Hey buddy, glad you are doing well.
Hey buddy, glad you are doing well.
seattle prattle wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Brilliant! VTI weighting is 18.44% Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook.
And you think you own something special.
😷
Wait, are you arguing for the fund? I mean, those are all huge winners.
Igy, i think the idea is to not own something unheard of, but to own something everyone is buying.
Come on, man!
Who says that? LOL
I think Igy’s point is that VTI is somewhat reliant on trillion dollar companies. Who wants that? On the other hand, the top holding of HSGFX is JinkoSolar which is a stock with no “buy” recommendations from anyone of note. You see, it is an underdog that we bought on the cheap and is already up over $1/share this year! Of course, my fees eat up most (all?) of that profit, but daddy needs a new pair of shoes.
The moral is don’t be afraid to invest heavily in little known struggling companies. Just go on Twitter and feed the masses their pablum. They will eat it up and share your “bon mots” on forums like this one spreading the word near and far. A small percentage will actually be drawn to what you say and, in turn, invest in your funds. It’s a beautiful thing.
👞
Thanks John. I need dope investors like the Troll to plow money mindlessly into my fund. See, the only thing they use to measure future performance was yesterday. Look they are so hooked on easy money, what could possibly go wrong? Cheap management fees are the name of the game when you use zero discretion in what you buy. Pay less than a percent management fee, but lose five percent over night. Troll logic, don’t you think?
Sorry, Cathie, but you don’t know what you are talking about. I suspect this is why the Igy fellow often makes light of you. The fees that “managers” like you and John charge have been proven to be a significant drag on realized growth. Buy and hold is the key to long term success.
That’s easy for you to say Jack, you became fabulously wealthy churning volume through nothing other than buying the index. That alone is incredibly stupid since five stocks represent over 30% of Vanguard’s holdings market cap. Figures that you need muppets like the Troll to continue to feed at the trough. At least I attempt to do stock research in between prayer meetings at the appropriately named Ark Funds.
11/1/2014 - 8/31/2021 $10,000
la gente esta muy loca wrote:
11/1/2014 - 8/31/2021 $10,000
https://i.imgflip.com/5ml0rv.jpg
good one!
Not to suggest that my humble comments deserve to be on the same platform as Bogle and Cathy Wood and the venerable Mr. John 'management fees' Hussman, but it really has been an incredible 10 year run for stocks. Seriously, you know how freakin' lucky we have been to have this under our belts and maybe in our portfolios as unrealized or realized gains?
Not sure how that has worked out compared to other bull runs, but it certainly seems unprecedented.
Cathys Wood wrote:
That’s easy for you to say Jack, you became fabulously wealthy churning volume through nothing other than buying the index. That alone is incredibly stupid since five stocks represent over 30% of Vanguard’s holdings market cap. Figures that you need muppets like the Troll to continue to feed at the trough. At least I attempt to do stock research in between prayer meetings at the appropriately named Ark Funds.
Why do stock research? It is futile. 96% of your portfolio's performance is from diversification. You CAN NOT PICK STOCKS and you can not TIME THE MARKET. Buy index funds with proper diversification and throw in some random stocks that you like. Nothing else is going to beat that.
Cathys Wood wrote:
That’s easy for you to say Jack, you became fabulously wealthy churning volume through nothing other than buying the index. That alone is incredibly stupid since five stocks represent over 30% of Vanguard’s holdings market cap. Figures that you need muppets like the Troll to continue to feed at the trough. At least I attempt to do stock research in between prayer meetings at the appropriately named Ark Funds.
As I said previously, you do not know what you are talking about. To suggest that I (and those who invested with me) became wealthy by being “incredibly stupid” is laughable. You do realize the idea is to make money, right?
Oh, and your suggestion that “five stocks represent over 30% of Vanguard’s holdings market cap” further reveals your ignorance. Methinks you are the troll here.
I am pretty sure this is a troll. I believe Jack died several years ago.
Based on gente’s post it looks like Wood’s prayer meetings have heavenly inspired her stock picks.
😹
Jack Bogle wrote:
Cathys Wood wrote:
That’s easy for you to say Jack, you became fabulously wealthy churning volume through nothing other than buying the index. That alone is incredibly stupid since five stocks represent over 30% of Vanguard’s holdings market cap. Figures that you need muppets like the Troll to continue to feed at the trough. At least I attempt to do stock research in between prayer meetings at the appropriately named Ark Funds.
As I said previously, you do not know what you are talking about. To suggest that I (and those who invested with me) became wealthy by being “incredibly stupid” is laughable. You do realize the idea is to make money, right?
Oh, and your suggestion that “five stocks represent over 30% of Vanguard’s holdings market cap” further reveals your ignorance. Methinks you are the troll here.
Another point of contention with the Vanguard/Bogle/Indexing approach would be not only the weighted bias towards a few of the mega-caps, but also the passive verse active management of the fund.
Index funds do not sell into a downturn,, though an actively managed generic mutual fund has that option.
