do you fellas invest in shares? is it a good thing to do?

[24KT]

I typically have anywhere from 10-25% of my $ in gold (not actual physical gold). I see it as a very good (perhaps even essential) longterm investment.

HOWEVER, it can be VERY volatile. Investors who cannot tolerate pretty wide potential swings in the value of their accounts in the short and mid term should be more cautious. Several of the very best mutual funds invest in gold, and these are generally better ways for the average investor who is not overly aggressive to have exposure, along with ETFs as a small part of a diversified portfolio.

http://etfs.morningstar.com/quote?t=GLD

I'm not into volatility, forced liquidation, or margin calls.
That's why I save in physical gold instead of the paper derivative.
I'm long gold. If nothing happens (hardly likely)... the worst case scenario is that I have a physical asset that can be willed to future generation.. I have access to a system that not only produces a residual income cash flow, but also acquires the physical gold for me at no out of pocket cost.
I'm a happy camper. 

[2Thick]

I'm inclined to agree with Dalio. I think Buffett is either overly optimistic at times, or else a little dishonest or too sheltered these days.

[24KT]

I'm inclined to agree with Dalio. I think Buffett is either overly optimistic at times, or else a little dishonest or too sheltered these days.

I am in total agreement with what he said. As for Buffett, I'm inclined to believe it is a bit of both.
Buffett is brilliant when it comes to deploying money substitutes, but his history with REAL money is somewhat checkered.

[Gregzs]

http://hedgefundsx.com/uncategorized/whistle-blower-tries-to-shed-light-on-private-equity-transaction-fees/?utm_source=CompliancEX+Newsletter+December+2%2C+2013&utm_campaign=Got+a+Swiss+Bank+Account%3F&utm_medium=email

Whistle-blower tries to shed light on private-equity transaction fees

In 2007, Texas-based utility TXU agreed to the largest leveraged buyout ever: a $48 billion sale to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., TPG and Goldman Sachs. Since then, however, the renamed Energy Future Holdings has piled up $18 billion in losses, while revenue has dropped by nearly half. Buckling under a monstrous $44 billion debt load dating back to the LBO, the company is negotiating with creditors in an effort to fend off bankruptcy.

KKR, TPG and Goldman all face substantial losses if Energy Future succumbs to bankruptcy. Still, they already have a little something to help numb their pain: Back when the deal closed, KKR and TPG each pocketed a $107 million “transaction fee,” according to a regulatory filing. Goldman got $80 million.

These nifty payouts are an important reason why private equity is perhaps the most lucrative game on Wall Street. In the past 10 years, private-equity firms have collected $2 billion in transaction fees, which essentially are bonuses the firms take for conducting their business of buying, managing and selling companies.

Source:  Crain’s New York Business

[pedro01]

The markets are a casino.

[anabolichalo]

The markets are a casino.

this video is not about what i mean

i mean invest in a company that should grow for years


not selling and buying 100 times a day


 

[pedro01]

this video is not about what i mean

i mean invest in a company that should grow for years


not selling and buying 100 times a day


 

Doesn't matter - it's all the same thing.

It's a casino.

The point is you want to start off long term trading and the nature of long term trading is that it takes a long time to get experienced because you only experience a few trades per year.

[anabolichalo]

Doesn't matter - it's all the same thing.

It's a casino.

The point is you want to start off long term trading and the nature of long term trading is that it takes a long time to get experienced because you only experience a few trades per year.

if it's a casino what does experience matter

reasoning is flawed

[pedro01]

if it's a casino what does experience matter

reasoning is flawed

Not at all - you just don't know the game.

Start here:

&feature=plcp

[2Thick]

Doesn't matter - it's all the same thing.

It's a casino.

The point is you want to start off long term trading and the nature of long term trading is that it takes a long time to get experienced because you only experience a few trades per year.

I know the game very, very well. I've done it for a living for many years.

Day trading IS very much gambling. It's very risky, and should not be done by almost anyone. I did it for a while and realized that it's very foolish for a small investor to try to day trade from home or a small office with a PC and a Scottrade account.

The vast majority of the world's most successful investors didn't and don't day trade. Any "trading" their funds may engage in is very limited in most cases, carefully hedged against any significant losses in numerous ways, and mostly done with very sophisticated automated models working through tons of data at lightening speeds that the average investors and the brightest individual human minds cannot hope to duplicate.

