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

[24KT]

Please share some of YOUR specific investment strategies with us peons, Macho Man - if you can pull yourself away from day trading your 12 figure hedge fund long enough.

I can give you my current main account portfolio as well. I'm sure it pales in comparison to "The Secret" though.  

I invest in the only thing I have full control over... MYSELF!!!.

I don't day trade, but I currently have a friend teaching me how to trade shares in the markets.

I don't currently trade shares. If I did, I would have him do it for me, but instead, I'm choosing to learn how to do it myself.

At that point, any broker will be employed simply to execute my instructions, not to make decisions with my money.

At the moment however, I am using an incredibly lucrative system.

One that I was able to start without any money. Of course returns in this system can be magnified with an initial outlay of capital. It allowed me to both have my cake and eat it too.

I received my initial capital outlay back in an incredibly short period of time, and the system spins off pure profit.

This profit is paid out to me weekly (kind of like a stock dividend) however, instead of being dependent upon some board of directors deciding whether or not they're even going to pay a dividend every 3 months, this "dividend like" payment, is issued to me weekly, along with free gold.

All the while, I have an ever growing asset on my balance sheet that spins off weekly cash flow profits and more physical gold.

My money is never at risk, and I incur no bank or broker fees to do it.

[pedro01]

"Diversification"? That word sounds very familiar for some strange reason.  

Yes, I'm sure your investments do much better than a pretty consistent annual average of low double digits over decades. You probably even are ahead of Oceanstone's 55% they've made the last 5 years - including '08 when they were down 10% while the S&P was down nearly 40%.  

 And I'm sure you were down nowhere near 30% in '08 when Buffett and Icahn were - in fact, you probably shorted 100% of your portfolio in subprime mtgs, Bear Stearns, Merrill, and Lehman Bros and made triple digits in '08, correct?  

I'll bet you've never even been down a single day, much less a month, quarter, or year. You're probably making 4 digit returns year in, year out.

Please share some of YOUR specific investment strategies with us peons, Macho Man - if you can pull yourself away from day trading your 12 figure hedge fund long enough.

I can give you my current main account portfolio as well. I'm sure it pales in comparison to "The Secret" though.  

What you are doing right now - quoting a bunch of outlyer, quoting the now dead "low double digits per year" is just part of the IFA pitch.

Let me ask you - are you a registered CTA? If not, all you are is a fund salesman, which makes you about as far from being an investor as humanly possible.

Anyone can cherry pick good performers from the past - but that's not going to help you with where to put your money in the future

[tonymctones]

You seem to be confusing me with someone that gives a shit what some crappy financial adviser thinks.

What you are doing right now - quoting a bunch of outlyer, quoting the now dead "low double digits per year" is just part of the IFA pitch.

Let me ask you - are you a registered CTA? If not, all you are is a fund salesman, which makes you about as far from being an investor as humanly possible.

LMFAO bull shit youre a 23 year old pot head living in his parents spare bedroom

[Internet Tough Guy]

once again these phag nazi mods deleting posts that speak the truth

[pedro01]

LMFAO bull shit youre a 23 year old pot head living in his parents spare bedroom

Yup, that and about 90% of your headspace right now...



Here's my 'moms spare bedroom' - aka my trading station, next to the November copy of Futures Magazine and an assortment of Thai snacks & a bottle of Singha drinking water. Shame it's not the beer but drinking and day trading hardly go hand in hand.

My English is pretty good for a 23 year old Thai isn't it?

[2Thick]

I've already stated that I am a former retail brokerage IA who now has a small private investment fund, dealing strictly with accredited investors. I started as a registered rep at a very large retail bank, then moved on to a local branch of one of the world's largest brokerage firms, where I built up a clientele of investors ranging from a few thousand to many millions in assets.

I no longer advise small investors, but I don't hesitate to use my extensive background and knowledge in this field to point small investors in the right direction and hopefully keep them from losing everything.

Aside from more traditional investing, I day traded for a couple of years and have known and talked with many who have, and also some who claim to invest or day trade who I'm often skeptical of or else know for a fact are bullshitting and probably don't even have any $.

I have also personally known people who have lost 6 or 7 figures in ponzi schemes that "guaranteed" no short term or other risk to principle ever, with some outrageous return attached to it - usually somewhere in low double digits, but occasionally more.

Anyone who says they've never had any downside on any part of their portfolio ever while making gains that outpace inflation to any degree over time is lying.

Anyone who cannot tolerate even short term downside fluctuations in their investments at all doesn’t need to be investing, and should stick to checking / savings, and traditional money market and CDs. There is still theoretical risk in FDIC deposits, and there is even more risk in US treasuries.

Anyone who thinks that they can somehow protect themselves 100% from any and all downside while putting their money in actual  investments - that carry at least some risk (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs, commodities, options, etc), is fooling themselves.

