[smyles]

Originally Posted by Nuckle

Can we stick to stocks discussion in this thread please?

Well, if this 'second wave' was a real thing, or at least had any significant probability, it would be affecting the market and its direction rather greatly.

[Our03z4]

Sold Delta for 7% gain, 16 days so not great. Also been doing day trades on SPXS and SPXU for 5% gain each time.

[AlpineWhite_SJ]

Originally Posted by smyles

Well, if this 'second wave' was a real thing, or at least had any significant probability, it would be affecting the market and its direction rather greatly.

And there are already threads on that where you can comment to your heart’s content.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by MisterF80M3

Where is the data showing it is in the US in November/Dec?

From my understanding, patient zero was found in Seattle in January.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronav...m-test-reveals

First death in Santa Clara, CA is now listed as 2/6. That person didn't have a travel history. This means the person contracted the virus sometime in early January, possibly December, based on the fact that people that die from COVID-19 tend to die in around 4 to 6 weeks. This also means there was community spread in San Francisco in early January. Thus if there is community spread, it means COVID-19 was around in December or earlier. If San Francisco had it then, you can be certain that it was circulating in most every US city that has a busy international hub in within the same time frame.

I know someone in Kansas City that tested positive for the COVID-19 antibodies. He had the text book symptoms in late December (high fever, terrible dry cough for 2 weeks, worst headache ever, negative for the flu). He likely contracted it from a third party at his church that routinely travels in Asia. That third party also tested positive for the antibodies and was sick (more mild conditions, negative for flu) in mid December. My friend was at all sorts of gatherings at the time frame that he was most contagious.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by drledford93

Any good tutorials on getting started? I'm starting doing the play money with think or swim but would love some good tutorials on picking winners. (I have a mathematics background, so I love a good analysis...)

For most investors with sub $2M portfolios, investing is very simple. Warren Buffett's 15-minute Retirement Plan is KEY, spot on, and incredibly simple, and you will consistently beat most every financial adviser/broker recommendation over the long term.

"My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors -- whether pension funds, institutions, or individuals -- who employ high-fee managers." - Warren Buffett

This is all you need to do right now with $50K. SIMPLE. AS. THAT.

Don't waste your time day trading and short-term trading until you've got a $1M+ portfolio. Once you get there, play around with $10K and see what happens. I got real lucky with Activision Blizzard stock. Doubled my investment in 2 years. I'll likely buy $20K+ more when the market tumbles here in the next 4 to 8 weeks.

[Jordan's World]

So do you guys think trump is going to cut capital gains tax in the phase 4 stimulus package? I don't see the market reacting very well to that. Wouldn't people just take their money and run?

Or would it have the opposite effect and encourage one to start investing?

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...workers-2020-4

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by Jordan's World

So do you guys think trump is going to cut capital gains tax in the phase 4 stimulus package? I don't see the market reacting very well to that. Wouldn't people just take their money and run?

Or would it have the opposite effect and encourage one to start investing?

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...workers-2020-4

I think buy and hold investors will continue to be buy and hold, but a cut in capital gains tax could encourage day traders/swing traders to increase the volume of their trades. Just a total guess though.

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

For most investors with sub $2M portfolios, investing is very simple. Warren Buffett's 15-minute Retirement Plan is KEY, spot on, and incredibly simple, and you will consistently beat most every financial adviser/broker recommendation over the long term.

"My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors -- whether pension funds, institutions, or individuals -- who employ high-fee managers." - Warren Buffett

This is all you need to do right now with $50K. SIMPLE. AS. THAT.

Don't waste your time day trading and short-term trading until you've got a $1M+ portfolio. Once you get there, play around with $10K and see what happens. I got real lucky with Activision Blizzard stock. Doubled my investment in 2 years. I'll likely buy $20K+ more when the market tumbles here in the next 4 to 8 weeks.

Yep. By far the best advice in this topic. This strategy will virtually guarantee a middle seven figure net worth by 67 assuming a 45 year career from 22 to 67 if you can save $1000 a month.

[BMW F22]

I don’t know...in the book “The Intelligent Investor,” Graham, who was Buffet’s mentor, said that one should never have more than 25% in bonds or 75% in stocks. The 10% in bonds is okay as it doesn’t exceed the 25% rule but the 90% low cost stocks averages does violate the 75% rule. Of course it might be different vs individual stocks. So I don’t know.

[NemesisX]

Good 1.5 hour MIT lecture on modern portfolio theory for anyone interested. It's a little math heavy but not too bad!

[AlpineWhite_SJ]

Originally Posted by BMW F22

I don’t know...in the book “The Intelligent Investor,” Graham, who was Buffet’s mentor, said that one should never have more than 25% in bonds or 75% in stocks. The 10% in bonds is okay as it doesn’t exceed the 25% rule but the 90% low cost stocks averages does violate the 75% rule. Of course it might be different vs individual stocks. So I don’t know.

