Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
cooperthedog
ParticipantJust my two cents on all the ego in this thread & the 570% return (2280% annualized!). That is an improbable, and definitely unsustainable, yet *possible* return.
Even for a larger account (1M), assuming your trading very liquid securities (e.g. SPY which can trade 1-2 million shares a *minute*, 1M will buy ~7500 shares, so that level of capitalization won’t move the market). Of course, to make 570% in ETF’s in 3 months would be almost impossible.
The real question is how much risk did someone take to get such a high return? Assuming our friend did indeed get 570% return (wink wink), he would’ve had to trade derivatives, single securities, or use a foolish amount of leverage. I’m sure Chris, our resident futures expert, has seen gamblers rack up spectacular gains in a short timeframe using 20:1 leverage, only to end up completely ruined later.
There *are* more opportunities in volatile markets, especially the strongly trending intraday markets that have occurred, but with the added volatility comes additional risk…
One last point, it seems everyone loves to post how ignorant everyone else is, yet I’ve seen incorrect information posted from novices as well as the pros on this board, (and I’m sure I have as well). Over confidence & arrogance are not traits that play well with investing/trading. They will lead to poor results and frustration.
ParticipantJust my two cents on all the ego in this thread & the 570% return (2280% annualized!). That is an improbable, and definitely unsustainable, yet *possible* return.
Even for a larger account (1M), assuming your trading very liquid securities (e.g. SPY which can trade 1-2 million shares a *minute*, 1M will buy ~7500 shares, so that level of capitalization won’t move the market). Of course, to make 570% in ETF’s in 3 months would be almost impossible.
The real question is how much risk did someone take to get such a high return? Assuming our friend did indeed get 570% return (wink wink), he would’ve had to trade derivatives, single securities, or use a foolish amount of leverage. I’m sure Chris, our resident futures expert, has seen gamblers rack up spectacular gains in a short timeframe using 20:1 leverage, only to end up completely ruined later.
There *are* more opportunities in volatile markets, especially the strongly trending intraday markets that have occurred, but with the added volatility comes additional risk…
One last point, it seems everyone loves to post how ignorant everyone else is, yet I’ve seen incorrect information posted from novices as well as the pros on this board, (and I’m sure I have as well). Over confidence & arrogance are not traits that play well with investing/trading. They will lead to poor results and frustration.
ParticipantJust my two cents on all the ego in this thread & the 570% return (2280% annualized!). That is an improbable, and definitely unsustainable, yet *possible* return.
Even for a larger account (1M), assuming your trading very liquid securities (e.g. SPY which can trade 1-2 million shares a *minute*, 1M will buy ~7500 shares, so that level of capitalization won’t move the market). Of course, to make 570% in ETF’s in 3 months would be almost impossible.
The real question is how much risk did someone take to get such a high return? Assuming our friend did indeed get 570% return (wink wink), he would’ve had to trade derivatives, single securities, or use a foolish amount of leverage. I’m sure Chris, our resident futures expert, has seen gamblers rack up spectacular gains in a short timeframe using 20:1 leverage, only to end up completely ruined later.
There *are* more opportunities in volatile markets, especially the strongly trending intraday markets that have occurred, but with the added volatility comes additional risk…
One last point, it seems everyone loves to post how ignorant everyone else is, yet I’ve seen incorrect information posted from novices as well as the pros on this board, (and I’m sure I have as well). Over confidence & arrogance are not traits that play well with investing/trading. They will lead to poor results and frustration.
ParticipantJust my two cents on all the ego in this thread & the 570% return (2280% annualized!). That is an improbable, and definitely unsustainable, yet *possible* return.
Even for a larger account (1M), assuming your trading very liquid securities (e.g. SPY which can trade 1-2 million shares a *minute*, 1M will buy ~7500 shares, so that level of capitalization won’t move the market). Of course, to make 570% in ETF’s in 3 months would be almost impossible.
The real question is how much risk did someone take to get such a high return? Assuming our friend did indeed get 570% return (wink wink), he would’ve had to trade derivatives, single securities, or use a foolish amount of leverage. I’m sure Chris, our resident futures expert, has seen gamblers rack up spectacular gains in a short timeframe using 20:1 leverage, only to end up completely ruined later.