And they are delusional if they think they can make low to mid double or even triple digit returns with no downside risk, risk to principal, or short term fluctuation in value. You can manage and reduce risk in investing, but you cannot totally eliminate it.

 You cannot expect to not have any days, months, quarters, or even years when you didn’t beat the market or when your investments dropped in value. You cannot go up every day, month, or year indefinitely. Such expectations are unrealistic, and open one up to scams and other unwise strategies. Again, anyone who says they’ve done this is lying, and anyone who THINKS they can do so is delusional.

But at the end of the day, do what you want. I just don’t think it’s wise to tell others to do it without a track record of some sort you can back it up with. Who do you know who wasn’t down in ’08 and who was able to prove it? How did your strategies do in ’08?

Anyone who claims Oceanstone, Bruce, Yactman, First Eagle Global, Templeton Global Bond, etc are "crap" for a typical small investor willing to take a moderate level of risk over time is a moron. Good luck.  

 

What you are doing right now - quoting a bunch of outlyer, quoting the now dead "low double digits per year" is just part of the IFA pitch.

Let me ask you - are you a registered CTA? If not, all you are is a fund salesman, which makes you about as far from being an investor as humanly possible.

Anyone can cherry pick good performers from the past - but that's not going to help you with where to put your money in the future

[syntaxmachine]

24KT is a great mind to behold, and I'm sure she would be willing to share with the board the dollar-weighted returns for 2013 for a hypothetical investor in her...uh..."scheme."

[2Thick]

And again, I've stated repeatedly in this thread that my main investing account primarily consists of equities, along with some commodity and bond exposure, some cash, and using a bit of options for downside protection and a bit of speculation, etc.

I have stated repeatedly that I invest this $ and most client $ on extensive micro and macro fundamental analysis - definitely forward looking investing. I do not really base my individual securities investments (stocks, options, gold and other commodities, bonds, etc) off past performance of those securities the way chartist do. If anything, I usually want the current price to be relatively cheap. I'll buy it at a good price because of those fundamantal parameters I detailed in a previous post, and also make decisions based upon macro factors. Overall economy, political factors, trends in various sectors and industries, etc.

Things such as a company owning or drilling on land likely to be very rich in oil, or whether or not a biotech company's new drug will show positive clinical trials or get FDA approval, etc are also factors in more speculative stock and options activity in my main portfolio.  

But again, in my more conservative and less active retirement account, I do put most of my $ in the better performing mutual funds.

The difference between looking at an individual stock's past performance and an individual fund manager's past performance is significant and obvious. Corporate insiders usually feel compelled to buy and hold large blocks of company stocks, but better money managers have no such loyalty or need to be seen in such a positive light by other shareholders and the public at large. And insiders often MUST hold their company’s stock for periods of time. Better fund managers don’t have that constraint on buying the stocks of companies unless they buy up so much that they also become an “insider”.

A fund manager typically diversifies, and his job is to do the right thing for investors in the fund, within the guidelines of the fund – and a main reason why I like the funds I do is because of the lack of much in the way of constraints concerning things like asset allocation, etc.

A good fund manager in my eyes only has loyalty to the fund’s investors and the bottom line. Companies, stocks, bonds, commodities, cash, etc are only tools. An investment in an individual stock is an investment on what the company will do. But an investment in a fund is an investment based upon the manager’s track record, reputation, etc. This is why investing in better managed funds is a preferred way to invest for most novice investors, somewhat more conservative investors, and investors not wanting to put ALL of their $ into individual securities.

When a fund manager can boast of 55% returns over 5 years or 15% returns over several decades with far less volatility than the overall markets, that tells any investor who knows anything that that fund manager is far better than average and has a TRACK RECORD of success, and will do far better for the average investor than they will likely do for themselves.

If you have the time, temperament, and aptitude to pick your own investments without your fear, greed, or ego getting in the way, that’s great. Most don’t. And almost all who day trade don’t have a happy ending.
 

[Tapeworm]

I invest in the only thing I have full control over... MYSELF!!!.

I don't day trade, but I currently have a friend teaching me how to trade shares in the markets.

I don't currently trade shares. If I did, I would have him do it for me, but instead, I'm choosing to learn how to do it myself.

At that point, any broker will be employed simply to execute my instructions, not to make decisions with my money.

At the moment however, I am using an incredibly lucrative system.

One that I was able to start without any money. Of course returns in this system can be magnified with an initial outlay of capital. It allowed me to both have my cake and eat it too.

I received my initial capital outlay back in an incredibly short period of time, and the system spins off pure profit.

This profit is paid out to me weekly (kind of like a stock dividend) however, instead of being dependent upon some board of directors deciding whether or not they're even going to pay a dividend every 3 months, this "dividend like" payment, is issued to me weekly, along with free gold.

