So yeah this is just a followup thread to those following my portfolio from...

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

So yeah this is just a followup thread to those following my portfolio from last week. Also been requested to provide "proof" that beating the market actually isnt impossible at all countless of times, well heres a start. >And to the index memesters, just because you suck doesnt mean everyone else does.

All urls found in this thread:
https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/portal/investments/all-products?productType=indexFund
https://www.charles-stanley-direct.co.uk/Our_Charges/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/your-money/how-many-mutual-funds-routinely-rout-the-market-zero.html?_r=0
https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/teaching/35150_advanced_investments/Luck%20versus%20Skilll%20in%20the%20Cross%20Section%20of%20Mutual%20Fund%20Returns.pdf
New_Cliche
New_Cliche

The 1st of september i posted this.

(Up from 130.000 in february.)

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

@GoogleCat
Also been requested to provide "proof" that beating the market actually isnt impossible
But have you done it long-term?
I don't speak Snownigger so I can't tell what this chart is saying, but anyone can beat the market short-term.

Spamalot
Spamalot

@Harmless_Venom
Im up 140% since i started in jan. 2015.

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

@Spamalot
across multiple portolios that is, with many conservative investements in the others.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

What's your method? I follow Graham's Intelligent Investor method for mid-large value shares, and Jim Slater's Zulu Principle for small growth companies.

King_Martha
King_Martha

@lostmypassword
I dont really use a set method. I just try to figure out the most logical trade at a given time that has the least probability to fail on me.

I always have a clear exit strategy when i trade in "momentum" or "hype" names (think ACIA, TWLO). But when i buy undervalued names i dont care about current price since i know it will recover.

I buy momo names at ATH and value plays on dips, thats pretty much it.

farquit
farquit

@King_Martha

Oh, I'm not really a "trader" as such. I buy and hold. I think I've made some good decisions recently based on fundamental analysis. I bought PCF and ALD (both floating on the london stock exchange). I suppose those are my favourite value plays, it remains to be seen how my attempts will hold up.

Most of my holdings are in vanguard funds and UK gilts, but hopefully my shares can work out well too. If it works for you good job though

5mileys
5mileys

@Spamalot
@GoogleCat
@New_Cliche
posts "proof"
proof doesn't prove anything
gets asked for proof
proof is elsewhere
Every fucking time.

Also, hurr durr short-term track record. You'll be investing for 60 years, kid.

takes2long
takes2long

@Spamalot
Im up 140% since i started in jan. 2015.
So you beat the market in the short term.
Congratulations.

Inmate
Inmate

@5mileys
Found the butthurt guy who probably lost his savings on some shit like gilead or disney.

Techpill
Techpill

@Inmate
gets called out for bragging about short-term performance
thinks I'm a short-term trader
Your not too bright, huh kid? Now I'm pretty much confident that your only portfolio skill is "inspect element."

RumChicken
RumChicken

@Techpill
perform miserably "hurr durr im long holding term"
The only thing i care about is making money, i couldnt care less how i do it.

FastChef
FastChef

@RumChicken
If you just leave it in your savings account you'll make money, dumbass.
Doesn't mean you'll beat the market.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

@farquit
I have a question, how does one get hold of vanguard funds in the UK? I've looked on their website and it seems to be a U.S only thing for setting up an online account.

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

@Spamalot
Jan 2015 was the best time to start.

Illusionz
Illusionz

@GoogleCat
ATVI
Getting better gains with TTWO.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

@PurpleCharger

Vanguard have been in the UK for a number of years. My broker is Charles Stanley, who don't charge a fee for buying or investing monthly in funds.

https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/portal/investments/all-products?productType=indexFund

Protip: select only accumulation funds. You will probably want to check out their global equity funds, their small-cap funds, and their emerging markets fund.

My favourite, and my biggest holding, which has been growing nicely, is their FTSE developed world ex-uk fund

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

OP, come post in 5 years and show your year after year returns. Guarantee you wont be part of the 3% who have posted 5 consecutive years of above average returns.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

@Garbage Can Lid
Thanks for the information. So an online broker like Charles Stanley is a way to purchase them. Although they don't charge a fee for purchasing or investing, are the platform charges comparatively reasonable? Also, is it worth putting the Funds into a stock ISA?

takes2long
takes2long

@SomethingNew

The platform charges as in, for trading shares? £10 per trade I believe on charles stanley.

