Passive investing

>Problem with indexing is its impossible to really make significant money with it.

I think that depends on your definition of significant.

>Problem with indexing is its impossible to really make significant money with it.
Wrong.
>You'll just barely outpace inflation
Wrong
>dollar cost averaging through bear markets is the only way to really profit
Wrong.

So much stupidity in one post. Congrats.

what kind of money do you think you're going to make

>Like it's too easy, too good to be true.
It's an unfortunate coincidence that the most effective method to invest long-term is also one of the easiest. Well, not really "coincidence" since indexing works best because of the innovations of the bright gentlemen pictured in your post. Without Vanguard's funds and all the other low-cost funds that imitated (not to mention the ETFs that followed), indexing really wouldn't be the optimal strategy that it is today.

It's only easy because Bogle made it easy.

>what kind of money do you think you're going to make
Equity funds return 11% annually on average over the last 80 years, and that's limited to large caps. Add in mid-caps and small-caps and the returns go up another percent or two, assuming you stay cap-weighted.

As for "what kind of money" you make through indexing, it all depends what you put into it. The more you save, the more you make.

This is pretty elementary stuff. There's a link to the Bogleheads "getting started" page above if you need some basic education.

Spotted the robot.

People are dumb as a rule.

>A process that takes 30 min of your time a year it's probably not worth automating.

I had a nightmare about setting up automated buy orders, these fucking up and not discovering until much later, it's no big deal to log in and DIY

Does the UK have any good passive index companies? I bought the HSBC FTSE 250 and it had terrible tracking error, so I sold out and bought the Vanguard equivalent. It's ironic that an American firm can track the UK better. At the moment I just use Vanguard & Blackrock. Using a UK tracker as well would add a little peace of mind.

>A retail investor would theoretically have better returns investing in small caps that institutional investors have limited opportunity to invest in.

Who has the time and skill for that?

A restaurant chef who works 45 hours a week is going to out-guess Wall Street?

Most ordinary people are better off minimising their fees with passive investing and saving as much as they can.

is shit like wealthfront any good?

>millionaire isn't the new middle class.

Don't forget to dollar cost average lads

>>what kind of money do you think you're going to make
>Equity funds return 11% annually on average over the last 80 years, and that's limited to large caps. Add in mid-caps and small-caps and the returns go up another percent or two, assuming you stay cap-weighted.
>13% average annual returns
Hohoh o boy are you in for a surprise, lemme just invest 25k a year and you're a millionaire in 15 years easy peasy with magical 13% annual return
I bet you think that you only need to be a bit smarter than the sheep and milk 20% annual returns forever
Hell I think you'd be interested in my personal hedge fund with 30% annual returns, you'd put all of your neetbux and gbp in it if you had any lol

13% returns ladies and gentlemen.

Indexing is the best way to save money. It's unfortunate that people think the stock market is the pathway to riches. If you want to become rich, better invest your time in a business or career. Indexing is better for keeping your wealth.

It depends on the time frame

Someone with a very boring safe index strategy during the 1980s would have made out like a bandit

Also true if they had started in 2001 or 2009

>tfw passive investor, but active investing would be way more fun

Made sick returns up until now since I started early 2015, but it is pretty fucking boring.

That would be market timing. For every person that buys the dip and gets rich, there's 100 other persons who bought the peak and rode the dip. You have a better odd of just indexing and working towards something else.

>Like it's too easy, too good to be true.

This is what massive increases in worker productivity look like. You earn more than you spend (even though it's still less than you're producing, or else your company would go under) and you're able to invest that money in other endeavors.

>Hohoh o boy are you in for a surprise
I'm not sure why you're shocked by this information. Anyone can look up the historical performance figures for equity funds (be sure to get total return, since you'll be reinvesting dividends). My statement is 100% factually correct.
>just invest 25k a year and you're a millionaire in 15 years easy peasy with magical 13% annual return
Sarcasm aside, yes that's exactly how ordinary folks grow their wealth through indexing every day. Its not magic; it's called compounding.