All the while, I have an ever growing asset on my balance sheet that spins off weekly cash flow profits and more physical gold.

My money is never at risk, and I incur no bank or broker fees to do it.

Do you have any idea how goofy you sound?  It's like you're part Romanian. 

[tonymctones]

Yup, that and about 90% of your headspace right now...



Here's my 'moms spare bedroom' - aka my trading station, next to the November copy of Futures Magazine and an assortment of Thai snacks & a bottle of Singha drinking water. Shame it's not the beer but drinking and day trading hardly go hand in hand.

My English is pretty good for a 23 year old Thai isn't it?

LOL I could take a picture like that as well as Im half japanese and have japanese snacks in the pantry.

maybe ill take picture of my work terminal tomorrow, ill do my best to get the bloomberg terminal next to my computer crammed in there

[pedro01]

I've already stated that I am a former retail brokerage IA who now has a small private investment fund, dealing strictly with accredited investors. I started as a registered rep at a very large retail bank, then moved on to a local branch of one of the world's largest brokerage firms, where I built up a clientele of investors ranging from a few thousand to many millions in assets.

I no longer advise small investors, but I don't hesitate to use my extensive background and knowledge in this field to point small investors in the right direction and hopefully keep them from losing everything.

Aside from more traditional investing, I day traded for a couple of years and have known and talked with many who have, and also some who claim to invest or day trade who I'm often skeptical of or else know for a fact are bullshitting and probably don't even have any $.

I have also personally known people who have lost 6 or 7 figures in ponzi schemes that "guaranteed" no short term or other risk to principle ever, with some outrageous return attached to it - usually somewhere in low double digits, but occasionally more.

Anyone who says they've never had any downside on any part of their portfolio ever while making gains that outpace inflation to any degree over time is lying.

Anyone who cannot tolerate even short term downside fluctuations in their investments at all doesn’t need to be investing, and should stick to checking / savings, and traditional money market and CDs. There is still theoretical risk in FDIC deposits, and there is even more risk in US treasuries.

Anyone who thinks that they can somehow protect themselves 100% from any and all downside while putting their money in actual  investments - that carry at least some risk (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs, commodities, options, etc), is fooling themselves.

And they are delusional if they think they can make low to mid double or even triple digit returns with no downside risk, risk to principal, or short term fluctuation in value. You can manage and reduce risk in investing, but you cannot totally eliminate it.

 You cannot expect to not have any days, months, quarters, or even years when you didn’t beat the market or when your investments dropped in value. You cannot go up every day, month, or year indefinitely. Such expectations are unrealistic, and open one up to scams and other unwise strategies. Again, anyone who says they’ve done this is lying, and anyone who THINKS they can do so is delusional.

But at the end of the day, do what you want. I just don’t think it’s wise to tell others to do it without a track record of some sort you can back it up with. Who do you know who wasn’t down in ’08 and who was able to prove it? How did your strategies do in ’08?

Anyone who claims Oceanstone, Bruce, Yactman, First Eagle Global, Templeton Global Bond, etc are "crap" for a typical small investor willing to take a moderate level of risk over time is a moron. Good luck.  

So as a retail brokerage IA, you would be paid commissions regardless of whether your customers made profits or not? That makes you a salesman, like all brokers. That is not to be confused with someone that can make a return for their customers.

And it seems you are still selling. Oceanstone is a prime example.



Here is Oceanstone (white) vs the SPY (yellow). SPY is just a plain old index tracker. Oceanstone charge you 1.8% per year for the privilege of being in their fund. SPY costs you .09. Oceanstone have offices to pay, marketing costs, commissions to guys like you, company cars - and of course their 'professional investors' - who in the past  3 years have done nothing at all but slightly under perform a completely passive SPY.

Now, of course, in 2009, after the crash - Oceanstone picked up a lot of undervalued stock and they got a massive return. This is to be expected and makes a lot of sense in HINDSIGHT. Trouble with hindsight and your cherry picking historical high peformers to "wow" the board, this does nothing in terms of future returns. In fact, perhaps the best way to guarantee poor returns is to invest in last years high performers.

So yeah, Oceanstone is currently crap. It is performing worse than the S&P500 at the moment. Do they pay good commissions?

What no IA will tell you is that the market cannot create money. Only what goes in can come out. Still, everyone expects to take out more than they put in and that's AFTER IAs, Funds, exchanges take their cut. When you invest you are competing against other investors to take more from a finite pool of money than you put in.

Investing/trading is a competitive endeavor.