If you mean the charges for the funds, then Vanguard's passively managed ones are generally very reasonable, from 0.15 to 0.20%

And as for ISAs, I use an ISA which i opened with charles stanley to hold my investments in. You can transfer in an existing one, or open a new one (if you dont already have one)

idontknow
idontknow

@takes2long
I mean something like the annual platform charge. Which says 0.25% of the balance, also the investment held overseas custody (I'm guessing some of the funds are outside UK jurisdiction).

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

@idontknow

That would be the TER/OCF. Vanguard funds are cheap and well run, so I'm a big fan of them. Passive funds are cheaper to run than actively managed ones anyway.

I'm going to sell my legal and general fund and take up either another vanguard one, or a fidelity one I think. I'm already happy with inflation-linked uk gilts, i'm gonna diversify with a global bond fund.

Techpill
Techpill

@lostmypassword
So Charles Stanley does not charge you for using their platform? Because surely you get hit by a double cost, the online platform charge (Charles Stanley) and the Vanguard index fund charge? I've been reading John Bogle's book recently so have started considering index funds.

Methshot
Methshot

@Techpill

There's no account charges for using their platform, and no inactivity charges. No charges for buying into mutual funds.

I thought you meant charges for the managers of the mutual funds themselves, which is what ter/ocf is. I've just outlined the platform fees for charles stanley as far as im aware of them, and i'm much happier with them than I was with that giant piece of shit alliance-trust savings.

If you want to learn about passive investing from a uk-centric book, Tim Hale's Smarter Investing is the one everyone recommends, and it is quite awesome.

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

@GoogleCat
That is really impressive OP. What would be your stock ideas for now? I have 100K USD to invest, want to buy 10 stocks. Thanks in advance.

Skullbone
Skullbone

@Methshot
Ah ok, I must be confusing the charges listed here with something else: https://www.charles-stanley-direct.co.uk/Our_Charges/

Will try and do a bit more research about the different online brokers to find a good one. I'll also take a look at that book when I get the chance. Thanks for the advice

Emberfire
Emberfire

@Skullbone

Oh, those. I'm alright with them, since when with ATS I managed to rack up like 100 quid of inactivity fees because I wasn't buying frequently. I'm happy with CS and their trading fees are really good for people who like mutual funds

SniperGod
SniperGod

@Inmate
Gileads coming back man, give it a couple years the stock price will double.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

@RumChicken
i couldnt care less how i do i
Editing html isn't making money, kid.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

@Sharpcharm
To be honest this is going to sound cliche and boring but Facebook is a great buy still. A lot of untapped potential and every day they utilize their ressources better without sacrificing trust.

Same with Alibaba. The rest of my holdings are of a more speculative nature but overall i like chinese tech since they have many tailwinds going on for them since a lot of the chinese and asian popultion still isnt fully westernized yet.

MOMO, YY, SINA, BABA, TCEHY, NTES are all very interesting with SINA, MOMO and YY probably being the most risky.

Also watch what happens with biotech closely after hillary gets elected it may selloff, be ready to buy the best names at that time. (I dont really know who they are so i will just buy a biotech ETF) Since hillary will regulate but the extreme measures will never get through congress.

TechHater
TechHater

@GoogleCat

How much leverage and what kind of risk were you exposed to?

No one said it's impossible, but I'd bet money you got lucky with a good amount of risk and/or leverage. Get off your high horse.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@CouchChiller
believe what you want.

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

@TechHater
my overall leverage across all my portfolios is 0.5x right now but i usually operate with 0.1-0.3x

Booteefool
Booteefool

@GoogleCat
Don't concern yourself with muh index fags. They don't even know how their erroneous dogma was derived.

Soft_member
Soft_member

@Booteefool
Don't concern yourself with muh index fags.
You better be concerned about them. You'll be cutting their grass, fixing their cars, and making their lattes until the day you die a penniless virgin.

happy_sad
happy_sad

@Booteefool

Warren Buffett has said index funds must beat the yuge majority of active investors over time

muh index fags

get out

massdebater
massdebater

@happy_sad
lad do you work in finance ?

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

@massdebater

No. But every piece of academic research, in addition to every reputable investor, says passive investments like index trackers beat active investors reliably, and over time.

inb4 shitters try to say anything to suggest otherwise

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

@Poker_Star
do you think house prices will crash here in the UK? what's your line of work?

JunkTop
JunkTop

@Deadlyinx

I don't know or care. I don't invest in property. I invest in some leading companies and some small growth companies, but mainly a selection of uk government bonds and uk short dated corporate bonds, and a diversified set of equity funds.