Short term trading is far riskier than sensible investing. I can tell you with a pretty high level of confidence that gold, oil, and the stocks of most solid or highly promising companies will be higher than they are now 10 years from now - probably significantly higher in most cases. I cannot say what will happen tomorrow or next week with any certainty whatsoever.

Another very common mistake novices make is to dump everything into one or 2 companies or commodities or whatever. Extremely risky.


But to say that day trading is "the same" as the sensible investing that makes middle class working stiffs into millionaires and most self made investment icons into billionaires over time is totally incorrect.

There are many ways to MANAGE (minimize) risk. The single best way most can do this for themselves is to invest with a professional who will put their $ into a diversified portfolio of quality investments and be patient.

[2Thick]

Those $187 million in fees were paid for the work the firms did on the deal.

As for the failed company, that's another reason why diversification is so important. As long as nothing illegal was going on, you're generally SOL on such an investment. It sucks, but that's a textbook example of why it's important to spread your $ around. Companies fail from time to time, and I'd personally never want to permanently lose anymore than 2-5% of my total portfolio value on any one investment.

http://hedgefundsx.com/uncategorized/whistle-blower-tries-to-shed-light-on-private-equity-transaction-fees/?utm_source=CompliancEX+Newsletter+December+2%2C+2013&utm_campaign=Got+a+Swiss+Bank+Account%3F&utm_medium=email

Whistle-blower tries to shed light on private-equity transaction fees

In 2007, Texas-based utility TXU agreed to the largest leveraged buyout ever: a $48 billion sale to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., TPG and Goldman Sachs. Since then, however, the renamed Energy Future Holdings has piled up $18 billion in losses, while revenue has dropped by nearly half. Buckling under a monstrous $44 billion debt load dating back to the LBO, the company is negotiating with creditors in an effort to fend off bankruptcy.

KKR, TPG and Goldman all face substantial losses if Energy Future succumbs to bankruptcy. Still, they already have a little something to help numb their pain: Back when the deal closed, KKR and TPG each pocketed a $107 million “transaction fee,” according to a regulatory filing. Goldman got $80 million.

These nifty payouts are an important reason why private equity is perhaps the most lucrative game on Wall Street. In the past 10 years, private-equity firms have collected $2 billion in transaction fees, which essentially are bonuses the firms take for conducting their business of buying, managing and selling companies.

Source:  Crain’s New York Business

[pedro01]

I know the game very, very well. I've done it for a living for many years.

Day trading IS very much gambling. It's very risky, and should not be done by almost anyone. I did it for a while and realized that it's very foolish for a small investor to try to day trade from home or a small office with a PC and a Scottrade account.

The vast majority of the world's most successful investors didn't and don't day trade. Any "trading" their funds may engage in is very limited in most cases, carefully hedged against any significant losses in numerous ways, and mostly done with very sophisticated automated models working through tons of data at lightening speeds that the average investors and the brightest individual human minds cannot hope to duplicate.

Short term trading is far riskier than sensible investing. I can tell you with a pretty high level of confidence that gold, oil, and the stocks of most solid or highly promising companies will be higher than they are now 10 years from now - probably significantly higher in most cases. I cannot say what will happen tomorrow or next week with any certainty whatsoever.

Another very common mistake novices make is to dump everything into one or 2 companies or commodities or whatever. Extremely risky.


But to say that day trading is "the same" as the sensible investing that makes middle class working stiffs into millionaires and most self made investment icons into billionaires over time is totally incorrect.

There are many ways to MANAGE (minimize) risk. The single best way most can do this for themselves is to invest with a professional who will put their $ into a diversified portfolio of quality investments and be patient.

And that is what everyone in this blood sucking industry wants you to believe. That is the single worst thing you can do as an investor.

The diversified portfolio is a lame duck. 'pros' that invest your money get paid regardless of whether they make a positive return for you or not.

Here's the S&P500 - something a professional portfolio manager will probably allocate a portion of your funds to (or some other index, doesn't matter).



That blue line goes through 2000, 2007 then 2013. That is 13 years of going absolutely nowhere.