Of course, in the real world the market doesn't return its average every year. Some years it does worse, and some years it does better. This averages out over long periods of time, of course, but the actual trajectory of your compounding does depend on the actual returns you experience.
>I bet you think that you only need to be a bit smarter than the sheep and milk 20% annual returns forever
If you knew anything about indexers you'd know that I think nothing of the sort. Anyone who thinks that they will beat the market because of their smarts, experience, resources, or savvy is deluding themselves. Like you.
>Hell I think you'd be interested in my personal hedge fund with 30% annual returns
I guess when you're too stupid to participate in an adult conversation, you use strawman arguments like this in order to troll. How you got from my 11% to your 30% is beyond me. But I don't care, because you clearly have no argument to make.

Any serious questions about indexing I can answer for you? You obviously lack any real financial knowledge, so I'm willing to start with the basics. You just need to ask.

>index funds
>dividends
user I don't think you know what you're talking about here

Are you retarded?

Um, stock index funds and ETFs both pay dividends.

Market a small portion as "recreational investment" and use that for targeted fun stocks to track. Let the other 85-90% actually be long term savings.

>dividend reinvestment

thats a fun way of begging the FED to tax your portfolio with inflation

>I'm not sure why you're shocked by this information. Anyone can look up the historical performance figures for equity funds (be sure to get total return, since you'll be reinvesting dividends). My statement is 100% factually correct.
Hohoh oh boy, you're actually serious.
>it's called compounding.
Oh gee thanks Timmy, you learn something new every day. If only I could find a 13% return investment that would really mean something.

>If you knew anything about indexers you'd know that I think nothing of the sort. Anyone who thinks that they will beat the market because of their smarts, experience, resources, or savvy is deluding themselves. Like you.
Tbqh famalam, trolling your tard ass aside, there are a handful of people who manage such returns on consistent basis.
>But I don't care, because you clearly have no argument to make.
>Any serious questions about indexing I can answer for you? You obviously lack any real financial knowledge, so I'm willing to start with the basics. You just need to ask.
Here's an alternative theory: you're a fucking retard. Now hold on, I know this sounds stupid and hurts your fee-fees, but have you seriously considered your understanding of exponential growth is lacking since you fail to understand the incredibly enormous difference between pretty much universally accepted number of 7% (or 8%, depending on your source's methodology) average annual returns since the '28 and your inflation unadjusted, pulled out of your ass, number of thirteen fucking percent. Since this doesn't create a "make fun of him" reaction, quite like the one I had, let's do some numbers. 25k/year investing for 15 years gives you 1.01 million at 13% but only 678k at 7% and the difference grows drastically for longer time periods. Now, you may be buttblasted a bit here, screaming things like inflation. Consider this, historical returns not corrected for inflation are worthless.

Now, you may think, who's this fag on Veeky Forums doubting my armchair expertise.

How about reading someone who actually, matters, like people on investopedia?

investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average-annual-return-sp-500.asp

Get your fun elsewhere. It will be much cheaper.

Its not blowing the 10-15% stake. It just probably will keep pace with inflation or worse not at all. Either way he could also make minor gains. Maybe he might end up getting good at it.

>waiting from 2008 to 2017 for muhhh mutual funds to rise again
>official cuck

>thats a fun way of begging the FED to tax your portfolio with inflation
You're not wrong that dividends are tax-inefficient, but be careful about demonizing them. The problem isn't dividends; it's young investors who try to supplement their incomes with high-dividend stocks.

>universally accepted number of 7% (or 8%, depending on your source's methodology) average annual returns since the '28
[citation missing]

I was actually typing up a response to you when I saw your next post....

Oh look, you found a source that proves I'm right and you're wrong! L-O-fucking-L. The actual performance is 10.1% and that's just the S&P 500 and that's just through 2014.

Hmm, is 10.1% higher or lower than 7%, which you claimed?

Hmm, does a total market index return higher or lower than a large-cap index?

Jesus, you literally cucked yourself. Thanks for the laugh kid. Seriously, this is Hall of Fame comedy material. Screenshotting for the Veeky Forums sticky.

What is mirror trading? And I hope you are smart enough not to tag it to some dumb mass like Kramer.

>One of the major problems for an investor looking at that 10% average return figure and mistakenly expecting to realize a nice yearly profit from investing in the S&P 500 is inflation. Adjusted for inflation, the historical average annual return is only around 7%. There is an additional problem posed by the question of whether that inflation-adjusted average is accurate since the adjustment is done using the inflation figures from the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whose numbers many analysts believe vastly understate the true inflation rate.

