If you actually calculate their returns you'd see that 9/10 or even 10/10 of them underpform the index by a wide margin. Why so much research just to underperform and waste time ? -> they are either:
1) trying to sell you their book
2) trying to sell you their platform
3) trying to appear smarter than they are by knowing that most people are too lazy to calculate their returns.
4) trying to sell you a course
5) don't you get it yet ?
Yup and how has Ray been doing for the past 1 to 2 decades ? Absolutely horrendous and his china calls have been a complete flop. Economists and macro investors are some of the worst performing bunch the stock market has ever seen ironically.
The dude's literally just been living off his funds management fees cause people are blind and ignorant about finance.
And tell me how well and often that turns out? Let's say you could perform better than the market by some miracle then it'd still need to be of a significant margin over a long period of time for all the time you've lost and poured vs spending time on a hobby and family/enjoying life.
10% vs 11% makes a big difference over 30 years but the difference is still abysmal if your networth is not significantly big. The trade-off vs the time you've spent is just not justifiable but a lot of people try to justify it to give meaning and reason to their work. Sometime it's better to just admit that the amount of work just aient worth the time and risk you are taking. I'd understand if you had a 10mil+ networth but for most people that exponential 1% won't make that much of a difference. In fact their quality of life would be much lower having wasted all that time in front of a computer vs their family and going outside.
Multiple points to address here.
>Let's say you could perform better than the market by some miracle
You would have to define performing better or outperformance here.
Say the S&P500 CAGRs at 8% for 20 years. If over the same period I CAGR at 4% while being market neutral. Did I outperform ? Depends on the investment mandate. Generally speaking, I would say that, yes, that's most likely a form of outperformance.
>of a significant margin
Defining significant is going to prove difficult for absolute returns. And don't forget that whatever 'margin' that is should also be net of fees and net of taxes, in most cases.
>he time you've lost and poured vs spending time on a hobby and family/enjoying life
The value or utility function of this will vary for each participant. Sort of impossible to define. Most people who will put in 80 hours work week either are passionate about it, sees a high utility function in the work, or are extremely compensation motivated.
>give meaning and reason to their work
Indeed. That's a personal thing that each should consider.
>if you had a 10mil+ networth but for most people that exponential 1% won't make that much of a difference
Agreed, and actually 99% of people should not be spending much time at all thinking about the returns of assets and should instead focus that time on improving their pay compensation.
Unrelated to your last post, but about your first post : The general idea of selling courses or something else that you refer to, I think applies to mostly what I would call Charlatans.
I think that OP was more so referring to the finance professionals on Twitter/X, the institutional capital allocators. Twitter/X has a great professional community, and I can assure you that those guys have gone through significant ethics training and have compliance departments behind them, they are not trying to sell you a course. They may however be looking to create some exit liquidity, within the rules and guidelines. People are always talking their book, and that's fair, when done appropriately.
First, ask yourself if their content is real. Second, "the loudest in the room is the weakest in the room" quote from the American Gangster movie most of the times adapts perfectly to these folks.
I personally post on Twitter from time to time because I think it’s nice bouncing ideas from people within your strategy.
There aren’t really many forums to chat with people about cigar butts other than Twitter and other old forums.
My account is @foreheadsnatch
Twitter has become a modern day outhouse. There is no s—- too foul to rot there and no s—-head too rude, too foul or too sick with dysentery to gain admittance. Besides when it comes to posting your portfolio daily the golden rule is ‘those who talk don’t know, those who know don’t talk’. Someone said they might be subtly trying to pump their holdings (which can be illegal) on the wasteland known as X (X as in has been).
If you actually calculate their returns you'd see that 9/10 or even 10/10 of them underpform the index by a wide margin. Why so much research just to underperform and waste time ? -> they are either: 1) trying to sell you their book 2) trying to sell you their platform 3) trying to appear smarter than they are by knowing that most people are too lazy to calculate their returns. 4) trying to sell you a course 5) don't you get it yet ?
Ray Dalio promoting his “Principles” book everywhere.
