|
Solice Kirsk posted:I'd sooner live in cold darkness than rely on that annoying day sphere for anything! gently caress the sun and everything it casts its yellow glow of failure on. *A million dirty faced coal miners in hard hats cheer and throw their pick axes into the air* a soft cheer of "soot! Soot! Soot!" slowly grows to a deafening roar as Ken Bone looks down approvingly from on high, with a smug smile on his fat mustached face. greasyhands fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Nov 22, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
The candle maker's petition! http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html The tl:dr being that banning windows would be great for candle makers and satirically good for the economy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:*A million dirty faced coal miners in hard hats cheer and throw their pick axes into the air* a soft cheer of "soot! Soot! Soot!" slowly grows to a deafening roar as Ken Bone looks down approvingly from on high, with a smug smile on his fat mustached face. a coal in every pot an underground fire in every city
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:When you elect a guy to a capitalist country's highest office and even the hard core capitalists are saying, "WTF?" you know the next four years are going to be loving wild. Think of all the opportunities for BIG SAVINGS on all the stocks you've ever wanted
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
goose willis posted:Think of all the opportunities for BIG SAVINGS on all the stocks you've ever wanted I'm a patient man, even with all of the evidence contrary. I am also a rational man. These two things are coming into conflict, at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Are bonds spiking down enough to signify a recession?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Christobevii3 posted:Are bonds spiking down enough to signify a recession?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Christobevii3 posted:Are bonds spiking down enough to signify a recession? Trump is advocating for significant tax cuts across, board and putting up barriers to low cost trading partners and engaging in domestic spending on something other than entitlements. This is going to increase inflationary pressure on all three fronts. The real question is how much he is actually going to accomplish; but with the Fed also looking to tighten and economic indicators already looking more heated I think nobody is taking chances with bond prices this high. I plan to pick up some bond holdings as yields moves up at predetermined levels. There is still a lot of risk abroad, and further declines in Europe or a crisis in Asia could end this whole party rather quickly. More importantly, mad panics to buy/sell things to to fuzzy predictions of the future usually leads to the market overcompensating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
What should i do with my ~10 year horizon savings account that is in 100% stock market index funds tia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Killstick posted:What should i do with my ~10 year horizon savings account that is in 100% stock market index funds tia. https://www.gmo.com/docs/default-source/public-commentary/gmo-quarterly-letter.pdf?sfvrsn=38 Read the first section "Hellish Choices: What's An Asset Owner To Do?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
It is with a heavy heart that I have exited my SDRL position for a total gain of $8.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:It is with a heavy heart that I have exited my SDRL position for a total gain of $8. But that's $8 you didn't have yesterday!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
I typically hold stocks for a long time. All of my holdings have gone up since I bought them. I understand that if I have up to $3000 in capital losses I can use them to offset my ordinary income at tax time. It seems that I can take more risk than I take. In fact, I could lose $3000 a year and break even if I understand correctly. If I am right, are there any high risk high reward moves I can make with several thousand dollars in the next month knowing that if I crap out I've lost nothing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
You definitely don't understand correctly. If you lose $3000 you will save between $300 and $1200 depending on your tax rate. The gain side of a short term trade is essentially the same, so the tax effect is almost symmetric.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Invicta{HOG}, M.D. posted:I typically hold stocks for a long time. All of my holdings have gone up since I bought them. I understand that if I have up to $3000 in capital losses I can use them to offset my ordinary income at tax time. Attempt to write of your gambling loses as a business expense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Droo posted:You definitely don't understand correctly. If you lose $3000 you will save between $300 and $1200 depending on your tax rate. The gain side of a short term trade is essentially the same, so the tax effect is almost symmetric. That makes more sense, thanks. I will continue to be slow and boring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
I don't pay taxes on reinvested dividends, right? Only later on when I sell the stock?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
goose willis posted:I don't pay taxes on reinvested dividends, right? Only later on when I sell the stock? If they are in a taxable account, you pay taxes on them whether you reinvest them or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Invicta{HOG}, M.D. posted:That makes more sense, thanks. I will continue to be slow and boring. If you want to take some money and put in quicker and more risky things you can, but his point was that you're not going to "break even." You could always try options (if you don't understand them you will lose that money). Small amounts that can have big returns but quite unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Invicta{HOG}, M.D. posted:I typically hold stocks for a long time. All of my holdings have gone up since I bought them. I understand that if I have up to $3000 in capital losses I can use them to offset my ordinary income at tax time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Nondescript Van posted:If you want to take some money and put in quicker and more risky things you can, but his point was that you're not going to "break even." My misunderstanding was that the capital losses were deducted from the final tax bill and not from adjusted gross income. Obviously makes a big difference and the first references didn't make that clear. As it is, it is still worthwhile because it does take some of the risk out of the proposition, though. If you really only lose two thirds based on your marginal tax rate it's easier to be aggressive with a small part of your portfolio. For me it will just fit better with my long term strategy to just pay more attention to when certain funds are not doing well and sell at a loss but, of course, be aware of the wash rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Droo posted:You definitely don't understand correctly. If you lose $3000 you will save between $300 and $1200 depending on your tax rate. The gain side of a short term trade is essentially the same, so the tax effect is almost symmetric. With patience it works to your advantage. Losses can be deducted from your top tax rate at any time, while long term gains are 15%. So with patience, losing $1k nets you say $300 in taxes, but gaining $1k costs you $150.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Invicta{HOG}, M.D. posted:For me it will just fit better with my long term strategy to just pay more attention to when certain funds are not doing well and sell at a loss but, of course, be aware of the wash rules. Tax loss harvesting is a well-known subject, tons of material out there on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
I am tired of having some stocks that aren't red enough to have an overall loss.. So what's the next poop that I should touch so that I can contribute to my eventual wealth decline?!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
A coworker recently started talking up his gains in what I can only assume are penny stocks for weed production companies (up hear in CAN), saying he's making a bunch as the market slowly moves towards legalization (though lol who knows with current politics if it will actually happen) he recommended an online trading platform, and I was thinking of putting some money in, not much, like maybe 100 a month if that. But it seems there are a lot of requirements for trading like gov id and social and etc. Should I just stay away and keep doing index mutual funds? Could I maybe go through my bank?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:
You shouldn't be evaluating penny stocks as an alternative to index funds. You should be evaluating them as an alternative to online poker or fantasy football. How would you feel about spending 100/month on poker?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
For long-term investing, is it better to focus on one single index fund (like VTI), multiple index funds, or a mixture of index funds and regular stocks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Just put all your money into coal, solar, chickens, plastic gaming accessories, and penny stocks. It's a guaranteed win! - I noticed a bunch of the stocks in watching all took an after hours drop at about the same time. What was announced? .. Or was it Trump and his Twitter rants? Seems about the right timing..