As for solid companies being higher in 10 years, I wonder if General Electric is solid enough and I wonder if a professional portfolio manager would have been telling you this story about GE 10 years ago.

'Cause this is how well they did in the past 13 years.



And this isn't even cherry picked, it's the first 2 things that came to mind.

Your average professional portfolio manager will lose you 20% and call you up explaining that the 'benchmark' lost 25% and that you should really thank them for their work.

All trading is gambling, take a look at this years top performing funds. They will be next years worse performing funds. These managers are EXTREMELY average. If they were any good, they'd be working for a hedge fund. They cannot time the markets any better than your average Joe. All they do is collect fees from you and put your money into a lackluster portfolio that will just as likely be exactly where it is today in 10 years time.

Now as for this "mostly done with very sophisticated automated models working through tons of data at lightening speeds that the average investors and the brightest individual human minds cannot hope to duplicate" 

This is fear mongering. Of course HFTs and Algorithmic trading exists but they almost exclusively trade spreads - or monopolize a stock trading the bid/offer. They are the latest in a long line of "boogeymen" aka excuses as to why you lost money. Mostly algorithmic trading has little directional impact on the markets.

Just as long term traders might see day traders as 'scummy' for riding their coat-tails, so day traders look at HFTs as 'unfair' - it's just part of the game.

Fact is if you looked at a shopping mall and tried to predict where every person would be in 15 minutes time, it would be an impossible task. Then you go and ring a fire alarm and it would become a lot easier - same with trading. That is why an understanding of Game Theory helps you to become a better trader no matter what the time frame - because the markets are human driven and that makes them more emotional than mathematical.

[2Thick]

Dude, I know this stuff REALLY well.

Not all companies are the same by a long shot.

Not all stocks are the same by a long shot.

I'm really big on fundamental micro and macro analysis.

$100k invested for 30 years at 12% will yield you roughly $3 mil - without adding anything more over those 30 years.

[anabolichalo]

Dude, I know this stuff REALLY well.

Not all companies are the same by a long shot.

Not all stocks are the same by a long shot.

I'm really big on fundamental micro and macro analysis.

$100k invested for 30 years at 12% will yield you roughly $3 mil - without adding anything more over those 30 years.

what is the simplest thing i can do with my savings to get profit out of it that is greater than a savings account


can't i just buy a bunch of shares of companies that keep growing and succeeding? and leave the money there for a few yrs?



is it really as complicated as this thread makes it out to be

[pedro01]

Dude, I know this stuff REALLY well.

Not all companies are the same by a long shot.

Not all stocks are the same by a long shot.

I'm really big on fundamental micro and macro analysis.

$100k invested for 30 years at 12% will yield you roughly $3 mil - without adding anything more over those 30 years.

I know this stuff real well too - I'm in the industry myself.

Now, just show me the fund manager that's going to do 12% for 30 years. Should be easy to find right - maybe post up some links of all the guys with a 30yr 12% track record of a fund that is available to the general public.

Fact is fund managers do not get paid as a percentage of return, they get paid whether they make money or not. The fund makes money from fees. The amount of fees collected is how they rate their success.

On the other hand, hedge funds only make money based on the returns. That's why  mutual funds employ average "professionals" that return results that deviate little from benchmarks and why Hedge funds get all the good guys.

Of course, the downside of hedge funds is if they have a bad year, then might be looking at multiple years to make back the losses and to start earning again. So that's why they tend to fold funds after a bad run.

[Primemuscle]

is it rockey surgery or simple stuff to do with money you dont use anyway

Like all gambles, it sometimes pays off and sometimes not. If you have nerves of steel and money to lose, you can do great.

[2Thick]

I thought you said you were in Chinese manufacturing or something?

I don't invest in index funds, and I've never put client $ into them either. They are better than nothing, of course.

Keep in mind that when you look at snapshots of past market performance that times like late 2007 to early 2009 will seriously skew things if you're looking at just a few years. As will the Great Depression era, years like 1974, and the time around the tech crash over a decade ago.

If you are in the biz, you should know that day trading and longterm investing are not the same thing by a long shot, that day trading is very, very risky, and that the day trading highway to hell is littered with the carcasses of "traders" who went broke.