In terms of Templeton, I would advise any would-be investor to download 5 years worth of performance figures for their funds. Track how the to 10 performers for any one year do in the next year. What you will boil it down to is the fact that YOU have to choose the funds your money goes into. Your IA will give pointers but will leave it in your hands. So you have to decide what will do well next year. Hell - if you could do that, then you wouldn't be looking for investment advice in the first place.

The whole thing is a scam.

[tonymctones]

I think thicks point is for the general investor your going to be better off putting you money into some funds than investing them yourself and he is correct the vast majority of the time.

you are also looking at total return which is a pretty bad way to look at investments. Most advisors dont chase total return they seek risk adjusted return as most clients are at least somewhat risk adverse.

If you look at the alpha for OSFDX over the past 5 years its 21.29 comparing it to the S&P

[tonymctones]

I also noticed that notably smaller amount of volatility in OSFDX when compared to the S&P something that advisors also look for and maybe important to investors looking for liquidity and in some cases day traders...

[pedro01]

I think nicks point is for the general investor your going to be better off putting you money into some funds than investing them yourself and he is correct the vast majority of the time.

That's the thing - I think this premise only benefits people in Nicks industry.

Would you agree that the market can only pay out what effectively went in?

If so, would you not also agree that it is impossible for all investors to take out more than they put in?

If not - where would it come from?

I think where people get confused is they see an equity.

10,000,000 shares issued - $25 a share - so a $250,000,000 market cap

Then someone pays $35 a share, now it's a $350,000,000 market cap - but that additional $100,000,000 is merely last price paid x number of shares. It's not as if it actually exists anywhere. It's smoke & mirrors. If 90% of the shareholders put in market orders to sell after seeing that $35 share price, most of them would end up getting less than $1 a share.

The investment horizon doesn't change the fact that it's still you against the other participants.

you are also looking at total return which is a pretty bad way to look at investments. Most advisors dont chase total return they seek risk adjusted return as most clients are at least somewhat risk adverse.

If you look at the alpha for OSFDX over the past 5 years its 21.29 comparing it to the S&P

Most advisers would be out of a job if they only got paid based on returns.

Every investor on the planet gets in because they want to make money. Most really don't understand risk measures and an investment adviser will generally only mention such thing to throw in a few buzzwords to baffle them or push them towards the fund that pays the highest rates of commissions.

I mean really - what will make money next year? Will the S&P be up in 2014 or be at current levels? It all really hinges on the FED and no-one knows what they are doing.

I personally stay close to fully invested but I don't use margin. I use Interactive Brokers & have what is known as a "Universal account" which means I can invest 100% of my capital but intraday that releases margin that I can day trade.

Day Trading is gambling - again, it's a bunch of people all trying to take out more than they put in. It is a type of gambling where you can find yourself a niche/edge but it's not a get rich quick scheme. It's a job more than anything.

[pedro01]

I also noticed that notably smaller amount of volatility in OSFDX when compared to the S&P something that advisors also look for and maybe important to investors looking for liquidity and in some cases day traders...

Would you invest in OSFDX if you somehow knew with 100% certainty that the S&P would tank in 2014?

My guess is you wouldn't. My guess is that OSFDX would tank more than the market but that at the bottom they would pick up some winners.

So the best time to buy OSFDX would be after a move down - buying at the bottom.

And of course, if you knew that the market was going to tank and you knew where the bottom was, you would not need OSFDX at all - you could just buy futures options and get way more leverage for your money.

It is a fund that is providing the same returns as a passive strategy in a bull market.

ThickNick brought up OSFDX because it performed well in hindsight - he went looking for a historical example to  prove his point. Problem is for every OSFDX, there's a hundred funds that no longer even exist.

[tonymctones]

That's the thing - I think this premise only benefits people in Nicks industry.

Would you agree that the market can only pay out what effectively went in?

If so, would you not also agree that it is impossible for all investors to take out more than they put in?

If not - where would it come from?

I think where people get confused is they see an equity.

10,000,000 shares issued - $25 a share - so a $250,000,000 market cap

Then someone pays $35 a share, now it's a $350,000,000 market cap - but that additional $100,000,000 is merely last price paid x number of shares. It's not as if it actually exists anywhere. It's smoke & mirrors. If 90% of the shareholders put in market orders to sell after seeing that $35 share price, most of them would end up getting less than $1 a share.

The investment horizon doesn't change the fact that it's still you against the other participants.

Most advisers would be out of a job if they only got paid based on returns.

Every investor on the planet gets in because they want to make money. Most really don't understand risk measures and an investment adviser will generally only mention such thing to throw in a few buzzwords to baffle them or push them towards the fund that pays the highest rates of commissions.

I mean really - what will make money next year? Will the S&P be up in 2014 or be at current levels? It all really hinges on the FED and no-one knows what they are doing.

I personally stay close to fully invested but I don't use margin. I use Interactive Brokers & have what is known as a "Universal account" which means I can invest 100% of my capital but intraday that releases margin that I can day trade.

