|
This is their 5th year doing it....2011 -5% versus the S&P, 2012 +5% versus the S&P, 2013 +2.4% versus the S&P, and 2014 +10% versus the S&P. Seems like a good track record. Their stock picking is also impartial, which I like.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:35 |
|
|
If we want to evaluate their picking skill, a meaningful baseline for comparison is not the S&P 500, but rather a random selection of 10 stocks from the market. I'm not seeing any evidence that they did better than that in any year 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Arkane posted:This is their 5th year doing it....2011 -5% versus the S&P, 2012 +5% versus the S&P, 2013 +2.4% versus the S&P, and 2014 +10% versus the S&P. Perhaps I don't understand what these numbers mean, but the article opens with Article posted:Last year’s Top 10 beat the market, gaining an average of 18.1%, compared with 15.7% for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
Accidentally switched the numbers...so +2.4 for 2014, and +10 for 2013.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
does anyone want to write an algo with me
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:If we want to evaluate their picking skill, a meaningful baseline for comparison is not the S&P 500, but rather a random selection of 10 stocks from the market. I'm not seeing any evidence that they did better than that in any year Why is 10 random stocks a better baseline than the S&P 500? Also ^^^^ what do you want to do with your algorithm
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Have to give props to TradeKing for excellent customer support. I've been setting up accounts with other brokers to compare. With TK, you just call, and a guy picks up and answers your questions. Currently on hold indefinitely with TradeStation support, after stumbling through a Press X maze. Anyone know what brokers that can place multi-leg FIXML orders? Tradeking does it, but only for some preset selections. Ie, I can buy a synthetic short and a long stock in one order, because they call that a 'collar', but not the opposite, since their platform isn't set up for custom order types, despite the FIX protocol supporting it. OptionsXpress doesn't have an API. IB's website, support, software, and API are such a mess I couldn't tell if they can do it. TradeStation seems like it would do something like this, but its API uses a custom order setup instead of the standard FIXML, and they have no examples or guidelines for multi-leg orders. There's a blurb about FIXML on their site, but the follow-through is "contact us if you want more info", and they don't respond to emails or pick up the phone. Dominoes fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Arkane posted:This is their 5th year doing it....2011 -5% versus the S&P, 2012 +5% versus the S&P, 2013 +2.4% versus the S&P, and 2014 +10% versus the S&P. Seems like a good track record. Their stock picking is also impartial, which I like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
The less stocks you pick the more volatility can work in your favor in the short term. If you want to beat the field (S&P) your best chance is with a small number of stocks. Incidentally, this is also your best chance to lose against the field. Probably the best and most interesting comparison would be to use the S&P as a baseline, but also make 9 "competing experts" that are actually just 10 random stocks in the Russell 3000. That could be a fun experiment to backtest, and then also run for 2015
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Crazyweasel posted:Why is 10 random stocks a better baseline than the S&P 500? It's a good baseline to use to decide whether they have any picking skill. 10 random stocks matches the performance of the market by definition, but with higher volatility. Based on these four years of history, there's every reason to think that following their picks would yield the market return on average, but with higher volatility. Basically what cowofwar said. District Selectman posted:Probably the best and most interesting comparison would be to use the S&P as a baseline, but also make 9 "competing experts" that are actually just 10 random stocks in the Russell 3000. That is the perfect experiment, but you need more than 9. If you ran this for previous years I bet you'd find their results weren't too far from the middle of the pack of random pickers. But I don't know! I just suspect
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
decided to join you guys on CSIQ at 23.30 after its tiny little dip today. Between this and TAN I have buried a lot of money into solar, mostly due to people in this thread!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Pron on VHS posted:decided to join you guys on CSIQ at 23.30 after its tiny little dip today. Welcome aboard. Each
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:During economic boom years picking higher volatility single stocks will generally give you a better return than the index, yes. These numbers actually aren't that good. You're massively increasing your risk exposure in order to gain -5% to 10% over the index? Sounds like poo poo to me. The question is can they do it on years when the index is negative. To be clear, I am not saying that one should blindly follow their picks or that they are stock picking savants, instead I said that the article makes "interesting, impartial arguments" about 10 stocks headed into 2015. The poster who responded cherry picked one year where they did poorly (5% worse than the S&P), and I thought this was unfair criticism of the article. Of the 10 they picked, I am only very familiar with GM, and I agree with their analysis 100%. Another who shares the same view on GM is Kyle Bass, who has been banging his head against a wall for over a year telling people what a bargain GM is (stock is down over the past year). I'll add two things that the Barron's blurb fails to mention on GM: (1) there is still a bit of an