Redpill me on Index funds

I second this. What job pays you enough to wagecuck yourself to millionaire status before you're 30?

I know it's shocking to some people, especially if you come from the lower tiers of wealth or from poorer countries, but there many highly compensated positions in business, finance, law, and medicine that can allow someone rising to the top of their field to earn a million dollars in their 20's.

I won't pretend that these folks are common on Veeky Forums, or that the average person has the intelligence or skills for these kinds of positions. But they do exist, which can be confirmed with just a little research on your part.

im only at like $250k at 25 but I live in flyover

plus you rode a bull market

A. It's not a competition. I wasn't boasting; I was refuting the faggot who said you can;t build real wealth as an indexer. Which is, as you know, the topic of the thread.

B. Markets are in a bull phase approximately 80% of the time. Saying that I "rode a bull market" just means that I was a long-term investor, which should apply to all indexers. And not that it matters. but I was in the markets in 2008.

What's the difference between Indexing and mere value investing?

So in other words, you inherited most of it.

Depends on taxes where you live. In europe where there are capital gains taxes anywhere between 20 to 50% it's questionable. Mainly just source of parking not generating much. If you have past 100 years dow jones annual 5% inflation adjusted and take 30% away it will be 2-3% annually. Sooo.....Just Wont make you rich probably but better than many other options. Then you could have also dollar rising etc. yen rising to euro or gbp which would give you better returns but it will require skill most people invest domestically. Too much so.

It's just interesting because statistically the vast majority of millionaires are entrepreneurs and business owners.

The percent of millionaires who go it via wagecucking is small, and the percent of millionaires who got it in the 20s via wagecucking must be astronomically small.

>What's the difference between Indexing and mere value investing?
Value stocks are one market segment, and pretty good one to own in the long-term. But growth stocks do pretty well too. And sometimes blended stocks do better than both.

Indexing doesn't try to single out one asset class over another. Value vs. growth. Large cap vs. small cap. Domestic vs. international. Stocks vs. bonds. They all have a place in an indexers portfolio because its impossible to predict which segments will be the best performers year to year to year.

>So in other words, you inherited most of it.
If my "most" you mean "none" then you're correct. Not everyone who builds their wealth does so through generational wealth transfers. Some of us do it the old fashioned way: get a good job, save a lot, and invest wisely for the long-term.

>statistically the vast majority of millionaires are entrepreneurs and business owner
This is a false statement.
>The percent of millionaires who go it via wagecucking is small
This is also a false statement.

No wonder people are so confused and make stupid decisions about their money: they believe stupid memes with no basis in fact.

I thought most billionaires are entrepreneurs

Stocks can make someone a millionaire, but not a billionaire

>billionaires
Billionaires? Almost definitely. But you do know there's a difference between the word "millionaire" and "billionaire," right? Its pretty clear that both and are talking about millionaires, not billionaires.

>some of us are in a hurry

Right, and by being in a hurry, you're astoundingly less likely to make it at all.

Affirmative

I agree with most of what you say. But

>Indexing doesn't try to single out one asset class over another. Value vs. growth. Large cap vs. small cap. Domestic vs. international. Stocks vs. bonds.

There are indexes for large stocks and indexes for medium and small stocks, indexes for domestic vs indexes for internation, there are certainly indexes for stocks vs bonds. So you've gone overboard in your characterization there.

If you were really saying, the kind of investors that use index funds (or ETFs) are the kind that diversify widely, and profit from that diversification, then yeah.

exactly backwards

most millionaires are entrepreneurs/business owners

a significant number of billionaires are investors.

people make their millions off business ownership and advance to billions via investing.

Veeky Forums likes to pretend it works backwards.

Indexing and indexes aren't the same word. Indexing is the strategy; indexes are the tools.

>Why is this a dictionary thread all of a sudden?

>most millionaires are entrepreneurs/business owners
Again, you're just wrong here. Most millionaires are people who earned a good salary for many decades, saved a lot, and invested wisely. Period.

WHO DO I BELIEVE?!

>Most millionaires are people who earned a good salary for many decades, saved a lot, and invested wisely. Period
these things aren't mutually exclusive.

about 80% of US millionaires own businesses
about 20% inherited millions
about 20 percent have degrees in law, medicine, or applied science

Presumably all of them invest

but what they make most of their money off of is business ownership.

I know you like to think you're going to be a millionaire off of your job bussing tables at TGIFridays, and perhaps you will be.

but historically that's not how it has worked in the past.

do a google search and read a few results.

you'll see.

