4 ms·

I think that really just means that the market has changed and you're no longer for this market, rather than that new companies are not for public market. Mark

by yzmtf2008 8y ago

I think that really just means that the market has changed and you're no longer for this market, rather than that new companies are not for public market. Market is literally made up of the companies and people that participate in it.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
That's fair. Just keep this risk out of my index funds. I'm a long term investor, not gambling with unprofitable "high growth" equities.
- icedchai 8y ago
  You really should do both. A small amount of your funds should go in to high growth. One of my gambling portfolios is full of high growth semi-conductor stocks like AMD and MU, and SaaS stocks like CRM and HUBS. I have triple digit returns for the past couple years.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - adventured 8y ago
    > You really should do both. A small amount of your funds should go in to high growth. Projecting your subjective investing preferences, risk vs return, onto someone else doesn't work. If someone is only comfortable investing in very low risk assets that will always produce a low return, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It strictly comes down to what you personally want out of the total equation.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Spot on. Everyone's investing goals and risk tolerance levels are different. It'd be criminal to put my 87 year old grandmother in high growth, unprofitable equities.
      - icedchai 8y ago
        Agreed, but most of the people on this site are not 87 year old retirees. It would be criminal for them to miss out on those returns.
  - pbreit 8y ago
    Most individual investors, including younger, should have little or no money in individual stocks but instead in something like a Vanguard diversified portfolio of cheap index funds/ETFs. If you want to take 5% or 10% of your worth to the stock casino, sure (after paying off all your credit cards and maxing your 401k/IRA).
    - icedchai 8y ago
      I do both. I have about 20% of my net worth in individual stocks, the rest in low cost index funds/ETFs. The biggest gains and losses, of course, obviously come from individual stocks (and options, if you're feeling brave.) You're not going to see triple digit yearly returns with a mutual fund. You might find it on the next SaaS growth stock. When you're young, you should absolutely take on some risk. (That includes working at startups!)
- drinkzima 8y ago
  FWIW, that would have had your index fund missing AMZN and NFLX runs that have been pretty incredible. Zero interest rate policy has created a new, confusing market environment.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - komali2 8y ago
    Right, but don't most people use index funds exactly because of their assured stability? Assured in the "5 decades" sense of the word? i.e. the retirees in the above thread? So I wouldn't want AMZN or NFLX in my index funds. NFLX just dropped dramatically in price, yea? So I bought it outright. I still have the bulk of my investment in index funds, though.
- Kiro 8y ago
  That's not for you to decide. I put whatever I want in your index funds.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

That's fair. Just keep this risk out of my index funds. I'm a long term investor, not gambling with unprofitable "high growth" equities.

icedchai 8y ago
You really should do both. A small amount of your funds should go in to high growth. One of my gambling portfolios is full of high growth semi-conductor stocks like AMD and MU, and SaaS stocks like CRM and HUBS. I have triple digit returns for the past couple years.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- adventured 8y ago
  > You really should do both. A small amount of your funds should go in to high growth. Projecting your subjective investing preferences, risk vs return, onto someone else doesn't work. If someone is only comfortable investing in very low risk assets that will always produce a low return, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It strictly comes down to what you personally want out of the total equation.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Spot on. Everyone's investing goals and risk tolerance levels are different. It'd be criminal to put my 87 year old grandmother in high growth, unprofitable equities.
    - icedchai 8y ago
      Agreed, but most of the people on this site are not 87 year old retirees. It would be criminal for them to miss out on those returns.
- pbreit 8y ago
  Most individual investors, including younger, should have little or no money in individual stocks but instead in something like a Vanguard diversified portfolio of cheap index funds/ETFs. If you want to take 5% or 10% of your worth to the stock casino, sure (after paying off all your credit cards and maxing your 401k/IRA).
  - icedchai 8y ago
    I do both. I have about 20% of my net worth in individual stocks, the rest in low cost index funds/ETFs. The biggest gains and losses, of course, obviously come from individual stocks (and options, if you're feeling brave.) You're not going to see triple digit yearly returns with a mutual fund. You might find it on the next SaaS growth stock. When you're young, you should absolutely take on some risk. (That includes working at startups!)
drinkzima 8y ago
FWIW, that would have had your index fund missing AMZN and NFLX runs that have been pretty incredible. Zero interest rate policy has created a new, confusing market environment.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- komali2 8y ago
  Right, but don't most people use index funds exactly because of their assured stability? Assured in the "5 decades" sense of the word? i.e. the retirees in the above thread? So I wouldn't want AMZN or NFLX in my index funds. NFLX just dropped dramatically in price, yea? So I bought it outright. I still have the bulk of my investment in index funds, though.
Kiro 8y ago
That's not for you to decide. I put whatever I want in your index funds.