> But that was a singular point in time. It would be like the reverse of a jackpot, IF you sold EVERYTHING just at that singular point in time. All decisions t

> But that was a singular point in time. It would be like the reverse of a jackpot, IF you sold EVERYTHING just at that singular point in time. All decisions to buy or sell happen in singular points in time. If you were sitting in front of your IRA account in 2013, it definitely looks like a high point, right? How much of your IRA equities do you decide to sell? And whatever that amount, when do you change your mind and jump back in the market? When the stocks are at a new high in 2014? or 2015? or 2016? (All higher levels than the previous). > But if you did a little bit of trading without tax-consequences continually, maybe you could win on average? Maybe. But probably not. The only information you have is hindsight. You can never know if you're selling on a high or buying on a low. The price can always go higher (after you sell), and the price can also always go lower (after you buy) > And banks make money by trading don't they? The article we're discussing here shows that they make their money in a lot of ways. Beating the market isn't one of them, though. And to the extent that banks do profit on stock speculation, they also have a different risk tolerance than you or me. They're not going to retire one day, and if they do lose everything, the government will bail them out. >