OT: stocks today

User Forum Topic
Submitted by spdrun on May 17, 2017 - 12:03pm

Trump Dump?

Markets really love the guy, apparently.

I'm surprised they didn't go down when he was elected and aren't going up on his imminent impeachment.

Submitted by gzz on May 17, 2017 - 2:15pm.

I am well hedged, down 0.9% on a -1.8% SP500 day. My bonds and shorts did well.

I see rates are back at their post-election low and below the average for 2012-2015.

DC is starting to feel like a distant banana republic with no effect on California.

Submitted by flu on May 24, 2017 - 8:22pm.

Nasdaq 7 point from all time high.
S&P 500 within 1 point.
Dow back up over 21k

That didn't take long. I guess Wall Street is use to Trump doing stupid things, lol.

Submitted by spdrun on May 24, 2017 - 9:06pm.

Till the next time. I suspect the real fun will begin if impeachment proceedings are initiated against Trump.

Congress going Democrat in '18 after two years of Trump shenanigans might be a good starting point for interesting times.

Submitted by flu on May 25, 2017 - 7:16am.

still waiting for that one time big crash in stocks and real estate to make you come out ahead versus everyone else? Lol.

Submitted by harvey on May 25, 2017 - 7:54am.

flu wrote:
still waiting for that one time big crash in stocks and real estate to make you come out ahead versus everyone else? Lol.

Assessing risk and planning accordingly is a good part of any investment approach.

But any strategy based fundamentally on waiting for disaster will not do well in the long term.

Few people have made any significant wealth by predicting economic crashes. Those that did made big bets and timed it very well. And it was a one-time windfall. However many, many people have grown wealthy by investing in long-term trends of growth.

"I told you so" about negative events doesn't actually have as much financial value as many would like it to have.

Submitted by spdrun on May 25, 2017 - 12:56pm.

Put it this way. This country has an economic crisis every decade or so. I'm mentally prepared for the next one, not afraid of it.

Submitted by flu on May 25, 2017 - 9:40am.

And during the last RE crash, exactly how many rentals were purchased, taking advantage of the economic calamity that others faced that apparently you didn't?

Submitted by spdrun on May 25, 2017 - 10:14am.

I took advantage as much as I could at the time.

Next time, I can take greater advantage since I have more means to do so.

Submitted by flu on May 25, 2017 - 10:46am.

So in other words, your benefit from that psuedo economic collapse was a margin benefit at best and not something earth shattering that propelled you significantly much better off than everyone else.

Somehow, it appears a lot of the uber bears overestimate how much they can capitalize on a bear market. For starters most uber bears only recognize the down part of the economic markets and usually don't end up buying in a significant way when things are already at rock bottom prices.

This is known as the "I'll wait for an additional 50% off after prices have already fallen 30-40%..." Those folks missed the then boat, and will continue to miss the future boat.

Then there is the other thing ...Reality is, despite how smart you think you are, there are lot more even-smarter money out there, with a lot larger money resource than you do. And while the majority of the population is arguable not that financially savy, there IS a good percentage of the tiny population that is...Some of them being corporate entities. That itself will limit what you can capitalize on.

So while you might score a good deal here and there, you are way overestimating how much better off you will be from this versus everyone else that is waiting to do the same thing...Some who have done this many more times than you have and have a lot more resources than you do.

That's like saying, when the economy collapses...You can buy a limited production P-car or Lambo at 50% off... Uh, no.... There's plenty of wealthy people that still will pay near full price for those limited production runs...

Submitted by spdrun on May 25, 2017 - 11:56am.

Difference being, I'm looking for a very small piece of the pie, so it's easier to steal it from under people's noses.

I'm not looking to get rich, just to have all of my basic living expenses (housing, utilities, health insurance, food, medical, maybe car) paid by ATMs on the hoof (aka tenants).

Literally, I'm looking for 50-75k per year that I have to do minimum work for and not be beholden to a 8-6 job for. Beyond that, I have no interest in property -- it's not a means of growth for me, just a means to assure a basic level of subsistence, because I'm not creative enough to think of any other way of doing this.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 25, 2017 - 12:05pm.

