6 ms·

What's the alternative?

by xupybd 4y ago

bdangubic 4y ago
how about something as simple as following what greatest investor that ever lived Warren Buffet does? Pick a few companies, do a finacial colonoscopy on them, learn their business inside out and then go all in. over 50% of his investments are in two companies (me too, just not same as his), over 75% in 6 companies… no one gets rich by diversfying, it is just a fairy tale US workers are being fed once they start working with company-sponsored 401k’s and the like
- bmitc 4y ago
  Warren Buffet was born wealthy and to a connected congressman who helped him get started on his adversarial takeovers.
  - bdangubic 4y ago
    how he got wealthy is not relevant to how the wealth is grown. if you have $1,000/month to invest or your mum/dad gave you $1,000,000/month the principle of growing wealth is the same. and it is not diversifying nor is buying index funds
    - bmitc 4y ago
      So you're saying starting off with money, help overtaking profitable companies, and investing over the easiest window in history to make money is irrelevant to the claim of someone being the greatest investor that ever lived? And if you go by your principle argument, several others are far greater than Buffet, such as James Simons, who's strategy is diametrically opposed to Buffet's.
- twelve40 4y ago
  well we're back to this infinite circle of crap at this point. Aside from random people, there are thousands of people whose entire career, well-being and life depends on portfolio performance, and close to 90% of them underperform a random portfolio. Why can't they just "copy Warren Buffett"? maybe it simply hasn't occurred to them yet?
  - bdangubic 4y ago
    name one rich person who is “diversified”?! take top 1000 richest people on the planet and find one that got there buying index funds… I’ll wait
    - twelve40 4y ago
      they are an equivalent of Michael Phelps. I like to swim, but I probably in all honesty could not really keep up with him. In fact, I would probably just die if I did.
      - bdangubic 4y ago
        this isn’t a competition though? you can learn to swim too…
        rgifford 4y ago
        This is hilarious. You're wrong for like every reason, but I'll give you 3: 1. Berkshire has not significantly outperformed the S&P500 for 20 years. Go take a look, they've basically converged. Markets become more competitive over time. People lose their edge. 2. Investment returns in excess of diversified market returns (which represent underlying growth across the entire economy) ARE zero sum. If you get them, Berkshire does not and quant firms do not and hedge funds do not. If you can beat these guys, don't use your money. Go get a job doing this. 3. Watching Michael Phelps swim is a terrible way to learn to swim. Anatomically he's totally aberrant, but he's also optimizing for fractions of a second racing across an indoor olympic pool. That's all inapplicable to basically everyone swimming anywhere. You're choosing not to hear what folks are saying and I wish you luck. Your hubris will be rewarded justly by markets, but perhaps only after a few confidence building wins that convince you random jitters of a trend line are really signs of your hidden brilliance yet to be recognized.
        ricardobayes 4y ago
        Yes, it's better to take advise from someone who's doing a little bit better than you.
- robjan 4y ago
  So in other words, gambling. Some will win, many will lose.
  - bdangubic 4y ago
    and investing in “index funds” is not gambling?! :) if you buy index funds do you even know what you bought? or is it just “hey everyone else is doing imma do it too?”
    - robjan 4y ago
      Most index funds are quite transparent about their constituent assets. The purpose of index investing is to capture the market as a whole which includes assets held by the few people who make their millions / billions and the many others who blow up their accounts going all in in single stocks.
      - bdangubic 4y ago
        no pressure, no diamonds! jokes aside surely there are plenty of people who gambled and lost their entire accounts on 1 or 2 stocks. but there is a difference in buying biotech startup out of Springfield MO and buying Apple my basic argument isn’t that you should blow your savings on some single stock of some rando company but that doing something like 45% Apple, 20% Amazon, and spred another 20% among 2-3 companies in energy etc… is much better option than buying index fund. and over last decade would have 100x your money over VTSAX… and is just as “safe”
        RussianCow 4y ago
        But there is zero reason to believe that any of those companies will continue giving the same returns. It's entirely feasible that they will plateau, or even begin to fall, whereas the rest of the market will continue to climb. There are plenty of historical examples of "solid" investments that evaporated over time, so it's not like this is unprecedented.
        lottin 4y ago
- xupybd 4y ago
  What do you consider rich? I'd like to retire like the people in this study https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-national-study-of-millionaires-research https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-national-stud... If you want to be Warren Buffet rich you're playing a different game than me.
  - bdangubic 4y ago
    I don’t want (and even if I did chances are I never would be) Buffet-rich. But that doesn’t mean I cannot be smart with money I set aside for investment. These studies offer one way of looking at things, they are based on “work looong time, put money for retirement into something you can’t pick (in most company plans or have limited options), pay high fees for… and be happy you are “millionaire” when you are with one foot in grave…” no thanks, not for me
- bittercynic 4y ago
  I might be misunderstanding the context here, but are you starting from the assumption that investors are trying to get rich? I think many investors are trying to preserve what wealth they've accumulated through saving/inheritance, and are very happy with modest returns, or even just preserving what they have.
  - bdangubic 4y ago
    buying a house is much better way to “preserve what you have” than buying securities.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