And you should also know that investing is largely a passive activity - most time devoted to it consists of various forms of research - NOT constantly buying and selling all day every day. For a small investor, the transaction costs alone will eventually eat them alive even if the realized losses don't. Your comment that referred to someone who is a novice who invests in something longterm as still being a novice after a year or whatever because they only executed that one trade is not a comment one who is in the biz would ever fathom, and I find it downright bizarre.

Have you read my previous posts in this thread? Did you catch that Ray Dalio clip where he talked about the importance of diversification, etc?

As for the automated high speed traders, have you not heard of Jim Simon or David Shaw?

http://www.deshaw.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_Technologies


Your assertion that last year's top fund managers are this year's losers is also easily disproven. I'll link some in a minute. And as far as the 12% over 30 years, it certainly is doable.

One thing I can pretty much guarantee just about anybody who tries to day trade with that $100k rather than invest it wisely for 30 years is that it will eventually amount to $0 long before 30 years are up - it's just a matter of how soon for just about anyone who tries.

As for fees, if you were in the biz you'd understand that people get what they pay for generally.

I know this stuff real well too - I'm in the industry myself.

Now, just show me the fund manager that's going to do 12% for 30 years. Should be easy to find right - maybe post up some links of all the guys with a 30yr 12% track record of a fund that is available to the general public.

Fact is fund managers do not get paid as a percentage of return, they get paid whether they make money or not. The fund makes money from fees. The amount of fees collected is how they rate their success.

On the other hand, hedge funds only make money based on the returns. That's why  mutual funds employ average "professionals" that return results that deviate little from benchmarks and why Hedge funds get all the good guys.

Of course, the downside of hedge funds is if they have a bad year, then might be looking at multiple years to make back the losses and to start earning again. So that's why they tend to fold funds after a bad run.

[2Thick]

what is the simplest thing i can do with my savings to get profit out of it that is greater than a savings account


can't i just buy a bunch of shares of companies that keep growing and succeeding? and leave the money there for a few yrs?



is it really as complicated as this thread makes it out to be

I'll try to address your points AND Pedros in one more post here by giving a little insight into my own investment style. This is NOT meant as definite investment advice, but some of my ideas I have in my retirement account may be good for you to ask your own financial advisor about - like if some of the funds I mention or other investments might be appropriate for your situation...


I invest mainly on macro and micro fundamentals. I change things in my portfolio when I see these things changing. Macro analysis could take forever to explain, but micro analysis is not quite as broad. I have a main investment account that is more aggressive, and a retirement account that is more moderate.
 
 
In my main account, I mainly look for value or growth or a combination when it comes to stocks and other investments. Value investments are often the more stable companies that have been around for a while that are currently underpriced. I tend to sell them off as they become less of a value and may get out of them completely if they become no longer a value or if there are other fundamental changes that make them no longer attractive to me for the time being. Low P/E with increasing EPS, along with low price / sales and price / book values tend to be good value characteristics. But there should also be other attractive characteristics - higher than average margins, return on equity, revenue and income growth, etc. And EPS should not be made artificially high because the company is doing things like buying back shares (reducing the amount of shares outstanding to make the earnings ratio appear more favorable).
 
As for growth companies, they can be quite volatile and may often (certainly not always) take some time to see the big gains. But sometimes they can really explode. Growth companies will typically have much higher than average revenue growth, and are often (not always) more small to mid cap, whereas most of my value picks tend to be larger cap. Lower than average PEG, and higher than average EPS growth and margin acceleration are also good things. High ROE and low p/s and p/b don't hurt either.
 
Strong cash flow and limited debt are also always an attractive quality in a stock.
 
Over a year ago, I was long over 200 stock and ADR holdings from around the globe in my investment account. I've trimmed that down to a couple dozen long stock positions and decreasing since Nov '12. Since then, I have been holding much more cash, more gold (SPDR ETF "GLD", at least 10% of portfolio), crude & a little silver, nat gas, and VIX in ETFs. And at times also smaller amounts of a few other metals and a bit of diversified agricultural exposure as well. Also 20% short the S&P 500 index via a Proshares ETF. I have made very good gains on my limited # of long stock holdings in the past year - far more than the broad markets. But I have also been down low double digits on the S&P 500 index short and on my commodities portfolio


 I will also use options here and there in my main account - buying puts and calls to protect the downside or even to speculate a bit, and also perhaps selling covered calls on a less volatile stock I already own at a lower price that I don't think will move up anytime soon.
 