overhang from the ignition switch issue....they will likely have to pay a sizable fine and potentially other legal costs which could total a couple of billion....but even a sum that large pales in comparison to their anticipated earnings over the next few years. (2) GM's balance sheet, relative to its market cap, is phenomenal, much better relative to market cap than Ford. Their description of Fluor interests me because they're making a similar argument to solar: that Fluor has dropped with the price of oil, not out of specific concern for the company's earnings. And that if you examine their earnings pipeline, the impact of lower oil prices is minimal. Added that one to my watchlist to possibly research in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Arkane posted:To be clear, I am not saying that one should blindly follow their picks or that they are stock picking savants, instead I said that the article makes "interesting, impartial arguments" about 10 stocks headed into 2015. The poster who responded cherry picked one year where they did poorly (5% worse than the S&P), and I thought this was unfair criticism of the article. But anyways, I think 2015 will be a year where performance will be primarily affected by macroeconomic issues on a sector by sector basis. I think this year will be based on picking winning sectors rather than individual companies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
lol CSIQ, 5% intraday swing. i exited my call option for a nice profit two days ago should have btfd today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Question: if I want to gently caress around with options, what are the best resources to learn more, and the best platforms to trade them? Having maxed out most relevant retirement vehicles, would be interested in trying active investing for fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
semicolonsrock posted:Question: if I want to gently caress around with options, what are the best resources to learn more, and the best platforms to trade them? Having maxed out most relevant retirement vehicles, would be interested in trying active investing for fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Dominoes posted:I dunno bro; what do you want? Options can give you mad leverage. Or you could trade synthetics against stocks. It's all about fun. This is all bullshit. This thread's bullshit. Most of what you read about investing's bullshit. Have a nut! Yeah, the mad leverage part seems fun. Basically: what books etc should I read to get an idea of how the mechanics of these things work?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Droo posted:I really try not to sound like a jerk when I post stuff but... if you don't even know the substantially equal periodic payment rule for retirement accounts, you really have no business advising people not to use them.  Regardless, this still doesn't solve my issue. If I want to save for an event 10-20 years down the line, an SEPP plan will only allow you to take periodic payments for five years or 59.5, whichever comes last. That means if I am 30 now and want a large amount of funds at age 50, I would need to set up a SEPP plan that distributes over the next 39.5 years. This is kind of useless because most of those funds will end up in a taxable account anyway, before all the paperwork. Additionally, about 1/3 of it would not be available. SEPP seems to be just a vehicle for early retirement. I did a few calcs yesterday to try to test a Roth IRA with the 10% penalty versus a taxable account on a 20 year timeframe. Assuming a starting salary of $50k, with 5% annual increases, 10% salary contributions to the account, 15% average tax rate and 15% capital gains. With this, there is an inflection point at approximately 10.2% expected average market gain. Anything more than that and the Roth IRA makes sense. Anything less than that and the taxable returns more. This is because the 10% penalty is on the entire distribution amount whereas the capital gain will only be on the gains. Higher gains means the 10% penalty will overcome the 15% capital gains tax. Lower gains and the 10% (which is applied to the entire distribution) overcomes the 15%. This is a basic calculation, but it does exhibit some of the limitations of retirement accounts with some savings goals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:If we want to evaluate their picking skill, a meaningful baseline for comparison is not the S&P 500, but rather a random selection of 10 stocks from the market. I'm not seeing any evidence that they did better than that in any year I think it depends what you are trying to do. If you aren't trying to make a portfolio consisting of large cap stocks which emulate the S&P500, then comparing your portfolio to it probably doesn't make much sense. Each portfolio should represent an amount of risk one is trying to take and return one is trying to attain. The S&P500 is only a target benchmark for those who want to be in that risk/return band.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:I did a few calcs yesterday to try to test a Roth IRA with the 10% penalty versus a taxable account on a 20 year timeframe. Assuming a starting salary of $50k, with 5% annual increases, 10% salary contributions to the account, 15% average tax rate and 15% capital gains. With this, there is an inflection point at approximately 10.2% expected average market gain. Anything more than that and the Roth IRA makes sense. Anything less than that and the taxable returns more. This is because the 10% penalty is on the entire distribution amount whereas the capital gain will only be on the gains. Higher gains means the 10% penalty will overcome the 15% capital gains tax. Lower gains and the 10% (which is applied to the entire distribution) overcomes the 15%. For simplicity, assuming the Roth contribution limit doesn't increase over the next 20 years (stays at $5,500/yr), you'd have $110,000 in contributions over that 20 years. This is available to withdraw at any time. Any potential gains would have to wait until retirement age to avoid the 10% penalty. Actually rereading your post, did you assume a 10% penalty on the entire Roth distribution or just the gains? The portion that is contribution can be taken out tax/penalty free any time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