Veeky Forums is absolutely retarded when it comes to knowing how people make money.

>about 80% of US millionaires own businesses
This is false. You're completely misreading a stat from Millionaire Next Door, which was poorly sourced in the first place.

You can either keep repeating the same lie you're whole life, or you can educate yourself.

>You can either keep repeating the same lie you're whole life,
I'm a business owner, I often gross a million dollars in a single year. How long would I have had to work to do that as an employee? 30 years?

It's in keeping with what I've observed.

I agree your route will work fine in future though. By the time you retire EVERYONE THAT OWNS A HOUSE will be a millionaire. But by that time a million dollars will mean even less than it does now.

what would be an appropriate set of vanguard stocks/etfs to buy into for a Roth IRA account if you want to hold on to them for the next 30-40 years.
the only one I can think of wanting with confidence is an energy etf. everything else alludes me.
i have to read and study up on mutual funds so that i can invest in one or two for the future

>I'm a business owner, I often gross a million dollars in a single year. How long would I have had to work to do that as an employee? 30 years?

If you don't know the difference between gross and net*, you're screwed as a business owner.

*The correct analogy would be to net.

A reasonable approach would be Warren Buffett's.

marketwatch.com/story/warren-buffett-to-heirs-put-my-estate-in-index-funds-2014-03-13

Me, I'd prefer a total stock market index, but I am not smarter than Buffett.

Wrong.

Best choice if you don't have any alternative investments or extensive understanding of what creates monopolistic behavior (concept behind Warren's investment philosophy he doesn't want you to know)

>he hasn't made at least 1 trillion in un levered cash held in asteroid mined commodities by the age of 32

why even go on?

>I'm a business owner
Good for you? Next time we have a thread on Veeky Forums specifically related to what made you, personally, the huge success that you obviously are, this will be incredibly useful and relevant information.

But the question we're discussing is what path was taken by MOST millionaires. People estimate that there's 10.8 million millionaires in the U.S. So your one little data point and your little anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean anything at all.

>How long would I have had to work to do that as an employee? 30 years?
Do you know how many employees have 30 year work histories? A lot of them. Millions of them.

The question wasn't limited to what's the most common path to wealth for people in their 20's (that would be generational wealth transfers, i.e., inheritance, btw). Most people have the benefit of time and long careers before they start relying on their nest egg, not to mention the value of the home that they purchase along the way. Many of them (millions of then, in fact) accumulate a million dollars in net worth. And most of them do it without being a big shot business owner like you.

I love Warren, but I take issue with the specifics of his advice. he says:

>Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund.

but I see no reason to choose a S&P 500 fund over a Total Market fund, especially for a long-term investor. Total Market outperforms the S&P 500 historically, and the additional volatility (which is minor anyway) is more that swallowed up by the long investing horizon. I also don't agree with his exclusion of international stocks and bonds, and real estate.

So, my ideal core portfolio recommendation to a young long-term investor would be something like:

50% VTI (Total Market)
20% VXUS (Total International)
10% VNQ (REIT)
5% VO (Midcap Blend)
4% VBR (Smallcap Value)
8% BND (US Bonds)
3% BNDX (International Bonds)

So if I average something ok like $50k/yr and can save say 40-50% of that a year and make some wise investments and long-term planning and am generally not a retard, I can be a millionaire by my 50s?

>So if I average something ok like $50k/yr and can save say 40-50% of that a year and make some wise investments and long-term planning and am generally not a retard, I can be a millionaire by my 50s?
Yes. If you saved $20,000 a year for 20 years and earned 8% on your investments (reasonable for a moderately aggressive portfolio) you'd have $988,458.43.

That's not adjusted for inflation, of course. Then again, most people tend to increase what save as they get older and their salary/wages increase, rather than saving the same amount every year.

bless your heart user, thanks for the advice
>marketwatch.com/story/warren-buffett-to-heirs-put-my-estate-in-index-funds-2014-03-13
from my short time in XLE i lost confidence because it felt like the decreasing oil prices drove the whole index down. seems like they're better for short term gains

>*The correct analogy would be to net.
indeed if my business wasn't paying for 1/3 of my house, half my vehicles, most of my travel, a large fraction of my utilities, etc.

until wageslaves are allowed to write off business expenses neither number is analogous.

>But the question we're discussing is what path was taken by MOST millionaires.
yes, that question was answered.

user made the point that the fact isn't well sourced, but so far it's only been countered by claims that have no source.

poorly sourced (IRS data via authors of a best-seller) beats unsourced claims. Sorry.