I'm a software engineer.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

@Soft_member
@happy_sad
Lol, buttblasted much?

@Poker_Star
Yeah, like I said, you don't even know how the "research" was derived. ;)

Lunatick
Lunatick

@Need_TLC

And I don't need to know. I use dollar-cost averaging to dripfeed my dosh into vanguard funds every month, and the fund managers (who know more about investing than you and everybody on this board combined) will do whatever they need to in order to track their benchmark index as closely as they can, and I will share in the profits.

And what's more, is I will make more money over the course of my life doing this than cryptoshit babbies, technical analyst memers, and speculators.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the academic research on passive vs active investing, which you can find in Graham's Intelligent Investor and Hale's Smarter Investing.

In fact, you can find it in any good book about investing, but you are probably not the kind of person who reads books to properly learn things.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

@Need_TLC
buttblasted much?
Um, I'm not insulting you because I'm mad. I'm insulting you because you're an ignorant poorfag NEET.

user, most of the time when people don't like you, its because you act like a worthless sack of shit. There's no hidden agenda.

Spamalot
Spamalot

looks like alot of salty Veeky Forums posts on here who werent able to beat the market

I beleive the market is easily beatable, the 1% do it all the time

w8t4u
w8t4u

@Lunatick
spewing memespeak and appeals to authority
lel. No, I suggest *you* acquaint yourself with academic "research."

I'm genuinely curious to see how you'll try to reconcile their, at best, intellectually disingenuous conclusions. Notably, the fact that it's not at all hard to find funds which beat the S&P over just about any given time period, yet these same funds may indeed be classified as "not beating the market" in academic "research."

@Harmless_Venom
Lol.

Bidwell
Bidwell

@w8t4u

Citing empirical research is not an appeal to authority. try again buddy

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

@Bidwell
I like how you disproved nothing. :^)

I'll give you another shot though:

I'm genuinely curious to see how you'll try to reconcile their, at best, intellectually disingenuous conclusions. Notably, the fact that it's not at all hard to find funds which beat the S&P over just about any given time period, yet these same funds may indeed be classified as "not beating the market" in academic "research."

Playboyize
Playboyize

@Poker_Star

Find me a fund that has beaten its index consistently, for 30 years. And then prove mathematically that the high fees didn't eat into those returns and end up less than the equivalent index tracker.

Protip, you can't because it's never been done, and the research shows this

Firespawn
Firespawn

@Playboyize
^

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

@Playboyize
beaten its index consistently
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! And there's the irrelevant and intellectually dishonest goalpoast.

No, by "consistently" it's not referring to the commonly used meaning as, "most or virtually all of the time," it's being used in the uncommon, but technical definition of, "literally, 100% of the time." Now, why is this important? There are many funds which beat the S&P (some even kick the living shit out of it) over a given period of time--implying that the fund can beat the market more often than not. By the only relevant metric to an intelligent investor--how much money/value might you expect to accumulate over X years--the S&P is beaten regularly. To academia, the goalpost is not about how much money the investor ends up with, it's about whether the other fund merely outperforms 100% of the time. So, even if a fund produces a cumulative +10000000000000000000% return over a decade but had one year which it trails the market by 0.01%, academia classifies the fund as "not beating the market."

The conclusion, as touted by academia, is both erroneous and intellectually dishonest--especially after you consider other academic research that exists, such as one which showed that high beta stocks are prone to outperformance during bull markets but underperformance during bear markets but netting out a superior gain over time. In other words, academia is demanding a fund where the base characteristics of the fund in question are higher risk than the index (and should have a higher return) but somehow, simultaneously not be higher risk (the fund should incur lower volatility or downside risk than the index) which is basically an arbitrage opportunity because the risk, reward, and probability paradigm would be out-of-whack.

DeathDog
DeathDog

@Spamalot
1% do it all the time
But not the same 1% over time. Money managers who beat the market in any given period uniformly underperform in the next successive periods.

How Many Mutual Funds Routinely Rout the Market? Zero
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/your-money/how-many-mutual-funds-routinely-rout-the-market-zero.html?_r=0

Stop being naive. The research is out there. We're not trying to trick you. You just have to stop being a dumbass.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@TurtleCat
The reason that academics -- and investors -- demand consistent performance is because any idiot can beat the law of averages by taking higher risks and getting lucky. And yes, the lucky money manager could indeed produce higher aggregate returns than the market.