What's the alternative?

by xupybd 4y ago

What's the alternative?

how about something as simple as following what greatest investor that ever lived Warren Buffet does? Pick a few companies, do a finacial colonoscopy on them, learn their business inside out and then go all in. over 50% of his investments are in two companies (me too, just not same as his), over 75% in 6 companies… no one gets rich by diversfying, it is just a fairy tale US workers are being fed once they start working with company-sponsored 401k’s and the like

bmitc 4y ago
Warren Buffet was born wealthy and to a connected congressman who helped him get started on his adversarial takeovers.
- bdangubic 4y ago
  how he got wealthy is not relevant to how the wealth is grown. if you have $1,000/month to invest or your mum/dad gave you $1,000,000/month the principle of growing wealth is the same. and it is not diversifying nor is buying index funds
  - bmitc 4y ago
    So you're saying starting off with money, help overtaking profitable companies, and investing over the easiest window in history to make money is irrelevant to the claim of someone being the greatest investor that ever lived? And if you go by your principle argument, several others are far greater than Buffet, such as James Simons, who's strategy is diametrically opposed to Buffet's.
twelve40 4y ago
well we're back to this infinite circle of crap at this point. Aside from random people, there are thousands of people whose entire career, well-being and life depends on portfolio performance, and close to 90% of them underperform a random portfolio. Why can't they just "copy Warren Buffett"? maybe it simply hasn't occurred to them yet?
- bdangubic 4y ago
  name one rich person who is “diversified”?! take top 1000 richest people on the planet and find one that got there buying index funds… I’ll wait
  - twelve40 4y ago
    they are an equivalent of Michael Phelps. I like to swim, but I probably in all honesty could not really keep up with him. In fact, I would probably just die if I did.
    - bdangubic 4y ago
      this isn’t a competition though? you can learn to swim too…
      - rgifford 4y ago
        This is hilarious. You're wrong for like every reason, but I'll give you 3: 1. Berkshire has not significantly outperformed the S&P500 for 20 years. Go take a look, they've basically converged. Markets become more competitive over time. People lose their edge. 2. Investment returns in excess of diversified market returns (which represent underlying growth across the entire economy) ARE zero sum. If you get them, Berkshire does not and quant firms do not and hedge funds do not. If you can beat these guys, don't use your money. Go get a job doing this. 3. Watching Michael Phelps swim is a terrible way to learn to swim. Anatomically he's totally aberrant, but he's also optimizing for fractions of a second racing across an indoor olympic pool. That's all inapplicable to basically everyone swimming anywhere. You're choosing not to hear what folks are saying and I wish you luck. Your hubris will be rewarded justly by markets, but perhaps only after a few confidence building wins that convince you random jitters of a trend line are really signs of your hidden brilliance yet to be recognized.
        ricardobayes 4y ago
        Yes, it's better to take advise from someone who's doing a little bit better than you.
robjan 4y ago
So in other words, gambling. Some will win, many will lose.
- bdangubic 4y ago
  and investing in “index funds” is not gambling?! :) if you buy index funds do you even know what you bought? or is it just “hey everyone else is doing imma do it too?”
  - robjan 4y ago
    Most index funds are quite transparent about their constituent assets. The purpose of index investing is to capture the market as a whole which includes assets held by the few people who make their millions / billions and the many others who blow up their accounts going all in in single stocks.
    - bdangubic 4y ago
      no pressure, no diamonds! jokes aside surely there are plenty of people who gambled and lost their entire accounts on 1 or 2 stocks. but there is a difference in buying biotech startup out of Springfield MO and buying Apple my basic argument isn’t that you should blow your savings on some single stock of some rando company but that doing something like 45% Apple, 20% Amazon, and spred another 20% among 2-3 companies in energy etc… is much better option than buying index fund. and over last decade would have 100x your money over VTSAX… and is just as “safe”
      - RussianCow 4y ago
        But there is zero reason to believe that any of those companies will continue giving the same returns. It's entirely feasible that they will plateau, or even begin to fall, whereas the rest of the market will continue to climb. There are plenty of historical examples of "solid" investments that evaporated over time, so it's not like this is unprecedented.
      - lottin 4y ago
xupybd 4y ago
What do you consider rich? I'd like to retire like the people in this study https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-national-study-of-millionaires-research https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/the-national-stud... If you want to be Warren Buffet rich you're playing a different game than me.
- bdangubic 4y ago
  I don’t want (and even if I did chances are I never would be) Buffet-rich. But that doesn’t mean I cannot be smart with money I set aside for investment. These studies offer one way of looking at things, they are based on “work looong time, put money for retirement into something you can’t pick (in most company plans or have limited options), pay high fees for… and be happy you are “millionaire” when you are with one foot in grave…” no thanks, not for me
bittercynic 4y ago
I might be misunderstanding the context here, but are you starting from the assumption that investors are trying to get rich? I think many investors are trying to preserve what wealth they've accumulated through saving/inheritance, and are very happy with modest returns, or even just preserving what they have.
- bdangubic 4y ago
  buying a house is much better way to “preserve what you have” than buying securities.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]