Holy fuck this is the highscholers that give you advice on Veeky Forums

Can't even read lol and still can't explain his magical 13% lmao

>You're not wrong that dividends are tax-inefficient, but be careful about demonizing them. The problem isn't dividends; it's young investors who try to supplement their incomes with high-dividend stocks

Yeah, I just doubt that anyone here would be able to collect a basket that has a total averaged dividend enough to surpass the (supposed) 2% annual inflation and still manage to return enough to be relevant. And that's believing that what they report is true, which it most likely isn't and annual inflation might be in the ranges of 3-3.5%. If your portfolio doesn't have a dividend yield of more than 3% (it wont), you're wasting your time and the dividends are only covering the fact that your portfolio is passively shrinking due to inflation. Everything else lies on whether the market performs well or not, which is averaged to about 7-8% annually. That's before taxes.

The redpill is in realizing that individual stocks are a casino roulette and dividends are useless, and that you should dump your entire portfolio into sector ETFs depending on geopolitics.

one million aint rich, most police officers retire with a pension worth about 2-3 million

What the fuck are you smoking?

Oh look, it's the "muh inflation" faggot, coming out of the woodwork to change the goalposts because he got #btfo by his wrong facts.

Tell you what, retard, as soon as you show me the long-term investment that's not subject to inflation, then I'll let you change the discussion to inflation-adjusted figures. Until then, stop comparing apples to bananas.

I don't know why you're pushing this pessimistic dogma against indexing. If you don't want to index, feel free to try your luck with stock picking. In 95% of cases you'll underperform (99% over a lifetime), but you'll just fudge the numbers to delude yourself into thinking you're some Wolf of Wall Street. Honestly, please pick your own investments. Indexing works best because faggots like you drag down the performance of the average investor. Thanks for helping make me rich.

>I just doubt that anyone here would be able to collect a basket that has a total averaged dividend enough to surpass the (supposed) 2% annual inflation
Unfortunately, there are some really dangerous products out there, like oil & gas trusts, that promise ridiculous dividend rates. And you have shill websites like dividend.com that push these products into the view of the uneducated investor who thinks higher is better -- not realizing that the "amazing" stock that pays 6% dividends will fall in price by 10% over the same time period.

>The redpill is in realizing that individual stocks are a casino roulette and dividends are useless
I'm with you on the first part, but again, there's no need to demonizing the ordinary dividends that come with an intelligent, highly-diversified, low-cost portfolio. The 2% average dividend yield of the S&P 500 is one of the reasons why it's been such a steady, reliable investment for decades.

He's being a little aggressive with his estimate but he's not far off. The average cop pension is probably 1 million >1.5 million
forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/opinions-rich-karlgaard-digital-rules-millionaire-cop-next-door.html

policeone.com/financial-planning/articles/152294006-Is-your-police-pension-enough-for-a-comfortable-retirement/

nytimes.com/2011/12/14/nyregion/most-police-officers-retire-after-20-years-or-move-up-the-ranks.html

1.) ignore everything that is written above my post

2.) buy Bitcoin

3.) click this link: ethtrade.org/@870478

4.) invest your BTC there

up to 30.000 USD investment possible with daily earnings of 0.5-1%

>inb4 it´s a ponzi

no its not

youre all welcome

thanks

death to all civil servants, and health clinicians...

You get that this is a thread about passive investing, right? The point is that if you are going to invest like this, you can't panic and sell in a bear market.

>Oh look, it's the "muh inflation" faggot, coming out of the woodwork to change the goalposts because he got #btfo by his wrong facts.
>you can totally get 13% return trust me inflation doesn't matter :^)
>h-heh jk about 13%, link you posted that says "even 10% is bullshit, it's 7%" totally btfo'd you
Please, do say it again, you just stick your money and on average you get 13% annual returns, kek
>Tell you what, retard, as soon as you show me the long-term investment that's not subject to inflation, then I'll let you change the discussion to inflation-adjusted figures.
What the fuck are you even talking about you uneducated nigger, inflation adjusted numbers are the only ones that matter. Ooh look at my 50% returns in Zimbabwe, who cares about 49% inflation, they fucking amazing. Are you hearing yourself? You are literally saying that nominal gains are more important than real gains and then disregarding the article that says "10%+ average gains are bullshit because they don't represent how much inflation has occurred", bonus points for me being #btfo because it mentions number slightly less ridiculous than yours lol. Do you even understand the concept of inflation? Truly am I btfo, how can I sleep at night hohoho
>feel free to try your luck with stock picking. In 95% of cases you'll underperform (99% over a lifetime), but you'll just fudge the numbers to delude yourself into thinking you're some Wolf of Wall Street. Honestly, please pick your own investments. Indexing works best because faggots like you drag down the performance of the average investor. Thanks for helping make me rich.
Strawman harder fag. I'm not attacking indexing nor have I advocated stock picking, I'm attacking your dumb ass who claimed 13% fucking returns.