If anyone is curious about how much money they would be wasting by using a taxable account versus a tax deferred account, here is the spreadsheet I used. http://www.kynimagine.com/taxable.xls The assumptions are: 1. The tax deferred account is basically a Roth account. This makes the starting comparison easier because there is no comparing paying taxes now compared to later. Because we know that, given identical marginal tax rates when the money is put in and when the money is taken out, a Roth IRA and a traditional IRA will result in exactly the same amount of money, then you can consider this comparison valid for either a Roth or traditional retirement account. 2. The "Average LT Gain Realized per Year" is basically how much you are paying long term capital gains on per year, as a percentage of account value. I used a 1.3% number in mine because that is about what I've paid the last 5 years on average (e.g. $100,000 account you claim $1300 in gains and pay about $195 in tax yearly). If you literally never sold a stock then it would be valid to use 0% here (if you only buy ETFs, since mutual funds disperse gains you have no control over). If you are an active trader, this comparison would be MUCH worse for the taxable account than this sheet is even capable of showing (short term gains etc). 3. The sheet uses actual historical values for the S&P 500 index. Money is put is as a lump-sum on December 31st at the closing price. 4. The "Ending Value Taxable" cell basically assumes that you pay all the accrued long-term gains tax on the rest of your taxable portfolio that day (i.e. you realize all your gains). This is the only way to fairly compare the two. I originally made the sheet about 6 months ago to decide if it was worth the hassle of maximizing my wife's 401k for a contract-to-hire job that she would only have for 6 months or so. I was actually surprised by how much money you waste in a taxable account, even investing efficiently and not realizing many gains, and ended up signing her up for the 401k. I also dislike the fact that you get trapped into positions in a taxable account. For example, I currently own 400 shares of DE that I bought in 2008 and 2009. Those shares are worth $35,336 right now, of which $20,302 is capital gains. If I decide I want to sell them and buy an index fund instead, I have to eat about $3,000 in tax. So I end up feeling trapped because I don't want to pay the $3000, but I would prefer convert the individual stocks I own to index funds, since it is more stressful than it's worth to me to own individual stocks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:I think this exercise is relevant if you plan on needing all of the money at one time 20 years down the road. If that's the case, then yeah I'd probably go taxable too. If, however, you might not want or need all of it at once when the clock strikes 20 (early retirement for example, or a large down payment on a beach house, etc), the Roth IRA probably makes more sense. Yeah, I picked that up afterward. I was running numbers with Roth/Traditional IRA scenarios yesterday and I left it in there and messed it all up. However, I also forgot to add taxes on the earnings of an early distribution for a Roth (in addition to the 10% penalty). Looking at this again, the taxable has the leg up on the roth accounts for pre-59.5 lump sum distribution due to the 10% penalty and the differential between your marginal tax rate and capital gains tax (probably another 10%) . Droo, I am not trying to talk down on tax advantaged retirement accounts by any means. The vast majority of my money is in an IRA or 401(k), which should be the case for most investors. However as Saint Fu posted, I think we are just considering different saving goals and scenarios on how people would want to use their money in the future. quote:I also dislike the fact that you get trapped into positions in a taxable account. For example, I currently own 400 shares of DE that I bought in 2008 and 2009. Those shares are worth $35,336 right now, of which $20,302 is capital gains. If I decide I want to sell them and buy an index fund instead, I have to eat about $3,000 in tax. So I end up feeling trapped because I don't want to pay the $3000, but I would prefer convert the individual stocks I own to index funds, since it is more stressful than it's worth to me to own individual stocks. Cheesemaster200 fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Droo posted:If anyone is curious about how much money they would be wasting by using a taxable account versus a tax deferred account, here is the spreadsheet I used. A pointless exercise for me because I could never replicate my trading in a tax deferred account. Major disadvantages of those accounts are the lack of margin, the inability to trade options, and the inability to short. You lose access to leverage. Lack of leverage is meaningless to a passive investor, but the passive investor should be in the long-term thread not this one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
How much money did y'all start trading with? I've been reading and practicing with paper trading and have done very well; I've been eager to dive in but those trading fees will be killer for low amounts. $20 just to break even on a trade seems pretty rough when diversification is key.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