It is easy to forget the benefit of this option when we have experienced such a prolonged bull run, but in the event of a bear market, a good actively managed fund will have the option to move a portion of their holding to cash, thereby avoiding some losses.
This, in an d of itself, constitutes an arguably systemic difference in these two different approaches to investing.
Again, it seemed to be more of an issue before we had such a long sustained uptrend, wherein that ability is not needed,.
Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:
Cathys Wood wrote:
That’s easy for you to say Jack, you became fabulously wealthy churning volume through nothing other than buying the index. That alone is incredibly stupid since five stocks represent over 30% of Vanguard’s holdings market cap. Figures that you need muppets like the Troll to continue to feed at the trough. At least I attempt to do stock research in between prayer meetings at the appropriately named Ark Funds.
Why do stock research? It is futile. 96% of your portfolio's performance is from diversification. You CAN NOT PICK STOCKS and you can not TIME THE MARKET. Buy index funds with proper diversification and throw in some random stocks that you like. Nothing else is going to beat that.
Come on, Sally. That is a bunch of bunk. Or more accurately, a gross oversimplification.
Some people have very successfully been able to bias their portfolios towards sectors that have outperformed the overall market. And picking a few winners in the pantheon of stocks is not at all out of the question, either.
Granted , timing is a bit trickier.
Can we suffice it to say that in general, the bulk of a portfolio should seek some level of diversification and strategies like dollar cost averaging are effective means to avoid ill-timed relatively large investments?
But given that, I think it is totally appropriate, for example, based on age to retirement and risk tolerance, to favor growth funds/ETFs or perhaps domestic large caps over international stocks or total stock market. And FWIW, if you had picked the sector du jour over the last two decades, you would have killed the averages.
Just thinking out loud here, but such strategies seem viable with the footnote to be wary of the fringes and extremes., and it assumes that one is willing to invest a reasonable amount of time to do the necessary research.
Actively managed equity funds have a mandate that generally allows no more than 5-10% in cash. Bear and alternative investment funds can hedge the risk, but these funds have seen outflows in recent years. Same is true of managers of more conservative funds that temper their weightings to the largest companies. Why? Managers are incentivized to outperform their benchmark. So the more likely outcome is to accept more, not less risk. You see the a different and equally dangerous slant in index funds. Creation of funds that thematically invest in the same aggressive winners of the day, or slant their style to include the same. None of this is really new, but the extent of the risk extension is far greater in this cycle. If in the near future we have anything close to the market experience of 3/2000 through 10/2002 VTI, ARKK and QQQ will be among the worse performers, in my opinion, and HSGFX among the best.
Twenty years ago the first plane hit the World Trade Center. After the initial shock and some breakfast I took a shower, as I toweled off, my wife told me a second plane had hit a second tower. During three weeks of January-February of 1997 I trained as a Dean Witter Financial Advisor on the 52nd floor of the World Trade Center Two Building. My training class celebrated the conclusion of the New York experience with lunch at the Top of the World Restaurant on the 102nd floor of World Trade Center One. You were quite literally in the clouds. Not unlike many who lived or worked in New York City, or just the average American, this day had a profound psychological affect.
That day one of the planes hit just above the Dean Witter offices. I was siting at my desk in shock when the first building collapsed. At that point the Boise office management had us make hard copies of client accounts. We were unsure of the backup systems, that fortunately the firm had taken after the first attack in the 1990s. Likewise, most of the personnel of our firm were evacuated, save about a dozen who stayed behind to help others trapped in the floors above the Dean Witter offices. I stayed late at the office calling, or fielding questions from clients. We had full a access to client accounts in the days following the attacks.
Crap week
The Unkle wrote:
Crap week
HSGFX = +0.16%
😷
Sally Vixxxxxxxxens wrote:
Cathys Wood wrote:
That’s easy for you to say Jack, you became fabulously wealthy churning volume through nothing other than buying the index. That alone is incredibly stupid since five stocks represent over 30% of Vanguard’s holdings market cap. Figures that you need muppets like the Troll to continue to feed at the trough. At least I attempt to do stock research in between prayer meetings at the appropriately named Ark Funds.
Why do stock research? It is futile. 96% of your portfolio's performance is from diversification. You CAN NOT PICK STOCKS and you can not TIME THE MARKET. Buy index funds with proper diversification and throw in some random stocks that you like. Nothing else is going to beat that.
OK. Then you must understand that based on market history your next decade investment performance is likely to be annualized at negative high single digit.
Are we really going to have this passive vs. active management debate again?
“While we acknowledge business operating results are robust, we do not subscribe to the commonly held belief that this makes equities attractive investments. In fact, we believe the opposite. Current operating results, and the response by investors, reminds us of 1999 and 2006. Similar to those peaks in the economy and market, we believe investors are currently extrapolating exceptionally strong operating results far into the future. In fact, based on current equity valuations, we believe extrapolation risk has never been higher. The only thing investors do not appear to be extrapolating is inflation, which ironically is the most dominant and persistent trend businesses are experiencing!”
—Palm Valley Capital Management
Who?