I mentioned this mutual fund in a previous post a week or so ago. He's fairly new to the game, so I haven't put a huge amount of $ in this yet. I have a little of this in my main account as well. To say he's done outstanding in the few years he's been around is an understatement. He's averaged 55% over the last 5 years, and was down less than 10% in '08 when the markets were down nearly 40%. This is just one way to kick the broad market's ass:
 
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=OSFDX&region=USA
 
 
 
 
 
I'm more long term "strategic" and somewhat more conservative in my retirement account. Mainly mutual funds, along with some cash (quite a bit right now) and commodity exposure. These are pretty much my "all weather" core holdings I tend to keep at least some of in my retirement account. These funds are very well managed, largely unrestrained, and tend to get pretty defensive when they see trouble ahead. The risk-adjusted returns on these have been outstanding, and all were down far less than the overall markets were in late '07 to early '09. The Dow and S&P 500 were both down 37-38% in '08, while most of these funds were down only single digits or low double digits. And they have killed the broad markets over time:
 
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=BRUFX&region=USA
 
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=SGIIX&region=USA
 
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=YAFFX&region=USA
 
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=MALOX&region=USA
 
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=FPACX&region=USA
 
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=PRPFX&region=USA
 
 
My 3 personal favorite bond funds I also have a little of in the retirement account . Notice the equity-like low double digit returns. I have very little exposure to bonds these days, however - mainly due to the interest rate environment.
 
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=FEHIX&region=USA
 
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=TGBAX&region=USA
 
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=TGEIX&region=USA
 
 
 
And this is good in a modest amount for some diversified energy exposure and some added alpha to the portfolio. Pretty volatile of course:
 
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=VGELX&region=USA
 
 
Ditto for a good way to get some diversified global real estate exposure without the liquidity, maintenance, tenant, etc issues and other problems that can arise in investing directly in real estate buys and sells:
 
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=PURZX&region=USA
 
I also like a little exposure to gold in this account as well. And when I'm more optimistic on a macro level, I'll also have a fair amount of small and mid cap fund exposure in my retirement account.

[2Thick]

And there are more aggressive funds I will invest in in my retirement account when I'm feeling more optimistic on a macro level - small and mid caps, emerging markets, etc. Some of those better funds have averaged 15%+ over the years, which is impressive when you consider most of them were down 30, 40, or more % in '08. But those funds are more volatile of course.

[2Thick]

Something else I've done fairly recently is buy a few put options here and there on a handful of high beta names that appear to be overvalued. Puts are less risky than an actual short position and options in general tie up far less capital than actually owning or shorting actual shares of stock. This is another advanced technique that novices shouldn't worry about.

Regarding day trading, it seems as though there are "traders" everywhere who claim to be making consistent realized gains day in and day out for years on in of $100, $200 or more pretty much every day. And these gains come on accounts that are usually said to be in the $10k-20k range (nevermind the fact that federal regulations prohibit more than 3 day trades a week on accounts with less than $25k).

These traders always seem to know when to go short, when to buy, when to sell, etc all day every day. And they're apparently able to do this through a very slow discount broker middleman - the traders think THEY'RE the middleman, but the discount broker actually is - and that broker not only charges a transaction fee, but also a markup.

But if you do the math, $100 a day profit (or $200 a day on $20k) on $10k x 250 trading days = $25,000 or $50,000 total, or a 150% annual return. The top hedge funds are very lucky if they can average 40% (20-30 is even high), and very few mutual funds average much more than 15% or so for any length of time.


Finally, regarding mutual fund fees, most unaccredited investors with 6 figrues or more to invest are better off being in a "managed money" platform like I mentioned previously. There is basically just a flat annual % fee with no costs for transactions on most products (funds, stocks, bonds). Mutual funds that charge a hefty upfront or backend fee should probably be avoided, as should "transactional" accounts if one has over $100k and wants to "trade" frequently. If one has less $ than that, they probably sure as hell shouldn't be "trading" frequently because of the risk to principal and the transaction costs.