>if I average something ok like $50k/yr and can save say 40-50% of that a year
in reality almost nobody saves that much. Your parents aren't going to support you that long.

also
>he doesn't know the value of my property is a function of my gross
>Amazon is worth $0
this is the misunderstanding that keeps people from being millionaires. You don't have to net millions in cash to be a millionaire. Most millionaires probably don't.

Millionaires almost always built equity, not cash.

doers this pic imply that REIT's are one of the strongest investments?

well I've never seen any sound investment advice that didn't say to at least consider some allocation in them

This is an excerpt from Benjamin Graham's "The Intelligent Investor"
"REITs are companies that own and collect rent from commercial and residential properties. Bundled into real-estate mutual funds, REITs do a decent job of combating inflation."
pg. 63

>poorly sourced (IRS data via authors of a best-seller) beats unsourced claims
But there is real data out there that proves me right. Fidelity publishes an annual survey of millionaires and has for many years. By far, the most common path for self-made (non-inherited) millionaires is highly-compensated jobs: corporate executives, consultants, doctors, engineers. etc. Entrepreneur business owners represent only 11% of all millionaires.

I can't stop you from parroting that stupid quote from Millionaire Next Door -- and God knows you're not the only one guilty of repeating it -- but it's just not true and never was. The NEETs on this board hate to hear it, but the truth is that most millionaires are "wagecucks" ... except with really, really high wages.

>doers this pic imply that REIT's are one of the strongest investments?
As the other anons have mentions, it's a historically strong asset class and certainly worthy of inclusion in any well-balanced portfolio.

That being said, REIT have had their down years too. They're very sensitive to interest rate fluctuations, since real estate is so capital intensive, and there are many years when stocks blow them out of the water. Also, they're extremely tax inefficient, so hold them in a tax-advantaged account (401k, IRA) if at all possible or else your tax bill is really going to eat into your returns.

But all things considered, I consider them to be an integral part of any well-built index portfolio.

>By far, the most common path for self-made (non-inherited) millionaires is highly-compensated jobs: corporate executives, consultants, doctors, engineers. etc.
again these aren't mutually exclusive.

the reason those jobs pay so well is because those that hold them often own businesses.

>Entrepreneur business owners represent only 11% of all millionaires.
yes, it depends how you word it. Is a lawyer that owns a practice an entrepreneur? What about a doctor that owns a clinic? A carpenter? A self-employed tile guy?

the overlap between business ownership and millionaires is well over 50% according the government, the 80% claim isn't at all unreasonable.

Undoubtedly some of those business owners made their businesses AFTER making millions, but it would a strange thing to buy once you're rich unless you were using it to make more.

>the reason those jobs pay so well is because those that hold them often own businesses.
Wrong. The reason those jobs pay so well is because they require highly skilled, highly trained, highly competent, and highly dedicated individuals.

>Is a lawyer that owns a practice an entrepreneur?
Yes, if he founded the firm and built it.

But by the same token, is the lawyer who makes partner in a 5000-person law firm a "business owner"? He doesn't make management decisions, and he didn't start or build the firm ... but he does own a partnership interest (usually paid for in cash as a capital contribution) and he gets a K1. If you looked at the IRS data, you'd think that he (and the hundreds of other partners in the firm) were all business owners. But the reality tells a different tale.

And yes, doctors, accountants, engineers and other professionals all fall into the same business model.

And don't even get me started on corporate executives. Yes almost all of them "own" a piece of the company thanks to stock incentives, but they're no more "business owners" than you are when you buy a share of APPL.

>the overlap between business ownership and millionaires is well over 50% according the government
And I've just explained why. Doesn't change the fact that most millionaires got their wealth from many, many paychecks ... not from starting a business.

>The reason those jobs pay so well is because they require highly skilled, highly trained, highly competent, and highly dedicated individuals
again, these aren't mutually exclusive.

the career paths that consistently pay best also favor private ownership as a normal step on the ladder.

and as you say, someone that buys a business is not an entrepreneur, nor would most people that start a common business consider themselves one.

Either way we seem to agree that a great number of millionaires have professional degrees, something which is even less likely on Veeky Forums than a business owner.

>the career paths that consistently pay best also favor private ownership as a normal step on the ladder
That's primarily a function of the professional liability associated with the careers, and has nothing to do with them being paths to wealth. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, etc. all require malpractice/liability insurance in order to operate under state law. It would have been too difficult, too costly, and too time-consuming for an insurer to underwrite these businesses if they operated under traditional business form.