I have a friend who retired early and suffered depression after the 2008 collapse. He lost a big chunk of money and became withdrawn and cheap, stopped joining friend to do things, etc... still has not recovered.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 25, 2017 - 12:12pm.

Spdrun, i understand what you're saying. And I take it you don't like the fast paced, competitive nature of our society. Growth, growth, growth means that people generally had to work, work, work to keep up.

But it's not nice to wish collapse so you may pick up some properties and rest.

Submitted by spdrun on May 25, 2017 - 12:31pm.

Why should I be "nice" -- what has it given anyone?

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 25, 2017 - 12:41pm.

Wishing collapse is mean. It's like you're seing people enjoy themselves... you don't want to join the party, but you hate the smugness and the inflation they cause.

If a collapse happens, sure, take advantage if you can. But don't count on it. In the mean time, get on with the program and work like everyone else.

I do give you good points for honesty. Unlike some people you're not preaching hardwork and capitalism, then get bitter when others do it better.

Submitted by spdrun on May 25, 2017 - 2:09pm.

You expect me to be insulted?

Submitted by harvey on May 25, 2017 - 1:04pm.

spdrun wrote:
Why should I be "nice" -- what has it given anyone?

You don't have to be nice, but you should understand that the basic arithmetic behind business favors win-win scenarios over win-lose scenarios.

Submitted by spdrun on May 25, 2017 - 1:27pm.

Historically, there has been a win-lose scenario every 10 years or so, so I expect to see a few more in my time on this planet. 1974, 1981, 1987, 1991, 2001, 2008, ???

The great thing about win-lose scenarios is that they don't require brain power to take advantage of. Buying a foreclosed home, dragging any scum living there one, cleaning it up a bit, and advertising in on Craigslist are things that anyone with a HS diploma can do.

Submitted by flu on May 25, 2017 - 1:30pm.

spdrun wrote:

Literally, I'm looking for 50-75k per year that I have to do minimum work for and not be beholden to a 8-6 job for. Beyond that, I have no interest in property -- it's not a means of growth for me, just a means to assure a basic level of subsistence, because I'm not creative enough to think of any other way of doing this.

I don't think you really being honest with yourself on what you just stated as being the only goal.

If that really was your only goal, and the only thing you were looking for...your goal wouldn't have a required precondition of an economic collapse towards achieving that goal...

You see, if that really was your only goal... You wouldn't care which way the economic wind is blowing. You would be playing with the hand you are dealt right now and in the few years... You wouldn't be trying to "out smart" the direction the market is playing, you would be playing with the market condition as long as things pencil in, or as long as the opportunity presented itself. Both in the stock market and in the real estate market....

Instead though, you appear to be adopting a far alt-outer fridge contrarian ideology that a economic collapse will happen, you're smarter than the average person, you can outsmart the market consistently, and that your path/decision is the most certain way and only way to achieving your stated goal. In other words, you're goal isn't just to achieve your targeted $50-70k/year in passive income. You want to do it in a way in which you prove to yourself (and possibly others) you are right, everyone else is wrong, and you are smarter than the average person.. And the fact that you went against the grain/direction, and possibly been left out of what you could have profited from had you just done the same thing most other "dumber" people are doing, you now feel compelled you need to double down on your direction, in order to make up for being behind relative to people that you think are dumber than you...

So in your case, it's not simply a matter of finding rental property or any asset that can generate $50-75k/year. It's more doing it in a way such that you feel you're smart, everyone else is dumb...Am I correct?

I mean, be honest....If some group of people that are completely dumb as a doorknob, she-she stuck up, spoiled, IVY-league snooty, brat approached you and presented a sure way to help you generate that $50-75k/year in passive income as your stated goal...and the only thing you had to do was put up with his/her crap and constant tirade about how smart he/she is (despite being a dick/ahole and dumb as a doorknob)...for an entire year... Would you do it?... Or would pride get in the way of ultimately achieving your goal?

It's a philosophical question...

Submitted by spdrun on May 25, 2017 - 1:32pm.

If I had to work for some asshole for a year, and was GUARANTEED $50k for life after that, I'd do it. Are you suggesting a specific situation?