Then there are always tax concerns, of course...

[2Thick]

Re Hedge funds - they actually do typically charge a 2% admin fee in addition to performance fees. Most are 2/20, but there are a few who have been as high as 5/50.

Another thing to remember is that many hedge funds do bite the dust, and that the term can have different meanings. Not all "hedge fund managers" are Gordon Gekkos who are making billions doing a hundred trades a day, shorting left and right, taking over corporations, etc. Hollywood glamorizes things just a bit.

I know a couple who are very wealthy who have much of their $ in "hedge funds" that is only their $, and is not $ that is constantly "traded" throughout the day. They are listed as the "managers" of the "hedge funds" on the legal documents. It's done for tax and liability purposes in their case.

But hedge funds are for the $ of accredited investors, and are nowhere near as regulated as mutual funds and institutions that don't deal all or mostly with accredited investors.

Most top hedge funds don't do much trading and don't have much portfolio turnover anyway - that's another myth. They are long / short funds for big investors. And many of them suck and will take all of your $, the same way day trading will for just about all small investors who do it long enough.

[syntaxmachine]

Oh, what a rent seeker!

[24KT]

There are many ways to MANAGE (minimize) risk. The single best way most can do this for themselves is to invest with a professional who will put their $ into a diversified portfolio of quality investments and be patient.

Sha right... invest money with someone who has no vested interest in whether I make money or lose money?

I don't think so.  The best way to minimize risk imo is to do your homework, and know what you're doing.

[2Thick]

Sha right... invest money with someone who has no vested interest in whether I make money or lose money?

I don't think so.  The best way to minimize risk imo is to do your homework, and know what you're doing.

Most people don't have the time, fewer have the aptitude, and even fewer the temperament. I'm NOT saying NO ONE can, just that most won't turn out to be the experts they often think they are from watching "Mad Money" and listening to the guy at the bar or a couple of guys on a BB forum who tell them to day trade or put everything into 1 or 2 securities or whatever.

If you'd read my posts more carefully, you'd see that I do recommend most use a "managed money" platform with an advisor, and also check out that experienced advisor(s) at that big firm carefully. Have any prospective advisors put together a proposal that shows you what they plan to do for you and what they've done for similar clients, and also disclose all fees, etc.

If you give that experienced advisor at that reputable firm $100k and he turns it into more $ in a managed $ platform, he's making more $ off you than he was when you had less $ with him. And if you're happy with his performance, you're likely to refer 10 people to him. But if you're not happy with him, you're likely to tell hundreds he's not good at what he does.

[2Thick]

Regarding hedge funds and mutual funds, high frequency trading, etc, there are some other very good and reputable sources of info out there...

http://www.amazon.com/More-Money-Than-God-Relations/dp/0143119419


This book here goes into great detail about the failed mathematical models that told the quants that an event such as the meltdown of late '07 to early '09 was not possible:

http://www.amazon.com/Quants-Whizzes-Conquered-Street-Destroyed/dp/0307453383/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386452720&sr=1-1&keywords=the+quants


This website is a good place to get factual info on top hedge and mutual fund managers and big investors:

http://www.insidermonkey.com/hedge-fund/

The site even gives the entire quarterly portfolio long holdings of some of the greats (institutions and funds with over $150 mil have to disclose these at the close of every quarter), and also some ranking info that shows that nowhere near ALL "hedge fund managers" are anywhere near great, much like Morningstar easily shows that not all mutual fund managers are dogs. I always like to investigate institutional activity (buys and sells) of a security as part of the screening process of whether or not to buy, sell, short, how much, etc.

And even the greats have bad years and bad quarters - Boone Pickens was once down 90% over an 18 month period, for instance. And John Paulson lost roughly 50% in a year several years ago - he had roughly 40% of his fund in gold when gold sold off 40%, plus he had some $ in gold miner stocks, which get hit even harder than the actual commodity when it goes down... this was after Paulson had made a fortune in '07 going short on subprime mortgages before most knew there was a problem there, then later catching gold's big run up to $1900.

No one ever beats the market every quarter or year, and no one ever doesn't have a bad year here and there. Buffett and Icahn were both down over 30% in '08. At the end of the day it's a marathon, not a sprint.