Also, state law prohibits these professionals from seeking to escape malpractice liability through corporate limited liability. This is why individual professionals have their own form of corporate entity ("Professional Corporations" or "PC") that does not confer limited liability with respect to professional claims, and why they formed into partnerships when two or more of them decided to work together. They literally had no other choices.

Today things are a bit muddied thanks to LLPs, LLCs, PLLCs, and LLLPs, But that's a bit off-topic.

>nor would most people that start a common business consider themselves one
You lost me on this one. If a group of people got together to create a jointly-owned business, why wouldn't they be entrepreneurs? It's not a solo avocation.

>Either way we seem to agree that a great number of millionaires have professional degrees, something which is even less likely on Veeky Forums than a business owner.
That doesn't change the fact that when someone asks, "Where do most millionaires come from?" the correct answer is: "They got jobs with a good salary or wage, they saved a lot of money, and they invested prudently."

The fact that most of Veeky Forums is still on Step 1 doesn't change the advice.

My finance teacher told us to invest in index funds while young to capture the overall growth of the market, then diversify into lower risk bonds as we got older and approached retirement.

She said unless your full time job is to study the stock market, don't bother trying to pick and choose winning stocks, because you will most likely fail to beat the performance of an index fund.

>They literally had no other choices.
granted, but that doesn't change the outcome. Their motives in business ownership are irrelevant if that ownership is statistically more likely to make them wealthy.

we can answer this by comparing their compensation to similar professions in countries that don't allow or promote ownership though. It seems clear that the careers themselves aren't prone to making people wealthy in an environment that doesn't promote ownership.
>If a group of people got together to create a jointly-owned business, why wouldn't they be entrepreneurs?
I was thinking more of the self-employed laborer types. They're not likely to be called entrepreneurs just because they got a business license and a webpage. They're still just normal people doing normal work. Nothing fancy.

>the correct answer is: "They got jobs with a good salary or wage, they saved a lot of money, and they invested prudently."
the problem is most people do that and almost none of them become millionaires for their effort.

the real disconnect on Veeky Forums is that most here don't pay their own bills so this strategy seems reasonable. In reality people don't save or invest that much because they have bills to pay and a life to live.

the fact that Veeky Forums still hasn't moved out of their parents' house doesn't change that reality.

>the correct answer is: "They got jobs with a good salary or wage, they saved a lot of money, and they invested prudently."
or to put it very succinctly-

this advice absolutely works if a person gets a professional degree and then moves into business management/ownership.

something most professionals figure out in less than a decade on the job. Which means they're a solid 14-18 years into their career counting school when they finally understand that owning or managing is where the money's actually at.

we could skip a lot of that.

>we can answer this by comparing their compensation to similar professions in countries that don't allow or promote ownership though. It seems clear that the careers themselves aren't prone to making people wealthy in an environment that doesn't promote ownership.
Feel free, but it'll just prove me right. Lawyers, doctors, and other highly skilled, highly trained professionals are the top earners in any economy that doesn't artificially restrict their earning potential.

>I was thinking more of the self-employed laborer types. They're not likely to be called entrepreneurs just because they got a business license and a webpage. They're still just normal people doing normal work. Nothing fancy.
Who said being entrepreneurial involved something fancy? I'm not sure if you're trying to move the goalposts, but you can just stop any time.

>the problem is most people do that and almost none of them become millionaires for their effort.
No, the problem is that you're in denial about the fact that its a true statement.

>this advice absolutely works if a person gets a professional degree and then moves into business management/ownership

Wrong. Anyone who earns a good wage, saves aggressively, and invests wisely can be a millionaire by the time they retire. I showed the math above for someone who can save $20k/year over 20 years. Most people have at least 40 years (ages 25-65) to earn and save before traditional retirement.

Over 40 years, you only need to save $321.68/month ($3860.16/year) and get 8% returns to have a million dollars. You don't have to be a successful lawyer, heart surgeon, or Fortune 500 CEO to save four grand a year into an index fund. Almost anyone can do it, and millions have done exactly that.

That why MOST millionaires aren't business owners, and why a lot of them aren't professionals either. They're normal, average joe wage-earners who save and invest.

>That why MOST millionaires aren't business owners, and why a lot of them aren't professionals either
anyone that wants to google your claim will see that you're wrong in .3 seconds.

I hope they do; at least they'd be interesting to talk to. You've been in this thread for five hours and I've had to correct every post you've made.