But that's no different than saying some people win the lottery and make more than they spend in tickets over their lifetime. It's true, but its not a sound economic strategy. Why? Because you can't know ahead of time who's going to be lucky and who is not. Therefore, it's not a strategy that can be exploited.

In simplest terms, it's just dumb luck.

And before you dismiss the importance of luck to that tiny percentage of investors who do beat the market, I suggest you read:

https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/teaching/35150_advanced_investments/Luck%20versus%20Skilll%20in%20the%20Cross%20Section%20of%20Mutual%20Fund%20Returns.pdf

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

@CodeBuns
The reason that academics -- and investors -- demand consistent performance
Actually, academia is the only one demanding consistent (literal definition). Investors demand better risk-adjusted returns or better overall returns over time.

any idiot can beat the law of averages by taking higher risks and getting lucky.
muh lukk
Lol. Mk, reconcile the fact that the nasdaq 100, which is mostly comprised of high-beta stocks, outperforms the S&P more frequently than not and when it underperforms, it's during down markets.

It's just the result of a logical risk/reward/probability paradigm. Logically, you're going to end up with more money by investing in the higher risk Amazons' and Googles' rather than the relatively safe and stable Proctor & Gambles' and Verizons' during a bull market.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

@Crazy_Nice
literal definition
I think you're either being intentionally obtuse or you're actually retarded. No investor obtains consistent results under the forced literal meaning that you're shoehorning into the discussion. Every asset class has good years and bad years.

Logically, you're going to end up with more money by investing in the higher risk
No, dipshit, you're not automatically going to get higher returns by investing in higher risk stocks. You might, and you might not. That's the risk. This is investing 101.
Amazon and Google
What is survivor bias? Please learn not to cherrypick exemplars if you want to have an adult discussion.

RumChicken
RumChicken

@CodeBuns
mfw I can create vertical spreads I sell for a 1/1.2 risk reward
80% of options contracts expire worthless
Nigga odds alone are in my favor.
Get your index fund trash outta here.

Supergrass
Supergrass

absolute madness.

Maybe its about to go down.

Skullbone
Skullbone

@Stupidasole
I think you're either being intentionally obtuse or you're actually retarded
No investor obtains consistent results under the forced literal meaning that you're shoehorning
Wow, talk about irony. I'm not the one setting the useless and arbitrary goalpost of beating the market 100% of the time, academia is. Once again, the only useful goalpost to an investor is how much money they end up with at the end of the day.

No, dipshit, you're not automatically going to get higher returns by investing in higher risk stocks
I never said it was automatic. Once again, there is a risk/reward/probability paradigm; in a bull market, a portfolio of higher risk (higher beta) growth stocks like those that largely comprise the Nasdaq 100 should outperform a portfolio weighted in lower risk (lower beta) stocks. Conversely, in bear market, higher risk (higher beta) stocks should underperform the lower risk (lower beta) stocks. This is logical because bull/bear markets coincide with the health of the overall economy and the higher risk (higher beta) stocks will likely, as a company, be engaging in growth strategies and more effectively capture the good economy while the lower risk (lower beta) stocks, as companies, tend to have low growth but very stable cash flows which are prized by investors during downward economic cycles. However, all you need to do is have a basic understanding of beta itself to figure out that a portfolio of high beta stocks tend to outperform the market over aggregate periods.

Look, we can see you're a dilettante, but these are basic logical connections.

Flameblow
Flameblow

Get that shit out of here. If you don't have at least a 10 year track record, then your "proof" is worthless.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

@GoogleCat
lol op why are you ashamed of urself playing video games

askme
askme

@AwesomeTucker
ashamed?

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

@Skullbone
beating the market 100% of the time
No one said anything about beating the market 100% of the time. As I've said multiple times, you made up that strawman definition yourself because you have no credible arguments against the weight of the academic research.

It's obvious that you've never read the studies, and that you simply want to ignore the studies because they don't fit your narrow view of the world. That's your choice, but deliberate ignorance and denial is rarely and successful policy.

in a bull market
in bear market
All you're saying here is that if you know the future direction of the market, you can pick high alpha stocks with a beta of 1.00 and outperform the market. That's a tautology. You are not a wizard, and you cannot predict the future direction of the markets. Certainly not on a short term basis (less than 5 years). Trying to time the markets is a losing strategy, and this has been proven by study after study (Dalbar, anyone). So while the conclusion is technically correct, the premise is absurd.

Your approach comes down to, "If I can do X, then Y will logically follow. Y is the logical outcome, dillettante." But you're just being stupid, because you can't do X and never will.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page