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
goose willis posted:For long-term investing, is it better to focus on one single index fund (like VTI), multiple index funds, or a mixture of index funds and regular stocks? You want one bond fund and one stocks fund. That's all you should hold unless you have specific views on some stock or strategy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
AMZN is interesting today. Seems like a good time to pick up some options.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
goose willis posted:For long-term investing, is it better to focus on one single index fund (like VTI), multiple index funds, or a mixture of index funds and regular stocks? Long-Term Investing and Retirement Savings: Write a dang letter to Jack Bogle! is the thread stickied at the top of this very forum which is dedicated to how to do long-term investing. I don't mean to be rude, mind you, but that thread has lots of great advice about it that does not necessarily come from the mouths of the degenerate gamblers who frequent this thread. coffeetable posted:You want one bond fund and one stocks fund. That's all you should hold unless you have specific views on some stock or strategy. The three-fund portfolio is the standard recommendation: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio It gives you the ability to balance across domestic stocks, international stocks, and bonds. If you insisted on a two-fund portfolio, than coffeetable has it right, but I'm not aware of a passive index fund that covers both domestic and international stocks, and you definitely want passively-managed index funds unless you're sure that you don't, for specific reasons that you can clearly articulate. If you don't do three-fund, you should probably do a single-fund "targeted retirement fund" portfolio. Targeted retirement funds cost a little more in fees because they require more active management, but they're the most convenient for a "set it and forget it" fund that you can just dump your money into and ignore for possibly decades. You can duplicate e.g. a Vanguard targeted retirement fund by buying the underlying Vanguard index funds that it is composed of, and doing your own rebalancing once a year. So, for a small amount of effort, you can generally get the same returns using a three-fund approach while paying marginally less in fees. See the long-term thread for more details. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:...but I'm not aware of a passive index fund that covers both domestic and international stocks VT (which is itself comprised of VTI and VXUS). BND is the bond partner index.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Three fund portfolios are only marginally better than two fund portfolios. Overseas stock indices are highly correlated with domestic ones. I'm not convinced it's worth the extra complexity when introducing indexing to a new investor.
coffeetable fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
goose willis posted:For long-term investing, is it better to focus on one single index fund (like VTI), multiple index funds, or a mixture of index funds and regular stocks? Look, there is nothing wrong with owning an individual stock, but for the love of gently caress, do not make it a concentrated position of your overall investments. All your eggs in one basket and that jazz.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Screw you Dad, my portfolio is 95% FitBit 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
If I was looking to invest in automation of service jobs, like McDonalds, any idea where I'd invest?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
DNK posted:VT (which is itself comprised of VTI and VXUS). Ah, it tracks the FTSE Global All Cap index, which I hadn't heard of or had heard of but forgot about. It is currently 56% North America. I would not want to lose the ability to balance (and rebalance) domestic vs. foreign stocks in my long-term account, but I suppose if you had to have one stock fund, this is a good one. coffeetable posted:Three fund portfolios are only marginally better than two fund portfolios. Overseas stock indices are highly correlated with domestic ones. I'm not convinced it's worth the extra complexity when introducing indexing to a new investor. That's true (the correlation), at least that correlations have become closer over the past few decades than they used to be. I'm not totally convinced that's a long-term trend that can't or won't reverse, but it's a fair thing to say. In the last three years, that trend has reversed a little: http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=697324 My personal feeling is that the long-term trend of correlation could be interrupted by any number of unpredictable events. One of the goals of diversification is against unforseen black swan type events; splitting between domestic and foreign would seem to me to be a reasonable way to flatten exposure to those types of things. It's an interesting subject and I am not an expert. I am reporting what the general opinion of the long-term investing thread is, though, and that's a three-fund approach.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
paternity suitor posted:If I was looking to invest in automation of service jobs, like McDonalds, any idea where I'd invest? MCD
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
I had a bond fund where some developer seriously hosed up the allocation algorithm and tanked the poo poo out of it. They liquidated as soon as they figured it out (which sucked because it took 3 months to get a check w/ the funds basically frozen). The lawsuit paid about 5% of what I figure was lost due to the mistake, and I didn't get that check for years. So yah, maybe spread your retirement out between a few funds, just in case something hosed up happens over the hopefully 60+ years you will be holding them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
I'm trying to really think this through: There has to be some way that index funds are going to gently caress everything up once they account for a big enough chunk of the market, simply by being that big a chunk of the market. What is it? A vast pool of rule-based predictable money being manipulated by the relative handful of active traders? The correlation of every s&p 500 stock approaching 1 as all trades result from fund flow? The relative market cap of every S&P 500 stock being fixed forever once all of it belongs to VFINX? There's gotta be something
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:46
|
|