>I've had to correct every post you've made.
you haven't corrected shit.

there's three different books out, all best-sellers, that surveyed thousands of millionaires and all three found most were business owners.

while your opinions on WHY that may be true are interesting, your denial of the fact is pretty fucking boring.

And yet you've failed to cite them, let alone provide the source of the information.

Meanwhile, I've provided you with the research report that disproved your stupid meme.

So, like I said, I just keep correcting all your posts ... including this one. It's getting boring...

>yet you've failed to cite them
you named one.

the other two are a simple google search away.
the first link at the top of the page.

You sure like to say "Google" when you've run out of argument, sources, or facts ...

Boring....

Because I'm not arguing with you.

if anyone cares to read through our pile of shit I hope they consult their search engine. Then they'll know.

I'd expect hell to freeze over before you'd admit that you're an ignorant ass.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

well you made a couple valid and interesting points, one of which I didn't know. So I'm not particularly vested in the argument.

The actual irony is neither of us pretends to have made millions using your route and both of us have claimed in the past to have used mine.

And while I understand your motives for the argument (It's flattering to think the average Veeky Forums user can't do what you or I claim to have done)-
the reality is that's not true.

your financial successes may have taken some special talents or efforts but to be frank a trained monkey could do my job. Probably do it better than I do.

I haven't made any claims about how I made my money. I'm not going to get into all the details, but suffice it to say that that million dollars referred to in was entirely from a very healthy salary, which I saved aggressively, and invested primarily in index funds.

And for the record, I do think the average Veeky Forums user can do exactly what I did -- retire with more than a million dollar net worth. I don't think they're likely to do it as quickly or at the same scale as me, but the opportunity for a comfortable life is there for those dedicated to the right financial strategy and planning.

>I haven't made any claims about how I made my money
not in this thread anyways.

>I don't think they're likely to do it as quickly or at the same scale as me
and that's why your advice is patronizing, whether I agree with it or not.

ultimately you're right about people in general. If the average joe of average intelligence and average income ever makes a million dollars they'll do it exactly the way you said.

but to pretend that's how most millionaires do it is just blowing smoke up their collective ass. Far less than 1% of workers will manage to do what you suggest. Being self-employed or owning a business increase those chances by about 400%.

>Far less than 1% of workers will manage to do what you suggest.
Due in large measure to their own bad choices, bad habits, and bad information.

Yes, a large percentage of people will never have the income to achieve a million-dollar net worth goal. No debate there.

But, the median salary in the US was $56,516 in 2015 (the most recent year surveyed by the Federal Reserve). I find it hard to believe that any household bringing in over $56K/year can't save $3900/year for the long-term. That's less than 7% of their gross. And since over 50% of all households in the US are in this group (that's what median income means), that's a LOT more than 1% who have the opportunity to be millionaires.

As for the audience here, I know that there's a lot of people with zero to nominal incomes now. There's a lot of students, and a lot of people just getting starting. But statistically speaking, 50% of the U.S. residents on this board are going to have incomes in the $56K+ range. Indeed, quite a few of the college graduates here are going to start around the figure right out of the gate (putting aside student loans).

So why aren't 50% of U.S. earners millionaires? Well, a lot of them are on the way but not there yet. And a LOT of them just don't have a fucking clue how to save or how to invest. Too many people think its too hard, takes too long, or just don't have the discipline to see it through. And some lose their way due to bad luck, such as illness, disability, and other adverse life events.

So, no, I'm not blowing smoke up anyone's ass. The math is pretty fucking simple, as even you admit. Make enough in wages/salary so that you can save $3900/year, do it for 40 years, invest in index funds that (hopefully) live up to the 8% historical returns. Boom: One Million Dollars.

And for the last time, yes that's how most people do it.

median personal income is just over $30k.

so your route also requires Veeky Forums to get married and presumably have some kids after getting that degree.

all things I support, but probably even bigger obstacles than getting a job for most here.

>so your route also requires Veeky Forums to get married and presumably have some kids after getting that degree.
I realize you're attempting to be funny, but for the record "household" includes one-person households, so marriage is optional. Also, children under the age of 15 are excluded, so the kids comment doesn't make a lot of sense.

Look user, if you want to shit on Veeky Forums users I can't stop you. But I'd think you'd be more interested in mocking the coinfags and get-rich-quick retards, rather than making (specious) attempts to discredit the minority of folks here who are attempting to do things the right way. But however you get your jollies is up to you.