Here I am, beautiful afternoon, and I'm arguing with a high schooler who barely passed Economics and read three articles from Mr money mustache.

Listen you stupid faggot, there's a reason why intelligent people, stock exchanges, brokerages, traders, financial media, and everyone else who matters in the world discusses rates of return without adjusting for inflation. It's so we can do apple-to-apples comparisons without worrying about what economy the investor happens to live in.

Guess what fag? Inflation isn't the same everywhere.

Guess what else fag? Taxes aren't the same everywhere either.

That's why we don't discuss tax-adjusted returns either, even though taxes are very, very important.

Now, slink off to whatever shitty hole you crawled from, reflect on how you got destroyed in an argument by someone both smarter and richer than you, and cry more. You don't belong on this board, and you never will.

Buh-bye.

Why is the US500 down since 2 years ago?

13% is still an absurd expectation.

I mean the other user verbally kicked ass but this is still right... 13% even pre-inflation is stupid high

Not really. S&P 500 averaged shy of 11% over the last 80 years. And historically, total market out-performs large-caps by 1-2%, especially if you're willing to overweight into small-cap and can handle the volatility.

I only trot out the 11%+ numbers when retards come into indexing/passive investing threads with their tired "Grandpa investing" memes and try to argue that you can't make money with diversified buy-and-hold. An intelligent investor can look at the performance of the S&P 500 for the last 8 decades and clearly see that's not true. And that was the point I was making.

Do I use 13% when I run my own retirement planning? Hell no. I use 6.5%, and that's pre-inflation. Why? Because (1) I don't recommend or own a 100% U.S. portfolio, and (2) for planning purposes its better to be conservative rather than optimistic.

>Listen you stupid faggot, there's a reason why intelligent people, stock exchanges, brokerages, traders, financial media, and everyone else who matters in the world discusses rates of return without adjusting for inflation.
Why the fuck do you think there are numerous studies comparing CPI to nominal returns to calculate how much of a x% historical jump was merely due to inflation? Of course people talk about the fucking raw numbers, it's inflation adjusted ones that have real consequences for investors and long term planning.

>Guess what else fag? Taxes aren't the same everywhere either.
>That's why we don't discuss tax-adjusted returns either, even though taxes are very, very important.
Because taxes aren't relevant to real market gains you mongoloid. Inflation is. You might wanna read up on after-tax and effective gains too, bet they didn't cover that in your Wikipedia based "economics" class.

It's like explaining inflation to a slightly retarded child. If you gained 5% more dollars, but your purchasing power fell, you haven't actually gained 5% more dollars. If you had 10% gains with 3% inflation, you gained 7%.

Lmao hold up a second, I'll pull some sources out so you can educate yourself, you might leave this conversation thinking you're actually right lol

How about some reading, here.
>To evaluate properly how much can be earned through stock investments in a long period of time, the effect of inflation has to be extracted from the picture, by adjusting the intermediate results according to an index such as the Consumer Price Index
simplestockinvesting.com/SP500-historical-real-total-returns.htm
>Removing the effects of inflation from the return of an investment allows the investor to see the true earning potential of the security without external economic forces.
>real rate of return may be used to compare investments, especially those across international borders, as each country's inflation rate is accounted for in the return. Without adjusting for inflation, an investor may get an entirely different picture from reality when analyzing an investment's performance. For example, assume a bond investment is reported to have earned 2% in the previous year. This looks like a gain, but perhaps inflation last year was 2.5%. Essentially, this means the investment did not keep up with inflation and effectively lost 0.5%.
>assume a stock returned 12% last year and inflation was 3%. An approximate estimate of the real rate of return is 9%
investopedia.com/terms/i/inflation_adjusted_return.asp
>It's so we can do apple-to-apples comparisons without worrying about what economy the investor happens to live in.
Oh no it's literally the opposite, better email those guys at investopedia tell them they are dumb but you are smart and rich lol
Check this nigga out, 2% inflation to 6% inflation environments are apples to apples kek. Why aren't you investing in Zimbabwe, it's 50% nominal returns faggot

How about pic related (Dimson, Marsh, and Staunton), nominal vs real gains by country. By your retard claims it doesn't make that much of a difference where did you invest and yet due to inflation the differences are extreme.