There *are* more opportunities in volatile markets, especially the strongly trending intraday markets that have occurred, but with the added volatility comes additional risk…
One last point, it seems everyone loves to post how ignorant everyone else is, yet I’ve seen incorrect information posted from novices as well as the pros on this board, (and I’m sure I have as well). Over confidence & arrogance are not traits that play well with investing/trading. They will lead to poor results and frustration.
Participantarraya – thanks for the post, very informative & depressing…
I was already a believer in peak oil, but the alternatives (or lack thereof) was an eye-opener, especially the nuclear power required & limited u235, and the hydrogen based economy timeframe and its current 6:1 oil/hydrogen converion ratio.
Participantarraya – thanks for the post, very informative & depressing…
I was already a believer in peak oil, but the alternatives (or lack thereof) was an eye-opener, especially the nuclear power required & limited u235, and the hydrogen based economy timeframe and its current 6:1 oil/hydrogen converion ratio.
Participantarraya – thanks for the post, very informative & depressing…
I was already a believer in peak oil, but the alternatives (or lack thereof) was an eye-opener, especially the nuclear power required & limited u235, and the hydrogen based economy timeframe and its current 6:1 oil/hydrogen converion ratio.
Participantarraya – thanks for the post, very informative & depressing…
I was already a believer in peak oil, but the alternatives (or lack thereof) was an eye-opener, especially the nuclear power required & limited u235, and the hydrogen based economy timeframe and its current 6:1 oil/hydrogen converion ratio.
Participantarraya – thanks for the post, very informative & depressing…
I was already a believer in peak oil, but the alternatives (or lack thereof) was an eye-opener, especially the nuclear power required & limited u235, and the hydrogen based economy timeframe and its current 6:1 oil/hydrogen converion ratio.
January 2, 2008 at 10:01 PM in reply to: Last day of trading in 2007 brings a 100 pt loss for the DOW #128237ParticipantChris, this is incorrect:
To recommend inverse funds for the average Joe is irresponsible, but I think most people can see from what they read from you that you are full of it. Inverse funds are not available in 401k funds, anyone who knows anything at all knows that. 401k funds specifically try to discourage short term trading, and if you were in the busines you would be aware of that.
Inverse funds & ETF’s ARE available to IRA’s & Roth’s. They may be available in your 401k also, dependent on your plans offerings…
Also, the advice you gave on holding an index fund as a core of a 401k portfolio, along with bonds, is sound advice for most investors, as these retirement funds are long-term investments. I would add that a larger percentage of stocks (US & foreign) should be allocated for those not nearing retirement (ie higher risk and volatility in the short term for better long term results over bonds).
A strong argument can be made that the economy and equity markets are headed down, and that serious fundamental problems could cause equities to underperform for years, this may very well be the case, though market timing is harder than it looks…
For those that choose to time the market, and understand the risks associated with it, I think an inverse fund is appropriate (though a 2x fund is a bit much unless you have thoroughly defined your risk and understand the pitfalls of leverage, especially when short the market), otherwise, going into cash or bonds during periods of uncertainty may be better for the average joe, since timing errors result in lesser gains (spread between yield and index return) vs. actual losses (which are “compounded” by the additional underperformance to the index).
January 2, 2008 at 10:01 PM in reply to: Last day of trading in 2007 brings a 100 pt loss for the DOW #128404ParticipantChris, this is incorrect:
To recommend inverse funds for the average Joe is irresponsible, but I think most people can see from what they read from you that you are full of it. Inverse funds are not available in 401k funds, anyone who knows anything at all knows that. 401k funds specifically try to discourage short term trading, and if you were in the busines you would be aware of that.
Inverse funds & ETF’s ARE available to IRA’s & Roth’s. They may be available in your 401k also, dependent on your plans offerings…
Also, the advice you gave on holding an index fund as a core of a 401k portfolio, along with bonds, is sound advice for most investors, as these retirement funds are long-term investments. I would add that a larger percentage of stocks (US & foreign) should be allocated for those not nearing retirement (ie higher risk and volatility in the short term for better long term results over bonds).
A strong argument can be made that the economy and equity markets are headed down, and that serious fundamental problems could cause equities to underperform for years, this may very well be the case, though market timing is harder than it looks…
For those that choose to time the market, and understand the risks associated with it, I think an inverse fund is appropriate (though a 2x fund is a bit much unless you have thoroughly defined your risk and understand the pitfalls of leverage, especially when short the market), otherwise, going into cash or bonds during periods of uncertainty may be better for the average joe, since timing errors result in lesser gains (spread between yield and index return) vs. actual losses (which are “compounded” by the additional underperformance to the index).
