of bad gamblers is that, if ever they get ahead, they look desperately around for a way to lose so they can get back to their comfortable status quo: Grifting, in poverty. You appear to be using a very roundabout way to say that there is no reasonably safe way to turn tens of thousands of dollars into hundreds of thousands in 2-3 years. If that's what you mean, just say so. Implying that everyone already knows this by insulting the OP doesn't really have the same effect.

mechanical_fish 17y ago
Okay. There is no reasonably safe way to turn tens of thousands of dollars into hundreds of thousands in 2-3 years. Was that tepid enough or should I also insert a series of sleep-inducing legal disclaimers? ;) The above advice is utterly conventional. Every reputable book on investing says it. Indeed, most books and pamphlets on how to get rich quick say it as well, in the footnotes that nobody reads. The brain slides off such disclaimers like water off a duck. So one tries to find a more dramatic way to say the same thing. And while I'm explaining things I thought were obvious: The OP is not a gambler -- or, rather, he has placed an intelligent bet and won: He is now making money hand over fist by building products that sell. Nothing wrong with that. Except that now the OP seems to be having that unnerving feeling -- which everyone gets at least once in their lives -- that he's missing out on something big, some kind of big secret to moneymaking that the cognoscenti know. And, indeed, there are people who make amazing amounts of money in 2-3 years. They do it by gambling -- and when gambling works, it works. It just doesn't work very often, and you rarely hear from the people who place risky bets and fail. One's mind often fails to register those people. Sometimes you have to take deliberate, dramatic steps to make yourself see them.