Submitted by flu on May 25, 2017 - 1:50pm.

spdrun wrote:
If I had to work for some asshole for a year, and was GUARANTEED $50k for life after that, I'd do it. Are you suggesting a specific situation?

I'm just wondering how frequently people let their pride get in the way of achieving their goals.... Again, it was just a philosophical question.

For example. If you had to surround yourself with political commentators from Fox news for 2 years working for 5 days 10 hours a day listening and copy writing those editorials from Rush Limbuargh. And in exchange he gave you one of his properties that yielded $50k/year...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 25, 2017 - 1:52pm.

harvey wrote:
you should understand that the basic arithmetic behind business favors win-win scenarios over win-lose scenarios.

That is so true in the aggregate. But business is competition and growth oriented and some people will be left behind. Like NAFTA was a win-win and increased trade flows in the aggregate. But the people left behind didn't have the basic requirements of bootstrapping, the brainpower and wherewithal, to adapt to new market conditions,

Submitted by harvey on May 25, 2017 - 2:04pm.

spdrun wrote:
Historically, there has been a win-lose scenario every 10 years or so, so I expect to see a few more in my time on this planet. 1974, 1981, 1987, 1991, 2001, 2008, ???

Many of those were relatively small in the big picture and there was not a balance of win-lose in any of those events. They were mostly lose with a few minor winners who had very precise timing, if not just luck.

Quote:
The great thing about win-lose scenarios is that they don't require brain power to take advantage of.

True, it doesn't require brain power to have very precise timing, in hindsight.

You do seem to be determined to swim against the current.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 25, 2017 - 2:04pm.

I think I get spdrun. He's not a perma bear. He knows very well that there are opportunities in boom years. But the competition is fierce so doesn't want to exert the brainpower and effort needed to compete (he admits to be lazy and doesn't care for bling consumption) Spdrun knows that the nature of business is growth. He's just waiting for a recession to buy low so he rent out high later. Spdrun's strategy to buy low assumes there will be an up cycle to follow.

That is very much unlike the permabears who think the system is rigged, and the wealth is "fake" so a collapse is imminent, dollar collapse, etc...

Submitted by spdrun on May 25, 2017 - 2:07pm.

I am not a perma bear. I'm a tempa-bear. I'm aware that things are cyclical, and that downturns are almost never permanent (in the US, places like Haiti are a different story).

Submitted by spdrun on May 25, 2017 - 2:11pm.

For example. If you had to surround yourself with political commentators from Fox news for 2 years working for 5 days 10 hours a day listening and copy writing those editorials from Rush Limbuargh. And in exchange he gave you one of his properties that yielded $50k/year...

I'd do it in a second. Maybe I could actually do some good in tempering and subtly altering the message in between Limbaugh and the talking head.

And then I'd use the $50k/yr to go to med school or law school, move to some town in upstate NY or West Virginia, and ACTUALLY have a hand in helping the people that Fox News claims to represent by providing low-cost medical or legal care.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 25, 2017 - 2:39pm.

The thread is about stocks but I believe spdrun is mainly focused on real estate.
The nature of RE rentals requires that you buy low. It's a good idea to wait and buy during recessions. I can understand that if one is ready to buy, one would want a recession.

Submitted by flu on May 25, 2017 - 4:30pm.

spdrun wrote:
I am not a perma bear. I'm a tempa-bear. I'm aware that things are cyclical, and that downturns are almost never permanent (in the US, places like Haiti are a different story).

If you have $1million laying around., and all you want is $50k... You could stick that into a lower risk dividend fund/index fund and you'll average out around 4-5% per year with the least about of work....

Why would you be so giddy about wanting a crash, that would be a disservice to your ultimate financial goals??? I don't get it.

It's one thing to plan for a crash to minimize risk. It's another thing to want something opposite of what you should have been doing all along that would have been the easier route instead of banking on the "one hit" that you would guess correctly at the right event at the right time ....Unless of course, like I said, it's to double down on a failed strategy that you held to for too long to make up for lost time...