January 2, 2008 at 10:01 PM in reply to: Last day of trading in 2007 brings a 100 pt loss for the DOW #128412ParticipantChris, this is incorrect:
To recommend inverse funds for the average Joe is irresponsible, but I think most people can see from what they read from you that you are full of it. Inverse funds are not available in 401k funds, anyone who knows anything at all knows that. 401k funds specifically try to discourage short term trading, and if you were in the busines you would be aware of that.
Inverse funds & ETF’s ARE available to IRA’s & Roth’s. They may be available in your 401k also, dependent on your plans offerings…
Also, the advice you gave on holding an index fund as a core of a 401k portfolio, along with bonds, is sound advice for most investors, as these retirement funds are long-term investments. I would add that a larger percentage of stocks (US & foreign) should be allocated for those not nearing retirement (ie higher risk and volatility in the short term for better long term results over bonds).
A strong argument can be made that the economy and equity markets are headed down, and that serious fundamental problems could cause equities to underperform for years, this may very well be the case, though market timing is harder than it looks…
For those that choose to time the market, and understand the risks associated with it, I think an inverse fund is appropriate (though a 2x fund is a bit much unless you have thoroughly defined your risk and understand the pitfalls of leverage, especially when short the market), otherwise, going into cash or bonds during periods of uncertainty may be better for the average joe, since timing errors result in lesser gains (spread between yield and index return) vs. actual losses (which are “compounded” by the additional underperformance to the index).
January 2, 2008 at 10:01 PM in reply to: Last day of trading in 2007 brings a 100 pt loss for the DOW #128480ParticipantChris, this is incorrect:
To recommend inverse funds for the average Joe is irresponsible, but I think most people can see from what they read from you that you are full of it. Inverse funds are not available in 401k funds, anyone who knows anything at all knows that. 401k funds specifically try to discourage short term trading, and if you were in the busines you would be aware of that.
Inverse funds & ETF’s ARE available to IRA’s & Roth’s. They may be available in your 401k also, dependent on your plans offerings…
Also, the advice you gave on holding an index fund as a core of a 401k portfolio, along with bonds, is sound advice for most investors, as these retirement funds are long-term investments. I would add that a larger percentage of stocks (US & foreign) should be allocated for those not nearing retirement (ie higher risk and volatility in the short term for better long term results over bonds).
A strong argument can be made that the economy and equity markets are headed down, and that serious fundamental problems could cause equities to underperform for years, this may very well be the case, though market timing is harder than it looks…
For those that choose to time the market, and understand the risks associated with it, I think an inverse fund is appropriate (though a 2x fund is a bit much unless you have thoroughly defined your risk and understand the pitfalls of leverage, especially when short the market), otherwise, going into cash or bonds during periods of uncertainty may be better for the average joe, since timing errors result in lesser gains (spread between yield and index return) vs. actual losses (which are “compounded” by the additional underperformance to the index).
January 2, 2008 at 10:01 PM in reply to: Last day of trading in 2007 brings a 100 pt loss for the DOW #128509ParticipantChris, this is incorrect:
To recommend inverse funds for the average Joe is irresponsible, but I think most people can see from what they read from you that you are full of it. Inverse funds are not available in 401k funds, anyone who knows anything at all knows that. 401k funds specifically try to discourage short term trading, and if you were in the busines you would be aware of that.
Inverse funds & ETF’s ARE available to IRA’s & Roth’s. They may be available in your 401k also, dependent on your plans offerings…
Also, the advice you gave on holding an index fund as a core of a 401k portfolio, along with bonds, is sound advice for most investors, as these retirement funds are long-term investments. I would add that a larger percentage of stocks (US & foreign) should be allocated for those not nearing retirement (ie higher risk and volatility in the short term for better long term results over bonds).
A strong argument can be made that the economy and equity markets are headed down, and that serious fundamental problems could cause equities to underperform for years, this may very well be the case, though market timing is harder than it looks…
For those that choose to time the market, and understand the risks associated with it, I think an inverse fund is appropriate (though a 2x fund is a bit much unless you have thoroughly defined your risk and understand the pitfalls of leverage, especially when short the market), otherwise, going into cash or bonds during periods of uncertainty may be better for the average joe, since timing errors result in lesser gains (spread between yield and index return) vs. actual losses (which are “compounded” by the additional underperformance to the index).
-
AuthorPosts