Day Trading is gambling - again, it's a bunch of people all trying to take out more than they put in. It is a type of gambling where you can find yourself a niche/edge but it's not a get rich quick scheme. It's a job more than anything.

to answer your question briefly no, while I somewhat understand your reasoning it is pretty far off base. Additional money is put into the market quite frequently through dividends, distrubutions, interest and yes even cap gains.

Actually any advisor worth their weight can give you a pretty good idea of what the investment layout will be next year. Rate sensitive securities will take a hit and this is more than likely irrespective of the Fed as the idea that they can control rates to the extent they feel they can is pretty insane. Look for SMID's especially domestically to outperform and equities in general to grind higher.

[tonymctones]

Would you invest in OSFDX if you somehow knew with 100% certainty that the S&P would tank in 2014?

My guess is you wouldn't. My guess is that OSFDX would tank more than the market but that at the bottom they would pick up some winners.

So the best time to buy OSFDX would be after a move down - buying at the bottom.

And of course, if you knew that the market was going to tank and you knew where the bottom was, you would not need OSFDX at all - you could just buy futures options and get way more leverage for your money.

It is a fund that is providing the same returns as a passive strategy in a bull market.

ThickNick brought up OSFDX because it performed well in hindsight - he went looking for a historical example to  prove his point. Problem is for every OSFDX, there's a hundred funds that no longer even exist.

actually youd be wrong going off their beta over the last 3 years which is below 1 you can see the while they underperform in the up markets they out perform in the down markets. This is easily seen on the chart you posted....

Which is why the S&P has caught up with it over the past 4 or 5 years we have been in an incredibily strong up market. 

Again risk adjusted return is key to most advisors portfolios. Anybody can be up in a market like we have had, the issue is how much are you going to lose in a down market or can you be up in a down market....

Looking at total return is a pretty uninformed way of looking at investments.

[pedro01]

to answer your question briefly no, while I somewhat understand your reasoning it is pretty far off base. Additional money is put into the market quite frequently through dividends, distrubutions, interest and yes even cap gains.

I agree on dividends to the extent that those that buy back shares do represent money going back into the markets - but for all of the categories you define there is a flip side for companies that lose money/pay interest/depreciate assets. Plus you have inflation which is behind a lot of growth in the first place. I have seen no study but I would wager that when you take the flip side of the gains and offset the losses, then the upside (if any) is pretty insignificant compared to the huge amount of $$$$ that was put into the pot.

So you still end up with it being a casino - which is why a huge proportion of professionally managed funds lose money each year.

Actually any advisor worth their weight can give you a pretty good idea of what the investment layout will be next year. Rate sensitive securities will take a hit and this is more than likely irrespective of the Fed as the idea that they can control rates to the extent they feel they can is pretty insane. Look for SMID's especially domestically to outperform and equities in general to grind higher.

That presumes the markets have a rational and predictable reaction to changes that MIGHT happen. I would not consider the S&P at 1800 right now as anything rational or predictable. Nor would I call the Feds policy flip-flopping as predictable either.

To make money, need to have both good timing as to when these things happen as well as a market that reacts rationally. The industry does NOT work in this way. Look how few thought the re-mortgaging bubble would last forever and how few made money out of the crash.

Without timing and a predictable market you end up with the sort of stale asset allocation strategy that puts money all over the place knowing that some will lose and some will gain each year. The salesman gets paid, the funds get paid, you keep up with inflation.

The idea that IAs have any predictive abilities is wishful thinking.

[pedro01]

actually youd be wrong going off their beta over the last 3 years which is below 1 you can see the while they underperform in the up markets they out perform in the down markets. This is easily seen on the chart you posted....

Which is why the S&P has caught up with it over the past 4 or 5 years we have been in an incredibily strong up market.  

Again risk adjusted return is key to most advisors portfolios. Anybody can be up in a market like we have had, the issue is how much are you going to lose in a down market or can you be up in a down market....

Looking at total return is a pretty uninformed way of looking at investments.

On the chart I posted, the white is OceanStone, and yellow is S&P. Pullbacks are much deeper overall on OceanStone. It is way more volatile.

As for total return being an uninformed way of looking at investments, you should tell the Investment Adviser above that too - cause that's what he's quoting.

But really - you can't judge an investment by the amount of money it makes? Ultimately you take the risk in the first place to achieve a return. Increasing your wealth is the very goal of an investment.

I do agree, that risk comes into it but you cannot know the risks in advance. That is another fallacy. For a start, the performance of a vehicle such as OceanStone depends very much on their employees. How do you assess the risk of any specific employee leaving to another fund, especially their star performers? You can't.