A lot of people only consider what’s in their investment portfolio and not total assets. If you add in your savings/checking and other cash-like assets, it can reduce the overall percentages in the bond/stock split as percentage of overall assets. Important to look at your overall holdings so you’re not miscalculating the percentages.

For example, I “feel” cash heavy right now, but forget to include market invested accounts like kids 529 when doing the math in my head. Actually looking at all the assets and categorizing things makes the picture a bit better.

[AlpineWhite_SJ]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

For most investors with sub $2M portfolios, investing is very simple. Warren Buffett's 15-minute Retirement Plan is KEY, spot on, and incredibly simple, and you will consistently beat most every financial adviser/broker recommendation over the long term.

"My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors -- whether pension funds, institutions, or individuals -- who employ high-fee managers." - Warren Buffett

This is all you need to do right now with $50K. SIMPLE. AS. THAT.

Don't waste your time day trading and short-term trading until you've got a $1M+ portfolio. Once you get there, play around with $10K and see what happens. I got real lucky with Activision Blizzard stock. Doubled my investment in 2 years. I'll likely buy $20K+ more when the market tumbles here in the next 4 to 8 weeks.

You’re neglecting a key point - age at which you start with those dollar amounts. Someone in their 20s with 50k sure. Someone in their 40s, better ante up a lot more. Similarly for the portfolio size before you do single stock investments - 2M at what age? Because what you’re essentially saying is grow your bank roll and then you can start gambling. 2M in your 40s is a lot different than 2M in your mid 60s.

[Jordan's World]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

Good 1.5 hour MIT lecture on modern portfolio theory for anyone interested. It's a little math heavy but not too bad!

I'm actually taking this course via open courseware now. I just started it a few weeks ago and am only on lecture 3: 'Probability theory,' but it seems pretty logical and definitely is math heavy. I am taking it for that reason specifically, I generally prefer a mathematical approach.

Here is the link to syllabus and chronological lectures for anyone who's interested: (I wish it was the same instructor throughout, but there are about 3 different people who teach it) Can't complain for a free course though. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathemat...2013/index.htm

There's also a course I found with a more broad investment approach and involves a little less math.

Link https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-sc...2003/syllabus/

[drledford93]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronav...m-test-reveals

First death in Santa Clara, CA is now listed as 2/6. That person didn't have a travel history. This means the person contracted the virus sometime in early January, possibly December, based on the fact that people that die from COVID-19 tend to die in around 4 to 6 weeks. This also means there was community spread in San Francisco in early January. Thus if there is community spread, it means COVID-19 was around in December or earlier. If San Francisco had it then, you can be certain that it was circulating in most every US city that has a busy international hub in within the same time frame.

I know someone in Kansas City that tested positive for the COVID-19 antibodies. He had the text book symptoms in late December (high fever, terrible dry cough for 2 weeks, worst headache ever, negative for the flu). He likely contracted it from a third party at his church that routinely travels in Asia. That third party also tested positive for the antibodies and was sick (more mild conditions, negative for flu) in mid December. My friend was at all sorts of gatherings at the time frame that he was most contagious.

This. I have a heavy background in mathematics and it's fairly simple to see how this could have been all over the US MUCH earlier than what the "experts" have led us to believe based on just a few assumptions. First, as was stated initially, this virus is airborne. That being the case, it is very easy to see how one sick person could infect a massive amount of people, even assuming 25% of the people that were exposed actually contract the virus.

Second and the more important is the fact that Wuhan is an industrial hub that is specific to the smart phone industry, thus most likely having an above average number of international business people traveling there and back. Thus, there would have been potentially a huge number of vectors very early on and contributes to #1 above.

XutvJet--thanks so much for the advice from Buffett. Really appreciate it.

[drledford93]

One last question--when would the best time to get more into the 90/10 S&P/bonds mix? I would imagine it still has yet to hit bottom. Thoughts? I know this is the $64,000 question but inquiring minds want to know...

[VisualEcho]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

Yep. By far the best advice in this topic. This strategy will virtually guarantee a middle seven figure net worth by 67 assuming a 45 year career from 22 to 67 if you can save $1000 a month.

What world do you live in? Who, other than people that are already rich, can afford to invest $1000 a month...every month...from age 22 to 67?

If you can do this, congrats on being a 1%er, but for the normal people of the world this is all but impossible.

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

What world do you live in? Who, other than people that are already rich, can afford to invest $1000 a month...every month...from age 22 to 67?

If you can do this, congrats on being a 1%er, but for the normal people of the world this is all but impossible.

If you aren't able to save $1000 a month, that's fine. I don't care where you are on the income ladder. The only point of my post is to highlight the power of compounding interest and time, even with relatively little amounts of money ($1000 a month is not little).