I don't even gamble on just 1 strategy for a very long time... and I consider myself "reckless" when it comes to financial speculation....because like I said, if I'm wrong, I'm really screwed.

Submitted by spdrun on May 25, 2017 - 4:49pm.

Because I feel better owning property. Property is real. Property is an actual possession. Property can be lived in, touched, worked on with my two hands. And I enjoy working with my hands more than working with my brain. I'm primitive that way.

Index funds are dependent on the management of Wall Street scum that I don't personally know and don't trust (see also: Madoff). I like the control of real estate. It makes me feel safe to own multiple roofs.

*I* pick the tenants.
*I* pick the property.
*I* decide how to fix the property.
*I* can always live in the property if worse comes to worse.

It satisfies the selfish little kid in me to hoard physical possessions -- kind of like the Kindergartener who wants all of the toys and woe to anyone who asks him to care and share.

Also, crashed property yields 8% or more, not 4-5%. In rents, not Monopoly money.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 25, 2017 - 5:27pm.

I takes brainpower and work to manage properties.
You can think is it as competition to do it better than other people. It's not really passive in the sense that you do nothing. Well, you could do nothing but the returns would suck.

Submitted by flu on May 25, 2017 - 6:33pm.

spdrun wrote:
Because I feel better owning property. Property is real. Property is an actual possession. Property can be lived in, touched, worked on with my two hands. And I enjoy working with my hands more than working with my brain. I'm primitive that way.

Index funds are dependent on the management of Wall Street scum that I don't personally know and don't trust (see also: Madoff). I like the control of real estate. It makes me feel safe to own multiple roofs.

*I* pick the tenants.
*I* pick the property.
*I* decide how to fix the property.
*I* can always live in the property if worse comes to worse.

It satisfies the selfish little kid in me to hoard physical possessions -- kind of like the Kindergartener who wants all of the toys and woe to anyone who asks him to care and share.

Also, crashed property yields 8% or more, not 4-5%. In rents, not Monopoly money.

Quote:

spdrun wrote:
Difference being, I'm looking for a very small piece of the pie, so it's easier to steal it from under people's noses.

I'm not looking to get rich, just to have all of my basic living expenses (housing, utilities, health insurance, food, medical, maybe car) paid by ATMs on the hoof (aka tenants).

Literally, I'm looking for 50-75k per year that I have to do minimum work for and not be beholden to a 8-6 job for. Beyond that, I have no interest in property -- it's not a means of growth for me, just a means to assure a basic level of subsistence, because I'm not creative enough to think of any other way of doing this.


Again, you're not being consistent here.....
Your exact words were you're looking for 50-75k per year that you have to do minimum work for, not beholden to an 8-6 job...beyond which you don't really care about property. Then, you also replied you wouldn't mind working for an ahole for some time if it generated $50k/annually for the long term....And now, I'm saying you can generate your $50k/annually with presumedly your ultra thrift/saver you are had you just been camping out in index funds which have no fund manager that actively tries to trade and rack up those management fees that would have produced your $50k/annual amount you wanted... But for some reason, you have a problem with that, with "fees" (though with index funds, those fees are negligible being passive funds not actively managed funds....while meanwhile, you don't mind paying fees such as "property taxes", "hoa" and other costs associated with owning real estate....

I thought your entire purpose was to try to reach your $50-75k/year in passive income as quickly as you can, regardless of how you get there...provided it's legal and to a lesser extent ethical...Right?

Also the 8% versus 4%-5% thing...You aren't getting 8% on property because you didn't max out on your property when it was at an all time low, so of course looking back on it, if you put all your eggs into property at the exact time when it was low, yes 8% (actually even better)...But you didn't...Just like you aren't going to pick the winning stock every single time. So reality is, you are really going to do that much better than the average return on the market over the long period of time....
Besides, if you can get your $50k out of 4-5% why would you want to take on increased risk just to get 8%+ when you really don't need to, if your only goal is $50k/year in passive income?

Again, where does your personal biases, prejudices, preconceived notions, and opinions matter in generating passive income? Don't you think that your perceptions and biases are costing you a huge opportunity cost that is actually hurting you more than helping you reach your goal?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.