Secondly, the markets have proven over and over again that the participants are completely fallable when it comes to assessing risk. Look at Black Scholes, portfolio insurance and all the bubbles. Mathematical based risk models are inherently flawed - even the ones that won Nobel prizes turned out to not work specifically when everyone else was relying on the same model too.

Look at Lehman - was this not a much lauded, top tier company? How about Bear Stearns? How could they be so wrong in assessing their own risk?

So, really - when one of these funds boils down their risk to a couple of KPIs - it's all bullshit.

The whole industry is bullshit - they need people like us to put money in so that they can take it out. That is the bottom line.

[tonymctones]

On the chart I posted, the white is OceanStone, and yellow is S&P. Pullbacks are much deeper overall on OceanStone. It is way more volatile.

As for total return being an uninformed way of looking at investments, you should tell the Investment Adviser above that too - cause that's what he's quoting.

But really - you can't judge an investment by the amount of money it makes? Ultimately you take the risk in the first place to achieve a return. Increasing your wealth is the very goal of an investment.

I do agree, that risk comes into it but you cannot know the risks in advance. That is another fallacy. For a start, the performance of a vehicle such as OceanStone depends very much on their employees. How do you assess the risk of any specific employee leaving to another fund, especially their star performers? You can't.

Secondly, the markets have proven over and over again that the participants are completely fallable when it comes to assessing risk. Look at Black Scholes, portfolio insurance and all the bubbles. Mathematical based risk models are inherently flawed - even the ones that won Nobel prizes turned out to not work specifically when everyone else was relying on the same model too.

Look at Lehman - was this not a much lauded, top tier company? How about Bear Stearns? How could they be so wrong in assessing their own risk?

So, really - when one of these funds boils down their risk to a couple of KPIs - it's all bullshit.

The whole industry is bullshit - they need people like us to put money in so that they can take it out. That is the bottom line.

forgot to run osfdx against the S&P on my bloomberg today, maybe tomorrow if I remember

You cant judge an investment simply by the return that it gives is what I said.

LOL youre so jaded and misguided its sad

[2Thick]

I am no longer a retail brokerage IA, as I have explained several times in this thread. Are you even reading my posts, or just trolling me?

I now have a private investment fund of accredited investors, as I have said several times... I AM NO LONGER A RETAIL BROKER!

Now and as an IA I mostly got paid by amount of assets managed. The difference is now I can charge a % on profits. You obviously don't know what an IA is. You think IA and retail registered rep are the same thing. I explained the difference in a previous thread. I don't feel like repeating the same Dick and Jane info to you over and over. Go back and read from page 2 forward. You probably didn't even START reading until after you posted that brilliant assertion that longterm investing and day trading are the same thing.

I AM NO LONGER A RETAIL IA OR RR!

I AM that almighty "hedge fund manager" you THINK doesn't charge an admin fee and doesn't ever have a losing year. I charge a small admin fee and a % of gains. And as a retail IA I was mostly paid as a % of assets as well - the more client $ grew, the more $ I also made. I was not making much on commissions, except with the smaller investor (under 6 figures) who would get placed in a "transactional" account, as opposed to a "managed money" structure I did with 6 figure + clients. I've explained this several times.

I AM NO LONGER A RETAIL IA OR RR!

YOU are cherrypicking. Again, please show the board how well you've done in the ups and downs we've had the past 6 years.

Leave it to a "day trader" to expect anyone to beat the market every day, month, quarter, and year. Learn about risk management. That particular fund has been 70-75% cash for quite a while now - that manager has been cautious much like I and many others have in the last year plus due to various macro factors. The reason the market is currently beating it or at least matching it is because it is currently heavy in cash because the overall market has gone beyond where it really should be. The fed is printing and pumping money and keeping rates artificially low. Some think we'll see a 25-50% market decline once they stop this nonsense.

That fund actually is not even available at retail firms or banks, etc. Anyone who wants to invest in that fund must do so directly through that fund. Not I nor any other money manager, broker, or whatever makes any $ off that fund - they are totally self-contained. I invest a few bucks in it and make others aware of it because the guy obviously knows what he is doing. I DON'T recommend putting everything into that or any other investment.

And I just love the way you say people who invest in mutual funds aren't doing "real investing". I guess the returns and the money are "fake"? A normal person who invests a million with a realistic goal of having 8 figures in 20 years doesn't care how they do it. But they typically prefer the least amount of risk in doing it if they're smart and not investing with their emotions.

Again, you have unrealistic expectations. You won't beat the market every year (much less every day or month), and if you day trade and trade futures, you'll likely be broke in a few years. Statistics and my own experiences and interactions with thousands of people confirm that the odds are great that you'll lose it all if you do it long enough. And you obviously invest (if you even actually do invest) with your ego.