$100 a month will get you $500,000 at 67.
$50 a month will get you $250,000 at 67.
$10 a month will get you $50,000 at 67. <--- This is more or less where the median retiree ends up.

This all assuming a compound annual growth rate of 8% which is in fact slightly conservative when looking at how the S&P500 has done over long periods of time. From 1871 to 2019 it's actually been 9.19%.

1970 to 2019 (last ~50 years): 10.61%

If you take a small piece of 20 years and calculate just before the 2000 crash, even then it's been a little over 6%.

The median retiree ends up with a nest egg that can be achieved by saving 33 cents per day. The reality of the situation, of course, is that people aren't actually saving 33 cents per day every day from 22 to 67. They're saving nothing for a significant portion of their life and then they hit their 30s or 40s and have an "oh ****!" moment and start getting in gear, but they've lost out on decades of compounding by this time whether it's due to lack of saving, mistrust or misunderstanding of the stock market, or likely a combination of the above.

The median household income of luxury car owners (including BMW owners) is around $100,000 per year, implying that around 50% make more than six figures.

Saving $1000 a month is doable for many (but not all) people who make six figures. It's not an unreasonable goal at all. Yes of course if you're living in Manhattan with 3 kids and a wife trying to send 2 of them to private school you're not going to be able to do this making just $100,000 a year.

But you absolutely don't have to be in the top 1% to save $1000 a month. If you're in the top 1% (~$450,000/year-$500,000/year pre-tax), now you have the ability to save $10,000 a month, and many households at this income level do exactly that (albeit very few (if any) people start out making top 1% income at the age of 22, but that's not the point of my post).

You're deluding yourself if you think saving $1000 a month total (tax-deferred retirement plans and post-tax investing all included) is accessible to only those households making half a million a year.

[AlpineWhite_SJ]

We do about 20%+ of salary a year between 401k and employee stock purchase plans. ESPP are easily a 15% return because of the purchase discount.

[corn18]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

What world do you live in? Who, other than people that are already rich, can afford to invest $1000 a month...every month...from age 22 to 67?

If you can do this, congrats on being a 1%er, but for the normal people of the world this is all but impossible.

Save 15% of your income from day 1 and you will be able to retire comfortably by age 67. Spend it on BMWs instead of saving 15% and you will work until you are dead. Spend it on BMWs and save 15% and you are doing something right.

[premier3is]

Originally Posted by VisualEcho

What world do you live in? Who, other than people that are already rich, can afford to invest $1000 a month...every month...from age 22 to 67?

If you can do this, congrats on being a 1%er, but for the normal people of the world this is all but impossible.

You'd be surprise to see how many ppl are making a 1000+ lease payment on a BMW monthly and saving no where near that, if anything.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by drledford93

This. I have a heavy background in mathematics and it's fairly simple to see how this could have been all over the US MUCH earlier than what the "experts" have led us to believe based on just a few assumptions. First, as was stated initially, this virus is airborne. That being the case, it is very easy to see how one sick person could infect a massive amount of people, even assuming 25% of the people that were exposed actually contract the virus.

Second and the more important is the fact that Wuhan is an industrial hub that is specific to the smart phone industry, thus most likely having an above average number of international business people traveling there and back. Thus, there would have been potentially a huge number of vectors very early on and contributes to #1 above.

XutvJet--thanks so much for the advice from Buffett. Really appreciate it.

First, let's keep the virus stuff out of this thread. You should do some research on the phylogeny of circulating variants if you want to come to an educated opinion on this. I'll leave it at that.

Second, Wuhan is not a smartphone or electronics hub at all. Not even remotely close. Hint - look at where it is located geographically. Then look at where China's largest electronics manufacturing hub is in Shenzhen. Check out Guangdong province.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Don't waste your time day trading and short-term trading until you've got a $1M+ portfolio. Once you get there, play around with $10K and see what happens. I got real lucky with Activision Blizzard stock. Doubled my investment in 2 years. I'll likely buy $20K+ more when the market tumbles here in the next 4 to 8 weeks.

I feel like saying $1M+ is not really backed by anything. In general, I agree with you that everyone would do better to put every dollar in an index fund. However, if someone wants to take the risk of picking stocks after maxing out all of their tax advantaged retirement vehicles, I don't see the problem. Nice pick with Activision btw, I never bought their stock only because I am ethically opposed to their behavior.

I only buy stock in companies I believe in, that are in industries I intimately understand, and that I think will outperform the sector. Almost every single semiconductor pick I have is over 200% from initial investment a few years back. My AMD stock is still up over 400% even after the recent drop.

I'm not saying that I can outperform the market forever or that I'm some kind of guru, but I think if you pick the right sectors it might not be as risky as some people think. I consider it my "gambling" portfolio, but it's been down far less than my index funds since the start of the crisis. Of course, if you're buying penny stocks or other super high-risk investments it's a dumb idea and truly closer to gambling.