>Guess what fag? Inflation isn't the same everywhere.
lmao

Alternatively, if reading is too hard, you can use any calculator based on Robert Shiller's excellent work to calculate returns and see for yourself how much of a difference inflation makes.
moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm
This one seems decent enough

>Buh-bye
Buh bye indeed

I guess this is the thread to ask.

I'm Canadian and after doing some research I'd like to start putting money into Index Funds. From reading about different account types I'd likely open a TFSA and invest the maximum amount I'm able per year to start with. I'm young (25) and think an equal 4-way split is the way to go as I'm not afraid to lose much and I'll be in it for the mid term (at least the next 15-20 years. I'd likely be opening a different kind of account if I move into a situation where I can invest more than the yearly TFSA limit.)

In summary:
>Canadian TFSA account
>$5500~ aprox per year investment limit
>Index Funds only
>Equal split of Canadian Bonds, Canadian Stocks, US Stocks, and International Stocks
>"Buy and hold", I'd likely never check the account outside of balancing
>Balance every 6 months

Tell me your thoughts.

I hate that argument, "Oh, only a dumb person would fall into one of these, this would never happen to me." I am not here arguing people aren't dumb as a rule, I am arguing that many of these behavioral patterns are almost built into the human brain. By not recognizing the potential for yourself to fall into these traps, you are setting yourself up for them. Its kinda like those people who watch videos on marketing and comment that, "Oh, well such overt advertising doesn't work on me!", when evidence shows that advertising works on pretty much everyone equally, regardless of the few times you can recognize it.

It's actually a fallacy, relativism

I only started investing last year, this is Vanguards Target Retirement 2055 fund, which is just three or four index funds.

I'm investing through a Roth IRA, so the taxes and fees are slightly different for dividends iirc.

I am aware that I won't see 13% every year forever, but this worked out pretty well this time.

That's great, but remember, we're in a bull market for a while. Stick to it for a few years and see how your perform, market might experience a correction, or it might not, who knows. Also, remember that those 13% are with inflation (which is why I was arguing with that other retard). Your real gains are around 10%, which is also pretty sweet all things considered.

It's when you plan over long term that those 13% become ridiculous because in 10 years a dollar will buy around 20%-30% less, so any planning done with 13% is simply misleading. Use 7-8% like every other sane individual.

Wow, you truly are short-bus special. You just splurged for an hour about why inflation is important -- an argument that no one in this thread is discussing or taking a contrary opinion. You're literally babbling to yourself.

Next time save yourself the trouble, because no one (certainly not me) needs to read a wall of cut-and-past text to know that inflation is important.

What you continue to miss due to your crippling autism is that I never said the 11% average rate of return of a U.S. stock index was after inflation. Indeed, I was very clear to point out that my numbers were inflation unadjusted. So NOTHING you've posted in any way undermines the truth of my statement, which, as you've apparently forgotten, was your original intent.

And once again you make one of the dumbest comments in the thread, though I'm inclined to excuse you this time because unlike the person you're referring to, you're too poor to have a Vanguard account. If you did have a Vanguard account, you'd know that that the 13% return shown in is a ROI, not a growth rate. And if you had any financial sophistication, you'd know that these are very different things.

Here's some reading to help your pitiful understanding of the topic.

investopedia.com/articles/investing/111715/return-investment-roi-vs-internal-rate-return-irr.asp

Feel free to ask questions, as you'll inevitably fail to understand either the differences in the various return calculations or why it's relevant to this thread.

No. It is not. No humblebrags allowed.

What can you fall for if you just keep dollar cost averaging, rebalancing annually and not touch the money for 30 years? Literally? What can you "fall for"? You don't even need to do anything else. How dumb are people?

lmao these are the people giving you advice on Veeky Forums

So sounds like every investment is useless and there's no way to escape being a working class slave. Is suicide a better alternative than investing?