Ego investors / traders always get stomped out pretty quickly. While most investors and investment professionals have the end goals of retiring with a nice nestegg and increasing our net worth throughout our lifespan, leaving our heirs a nice pile of dough, etc, ego investors are only interested in the quick buck, or more accurately bragging about the quick buck. But it has to be a quick buck that is made in a way that is overly complicated and "cool" or "sexy" or whatever. Trading, options, futures, shorting, etc (and perhaps hedge funds?) are the only "cool" ways to invest to the typical ego trader. Traditional investing is "lame", no matter how good the results. Money made by handing $ over to a top fund manager(s) or other professionals, or by holding positions a little while and not making things overly complicated is "not real investing", correct?

You'll take limited gains or even substantial losses to the point of going broke as long as you're the one directly calling the shots and not having to pay anyone fees. You're convinced that not only is the whole industry a scam, but that you know better than anyone. I too thought I would be the greatest thing the world ever saw many years ago when I took my low six figure savings and decided to trade for a living. Luckily I had the sense to realize that day trading was a fool's game before I lost a whole lot of $.

 Investing among professionals is certainly competitive, but again a novice with little or no market knowledge trying to constantly time the market, doing short term technical trading from home with limited tools, limited funds, and limited info is extremely likely to get stomped out quickly. Then you'll be screaming about how the whole thing is "rigged" against the small investor, etc. Small investors willing to take a little risk can make lots of $ riding the coattails of the big boys. But it sounds like you think you're as good or better than them. I thought I would be as well. I thought I'd turn $100k into billions within a few years.

Icahn and Buffett have both turned that exact amount into tens of billions, but it's taken them both many decades of smart investing. And they've also made $ off investors' money. I have some $ in both IEP and BRK.B - far more in IEP. I have also made lots of $ riding Icahn's coattails. But it can be risky.

Where it's REALLY competitive is in gathering assets. Everyone who knows the markets knows that you cannot always win and cannot make anywhere near triple digit returns or even mid double digit returns consistently. The higher you set the bar for returns, the more risk you're taking. The more risk you're taking, the greater the chance of losses. And the more concentrated you are and more you do things such as short individual high beta stocks, commodities, etc, the greater your losses will be.

As for Templeton, I mentioned one fund that any idiot can see is a very good, relatively low risk way to get asset diversification and even a bit of alpha in their portfolios. They have many, many funds. I like a few, most are just average and don't impress me.

You cannot have returns without risk. Generally they tend to be pretty strongly correlated.

As for your latest gem that the whole thing is basically a zero sum game that doesn't build wealth and only moves it around, that's another fallacy your day trading pimps who are selling you materials and info want you to believe. Companies DO grow.

Again, you've already got your mind made up, you know it all, and you don't want or need any info that does not jell with your narrow view of things. You don't care about being very wealthy in 20 or 50 years - it's all about the quick buck. You have no interest in how investments have done or will do in 5,10, or longer year time frames. And you don't need risk management, because you're too smart to ever be wrong. My guess is that you're pretty young, and you probably spend a great deal of $ on flashy things and invest a great deal of time and money into how people see you and don't care about building actual long term wealth - much like others here.

Good luck.

 

So as a retail brokerage IA, you would be paid commissions regardless of whether your customers made profits or not? That makes you a salesman, like all brokers. That is not to be confused with someone that can make a return for their customers.

And it seems you are still selling. Oceanstone is a prime example.



Here is Oceanstone (white) vs the SPY (yellow). SPY is just a plain old index tracker. Oceanstone charge you 1.8% per year for the privilege of being in their fund. SPY costs you .09. Oceanstone have offices to pay, marketing costs, commissions to guys like you, company cars - and of course their 'professional investors' - who in the past  3 years have done nothing at all but slightly under perform a completely passive SPY.

Now, of course, in 2009, after the crash - Oceanstone picked up a lot of undervalued stock and they got a massive return. This is to be expected and makes a lot of sense in HINDSIGHT. Trouble with hindsight and your cherry picking historical high peformers to "wow" the board, this does nothing in terms of future returns. In fact, perhaps the best way to guarantee poor returns is to invest in last years high performers.

So yeah, Oceanstone is currently crap. It is performing worse than the S&P500 at the moment. Do they pay good commissions?

What no IA will tell you is that the market cannot create money. Only what goes in can come out. Still, everyone expects to take out more than they put in and that's AFTER IAs, Funds, exchanges take their cut. When you invest you are competing against other investors to take more from a finite pool of money than you put in.

Investing/trading is a competitive endeavor.

In terms of Templeton, I would advise any would-be investor to download 5 years worth of performance figures for their funds. Track how the to 10 performers for any one year do in the next year. What you will boil it down to is the fact that YOU have to choose the funds your money goes into. Your IA will give pointers but will leave it in your hands. So you have to decide what will do well next year. Hell - if you could do that, then you wouldn't be looking for investment advice in the first place.