Most people in this thread probably aren't paying $10-20/trade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:How much money did y'all start trading with? I've been reading and practicing with paper trading and have done very well; I've been eager to dive in but those trading fees will be killer for low amounts. $20 just to break even on a trade seems pretty rough when diversification is key. When I started trading I did a blend of this thread and the long term thread, where I would buy vanguard securities and hold them over a year, in a taxable account. It was free (no commissions if you do that through their brokerage), risk-averse (their ETFs are more diversified across the industry than a single firm's stock) and it helped me learn the basic macroeconomics around many sectors. I didn't make a lot of money but I learned quite a bit. The next step is to do that in a taxable account (but still holding for longer periods so you don't churn through any profits) with individual equites or something more fun than ETFs
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:How much money did y'all start trading with? I've been reading and practicing with paper trading and have done very well; I've been eager to dive in but those trading fees will be killer for low amounts. $20 just to break even on a trade seems pretty rough when diversification is key. I started with $5k, and I think that's a perfectly fine amount to start with. Just don't be too active. Ideally, $20k is the level I would want, but that's also based on my risk tolerance and the amount of time I'm willing to spend researching investments. My trading transactions are typically $5k-$10k a pop, and I hold two or three positions at a time. Typically, more money in a position makes me uncomfortable, although I've been there (currently there, kinda hate it), and more than three positions consumes too much time (already spending too much time, want to get more passive). Also, and this is just my opinion, but when you are trading (vs. investing) diversification isn't the key. Diversify your portfolio, not your trading account (IMO).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:How much money did y'all start trading with? I've been reading and practicing with paper trading and have done very well; I've been eager to dive in but those trading fees will be killer for low amounts. $20 just to break even on a trade seems pretty rough when diversification is key. I wouldn't touch stocks with less than 10k, and with 10k I'd buy 2-3 stocks and maybe make trades 2 times a year at most, or when it was warranted or whatever. fwiw
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Up 22% on GTIM in 2 weeks, but will it reach new highs?? My guess is..no. Going to ride it out though. Also I agree that poverty mode stock picking is a little silly. But you go to war with the army you've got not the one you want, as the great Donny Rumsfeld said. And again, Robinhood offers 0 commission stock trading, there's no catch as far as I have seen. Get in on it if you are looking for an execution platform for free trades (its features are very minimal at present).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
any good energy stocks
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
buy the loving dip?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
SuppressdPuberty93 posted:any good energy stocks They are also energy ETFs like VDE if you want to roll the dice on energy crashing even more and then recovering a few years down the road.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
I already bought some XOM and CVX. Might grab some COP tomorrow, because my small cap fav' EBIX popped 15% today on favorable IRS results (finally), so I took some profits and have some dry powder. I still think there is a short squeeze coming, but I was in a nauseating position, and now I'm glad to only be in a slightly uncomfortable position. How long do people typically have to cover a margin call?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:How long do people typically have to cover a margin call? New title for the thread right here. Not long at all. Think some brokers don't even bother with a warning and just start liquidating. Might want to check your brokers policies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
Baddog posted:New title for the thread right here. Haha, it's not for me, but I'm glad I finally contributed to a thread title. I'm long EBIX, which popped 15% yesterday, and has 15M shares shorted out of 30M float, at last short publication. I'm trying to gauge how long someone who was burned yesterday by this upward move would have to react. I've seen everything from COB to a week. Also daily volume is only 300k, and even a big day like yesterday only churned 2M shares, so best case scenario the short interest is 7.5 days to close.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
I don't have iOS, so here is a Robinhood invite code if anyone is interested. https://robinhood.com/signup/?invite_code=KEEN2HF9
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
I bought a bunch of Wet Seal when it was 5 cents, and now it's 12 cents. Hooray.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
SuppressdPuberty93 posted:any good energy stocks Foma posted:buy the loving dip? Part of me wants to put some money into oil stocks. But then I think about the prolonged slump in coal/minerals. Not just small players like WLT and MCP but the big boys like BHP are hurting. I guess just one accident or bombing at a refinery somewhere would drive up oil stocks but I'm holding off for at least a little bit longer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:35 |
|
|
a cop posted:I bought a bunch of Wet Seal when it was 5 cents, and now it's 12 cents. Hooray. The company currently has a market cap of less than 10 million, which is ludicrous for an outfit with hundreds of stores/inventory/etc. Either the company is worth way more than that or it's worth 0 and bankruptcy is imminent. Based on the fact that they just closed over 66% of their stores (I've never heard of a company doing this) I'd say bankruptcy is much more likely and you should get out while you still can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 22:41
|
|