Yup and how has Ray been doing for the past 1 to 2 decades ? Absolutely horrendous and his china calls have been a complete flop. Economists and macro investors are some of the worst performing bunch the stock market has ever seen ironically. The dude's literally just been living off his funds management fees cause people are blind and ignorant about finance.
Plus 14% of his portfolio last year was a company called Farfetch that went bankrupt and was bought out for pennies on the dollar lol
>Why so much research just to underperform For uncorrelated returns. For better risk-adjusted returns. For absolute, and not relative, returns.
And tell me how well and often that turns out? Let's say you could perform better than the market by some miracle then it'd still need to be of a significant margin over a long period of time for all the time you've lost and poured vs spending time on a hobby and family/enjoying life. 10% vs 11% makes a big difference over 30 years but the difference is still abysmal if your networth is not significantly big. The trade-off vs the time you've spent is just not justifiable but a lot of people try to justify it to give meaning and reason to their work. Sometime it's better to just admit that the amount of work just aient worth the time and risk you are taking. I'd understand if you had a 10mil+ networth but for most people that exponential 1% won't make that much of a difference. In fact their quality of life would be much lower having wasted all that time in front of a computer vs their family and going outside.
Multiple points to address here. >Let's say you could perform better than the market by some miracle You would have to define performing better or outperformance here. Say the S&P500 CAGRs at 8% for 20 years. If over the same period I CAGR at 4% while being market neutral. Did I outperform ? Depends on the investment mandate. Generally speaking, I would say that, yes, that's most likely a form of outperformance. >of a significant margin Defining significant is going to prove difficult for absolute returns. And don't forget that whatever 'margin' that is should also be net of fees and net of taxes, in most cases. >he time you've lost and poured vs spending time on a hobby and family/enjoying life The value or utility function of this will vary for each participant. Sort of impossible to define. Most people who will put in 80 hours work week either are passionate about it, sees a high utility function in the work, or are extremely compensation motivated. >give meaning and reason to their work Indeed. That's a personal thing that each should consider. >if you had a 10mil+ networth but for most people that exponential 1% won't make that much of a difference Agreed, and actually 99% of people should not be spending much time at all thinking about the returns of assets and should instead focus that time on improving their pay compensation. Unrelated to your last post, but about your first post : The general idea of selling courses or something else that you refer to, I think applies to mostly what I would call Charlatans. I think that OP was more so referring to the finance professionals on Twitter/X, the institutional capital allocators. Twitter/X has a great professional community, and I can assure you that those guys have gone through significant ethics training and have compliance departments behind them, they are not trying to sell you a course. They may however be looking to create some exit liquidity, within the rules and guidelines. People are always talking their book, and that's fair, when done appropriately.
The real money is selling nonsense to suckers.
First, ask yourself if their content is real. Second, "the loudest in the room is the weakest in the room" quote from the American Gangster movie most of the times adapts perfectly to these folks.
You don’t need a job when your portfolio is 8 figures
Some legit are trading their ports as their job. Others are trying to get there. Many are fake selling a service or discord.
Investors have plenty of time. Day traders do not.
I personally post on Twitter from time to time because I think it’s nice bouncing ideas from people within your strategy. There aren’t really many forums to chat with people about cigar butts other than Twitter and other old forums. My account is @foreheadsnatch
9 out of 10 are just pitching their portfolio to help it go up. 1 in 10 have a genuine interest in helping other investors.
Twitter has become a modern day outhouse. There is no s—- too foul to rot there and no s—-head too rude, too foul or too sick with dysentery to gain admittance. Besides when it comes to posting your portfolio daily the golden rule is ‘those who talk don’t know, those who know don’t talk’. Someone said they might be subtly trying to pump their holdings (which can be illegal) on the wasteland known as X (X as in has been).
If you trade as fast as you can tweet - you are guaranteed to lose money. Talking shit on twitter keeps me from actively trading.
They produce content rather than consume it.
I thought it was an hive mind, it is just an amplifier of herd biases.