The whole thing is a scam.

[2Thick]

I think thicks point is for the general investor your going to be better off putting you money into some funds than investing them yourself and he is correct the vast majority of the time.

you are also looking at total return which is a pretty bad way to look at investments. Most advisors dont chase total return they seek risk adjusted return as most clients are at least somewhat risk adverse.

If you look at the alpha for OSFDX over the past 5 years its 21.29 comparing it to the S&P

He doesn't care about 5 years. How much did it make TODAY?! 

[2Thick]

I also noticed that notably smaller amount of volatility in OSFDX when compared to the S&P something that advisors also look for and maybe important to investors looking for liquidity and in some cases day traders...

Pedro will accept NO volatility! 

[2Thick]

You see things FAR too short term, you have unrealistic expectations, are misinformed about many basic investment fundamentals, and you assume you can predict things with 100% accuracy.

Would you invest in OSFDX if you somehow knew with 100% certainty that the S&P would tank in 2014?

My guess is you wouldn't. My guess is that OSFDX would tank more than the market but that at the bottom they would pick up some winners.

So the best time to buy OSFDX would be after a move down - buying at the bottom.

And of course, if you knew that the market was going to tank and you knew where the bottom was, you would not need OSFDX at all - you could just buy futures options and get way more leverage for your money.

It is a fund that is providing the same returns as a passive strategy in a bull market.

ThickNick brought up OSFDX because it performed well in hindsight - he went looking for a historical example to  prove his point. Problem is for every OSFDX, there's a hundred funds that no longer even exist.

[pedro01]

Again, you've already got your mind made up, you know it all, and you don't want or need any info that does not jell with your narrow view of things. You don't care about being very wealthy in 20 or 50 years - it's all about the quick buck. You have no interest in how investments have done or will do in 5,10, or longer year time frames. And you don't need risk management, because you're too smart to ever be wrong. My guess is that you're pretty young, and you probably spend a great deal of $ on flashy things and invest a great deal of time and money into how people see you and don't care about building actual long term wealth - much like others here.

Very far off the mark on all counts.

We have just poked above the level the S&P500 was at 13 years ago. That is 13 years with zero growth. I am very interested in long term investments - are you saying that disappointment at 13 years of zero growth is me being 'short term'? Put your money in mutual funds and in 15 years time you may well be looking at a market that is at a lower price than it is today. This is the reality. You will not be enriched in 20-50 years doing that.

Not only that, listed companies - especially the ones with the most growth potential - are now vehicles of personal enrichment for their employees and executives. Companies like Vocus are going down the toilet because they are chasing short term revenue without focusing on their ability to deliver quality product. They award themselves shares and can't see past their own snouts an further than their own share price. Investors in what could have been a top-flight company are paying the price dearly. I was a shareholder at $11 and out at $11 after seeing it climb to $19 and then drop. That wasn't intentionally a short term trade, if it was I'd have taken profits on the way up. They had potential but they fucked it up specifically by ramping up revenues without doing the same in support. All in the name of chasing up the share price because like many firms, the execs are the largest individual shareholders.

Of course, you don't have the same issue with larger companies but nor do you have the same growth potential. In the case of Vocus, I knew people within the company and I'd still be a holder now if I'd not heard their own complaints loud & clear and if my own experience as a customer wasn't horrendous.

As for risk management - the investment industry has so many failures over their inability to manage risk, I am amazed you even mention it. Mathematical models like portfolio insurance seemed smart to the mathematicians but how could they not have the common sense to know that when everyone used the same model, it would cause them to sell at the same time and crash the markets? How about Lehman and Bear Stearns? Risk? The investment industry either has no clue about risk or ignore it on purpose. Financial advisers like to bandy about risk metrics on funds but those advisers have done no due diligence on the validity of those metrics. They just come in the "sales pack" with the fund, along with the commission rates for selling them to customers.

It is nice that you are concerned about my financial future. Fact is I manage my own money. I'd had my fill of financial advice by the mid 2000's and I decided to take things into my own hands, a fair amount of which was based on investing in land. In fact just this week I purchased some land off someone that needed to sell in a hurry. This has been a good deal. I guess what I should have done is put it into funds and let someone charge me a 3% management fee per year regardless of how they perform managing it.

The sole reason for the traditional  investments I do have is capital preservation because I do not think that cash is safe any more - any currency. I'd rather hold a US MNC than US Dollars.

Of course, right now there's a good bull run so every financial adviser thinks they are Gods gift. When this run ends, there's going to be a lot of "financial advisrs" selling vacuum cleaners door to door.

I'd recommend anyone who buys into this industry to have a good read of Black Swan by Telab before enriching the people in this industry.