>I realize you're attempting to be funny, but for the record "household" includes one-person households
sure, but when we remove the households with more than one person we find that the median salary for US workers over the age of 15 in 2015 was,
$30,240
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

so your simple misunderstanding of math (or relationships) throws your brilliant lil scheme right out the window.

Your $56k income assumes a married couple.

women don't generally marry dudes that live in their parents' basement and re-use their toilet paper. They're going to want a house and kids and new cars and dinners out and vacations.

makes it hard to save your million.

Personal income is an individual's total earnings from wages, investment interest, and other sources. The US Census Bureau reported a median personal income of $30,240 for all workers over age 15 with income, and a mean personal income of $44,510 based on the Current Population Survey for 2015.[2]

What's better, S&P 500 or R2000?

>Your $56k income assumes a married couple.
Actually, it doesn't. It assumes a "household" which can be everything from one person to a dozen unrelated adults living under the same roof. You're the one leaping to conclusions and misinterpreting the data.

And this is why it's so fucking boring responding to your posts. You get everything wrong and I spend the whole time correcting your mistakes.

Can't admit it when you fucked up, can you?

if household income is $56k and personal income is $30k, how much is the median salary of Veeky Forums users?

trick question, Veeky Forums users don't have jobs.

if they did their median salary would be $30k.

So you admit you don't know the definition of "household." I'm not surprised, really.

Also, its pretty funny how you've completely abandoned your original argument about owning a business and you've resorted to playing definition games and making broad insulting comments about the board as a whole.

I'll give you credit for your persistence, though. You're willing to say just about anything for more attention. You even make serial posts when you get impatient for a reply. But you've become fatally boring now, and I'm fresh out of (You)s. You conceded defeat hours ago, and now your just trolling.

>inb4 he has to get the last word, and posts multiple times begging for a reply, not realizing that I've filtered his post ID and unfollowed the thread

Assuming you're single with no kids, what does $30k work out to after taxes?

$22k? Less?

I don't think a person could even live on that in most of the US. That would barely cover rent.

we both know you fucked up.
it's fine. It happens.

kek brutal

No. They are shit

Flipping houses.

> top fucking kek

A good way to tell if someone is a retarded teenager on Veeky Forums is their use of words like "wagecuck".

I'm pushing 30 and think it's a great term.

"wageslave" is a bit too heavy, "wagecuck" has the perfect balance of masochism and grey conformity that encapsulates the the average employee.

...what's wrong with flipping and selling houses using loans? My friend says you can make bank doing it

central banking's windows yard background for normie sheeps

don't put your dick in stocks at the top of the bigger central banker trickery in history

yeh, they will keep them up, yeh, until it's not

> le timing the market "strategy"

How is it working out for you? I can understand wanting to buy the dip (now is the perfect time), but after a while, you are just being cucked by your own cynicism.

>brutal
or ironic

notice how quickly he buggered off after I corrected him on US median income.

Wow, great posts man. You should teach a class or something. Didn't expect to read a ((red pill)) thread and actually learn something.

But Warren believes in index funds over hedge/mutual funds.

Index funds will beat your "understanding" as well. What makes you different than the guy featured as the financial wizard of the year that disappears next year?

Indexes: a way to follow the stock market. If x company has a value of
three times as much as y, x receives three times the weighting in the
determined index. You may think you are diversified but you may
have a significant amount of money in few companies.

>You should teach a class or something
that would require his shit to be true rather than just verbose.

Red pill: Index funds are the only way out of the Matrix.

I would recommend you diversify. My 401k is split 40% VHCAX, 25% FXAIX, 25% VSIIX and 10% VGSNX. From my research however, it seems that small cap value outperforms the overall market from a long-term investment perspective.

Among all the other pissing-match posts, this one is simple and direct and helpful to novices.

savage, dude. you straight up murdered that guy. lol

I own both, but I have about twice as much in the S&P. R2000 is going to be more volatile. You might also want to look into international index funds - like R2000 they're more volatile but the potential is there for higher returns.

>samefagging this hard

show them the posts where your entire argument was destroyed because you mistook household income for personal income.

This.
Vanguard 500 beats hedge funds over the long term. The Journal just wrote an article about it

Link?

Only before the exorbitant fees. Hedge funds take about 20%.

The majority of hedge fund managers actually beat the market before taking that 20%.

Still don't understand why anyone would invest in a hedge fund though.

same reason anyone invest's in anything.
past success and marketing hype

>Almost anyone can do it, and millions have done exactly that.
kEK no, index funding and investing in general among plebs is a very recent phenomena