Is /pol/ right about investing?

Is /pol/ right about investing?

Other urls found in this thread:

bogleheads.org/wiki/Main_Page)
finiki.org/)
bogleheads.org/RecommendedReading.php
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Yes, the market is rigged.

pol is right about everything

>10% is good

I'm up 900% so far this year from cryptos. I've only invested in large coins so this could have been scaleable.

Obviously index funds are the best way to invest. Everyone knows this, and every published piece of advice in the last 10 years confirms it. Where the fuck have you been?

But to be clear, /pol/ is wrong about everything. Mutual funds are not a scam; they simply have relatively high fees that erode their performance. The market is not rigged in any way.

That /pol/ accidentally copied a kernel of truth into their bullshit doesn't clean up the bullshit.

Ask any people who aren't really interested in trading or investing about investing and you get an answer like that, which is probably the correct answer for the vast majority of the population.

Telling your average person to not invest in an index fund, instead start day-trading cryptos is like telling your gran to get Linux and compile a custom kernel when she asks about getting a new computer.

They are correct.

Good point.

t. deluded snowflake who thinks he can beat the market

I can't beat these $100k market cap shitcoin markets they're just so damn efficient!!

Telling your gran to use Linux is a good thing. Just don't let her compile the kernel.

>market cap
What is that?

total supply x price.

yeah, 100k seems tiny then

You can't beat your own meat, LARPfag. Stop pretending on an Chinese origami message board. There's literally nothing more pathetic.

you're a retard. Trading shitcoins has much simple and easier access, your example is upside down

This.

Ok I concede. Which shitcoin index should I invest in?

I'm not disagreeing that the diversification from an index fund makes it extremely good and more consistent in general, but to look at just the past 10 years (essentially a recovery period from 08, filled with quantitative easing, lower interest rates, and increasing business confidence is shortsighted). But yes, indices been have going up and up since recording began, and corrections are comparatively short lived to periods of stability.

It's a low barrier to entry yes, but so is bungee jumping.

>the market is not rigged
What is Quantitative Easing?

LOL that is from /pol?
I thought it was all collapse food guns and ammo preaching before (which isn't a bad advice in itself).

If /pol caught on to index investing, its time to pull out money from the indices.

which ones have you played?

I thought they taught index investing in American schools or something.

Somewhat. There is intense competition for return on capital at the highest levels. Trillions of dollars worth of banks compete to get an edge. The average investor has no chance to outperform the market in the long term.

Now, with that being said let me drop a massive redpill.

The size of your investment and risk tolerance determines your potential long term returns. However taking high risk bets without hedging in the equity markets is basically a coin flip. Your expected risk adjusted returns are garbage. Competiton and near perfect hedging drives returns down to market return with some adjustment for risk but not much.

So how do you beat the market? It's actually pretty simple. Don't invest in public equities. Once a company goes public, returns get driven down to market returns.
>But but how about Facebook, Google, and Amazon? I could've multiplied my money!

Actually that's simple survivorship bias. For every Amazon, there's companies hundreds of companies that were in a similar position in 1997 and went bankrupt. The thing with companies like Amazon, is that their success was a gamble. They were priced given the information the market had available (more or less) with some adjustment for the risk involved. Amazon was a survivor and Jeff Bezos delivered on what he promised. But imagine if you invested in Amazon in 1997 and in 1999 Jeff Bezos left the company, failed to secure an important contract, etc.., you'd be fucked.

So don't invest in public equities? What else is there??? Think of this. The GDP of the USA is like 18 Trillion dollars. If there are 180M workers, each one produces $100K of value. So if you can be even average (which is easy as fuck) you can add 100K of value and capture a greater majority of it.
(1/2)

/pol/ is always right

>What is Quantitative Easing?
It's an economic tool used to increase bank liquidity to stimulate and encourage economic activity.

Why do you ask? Is Google not available in your country?

>I thought they taught index investing in American schools or something.
Teachers aren't known for their financial savvy. American schools either don't have investing education at all, or they hold "mock stock market" competitions and demand that the kids make as much in 30 days as possible. Literally the opposite of doing it right.

>>The size of your investment and risk tolerance determines your potential long term returns.
Really? Rich people get better returns on their S&P 500 index fund than poor people? That's fucking unbelievable!

>Literally

The fantastic thing about investments you own (not partially but fully) is that you have immense power to add value to them. For example if you have a coffee shop earning 200K a year after you get paid and it goes up to 300K the next year, your company's value could go up over 1M. Now nothing is guaranteed but in a hot market a competitor might buy you out for a few million.

>But haha I don't have millions to open a business.

Well good news, you can borrow money cheap as fuck if you can bring in revenue and a lot of companies can grow on demand these days with online marketing, sales technology, etc..

You can manufacture a product in your parents garage and then move into a cheap warehouse if things go well. The truth is any good product or service can be manufactured extremely cheap these days. Design, branding, durability, quality can differentiate you from your competiton, but remember competiton is not always good. Strong businessmen take over small markets and then move into bigger ones. PayPal took over eBay powerseller market before they went mainstream. Find a group of customers you can serve well and don't let a Jew swoop up your business for cheap. Then expand into a larger market after you gain controlling market share of the one you started in. You will easily be able to obtain financing because you have dominated one market already and have an established monopoly in that market giving you pricing power and cash generation.

So TL;DR: Invest in machines, equipment, infrastructure, then sell to goyims. Take over small markets, you don't need lots of money to do this. Expand into larger markets without getting Jewed out of equity. You will beat the market easily because you aren't part of it and Jews haven't driven your returns to market level yet.

Of course, /pol/ is always right.

And by always right they mean always right if you disregard all the other times during the day a broken clock is wrong and cherrypick the two times it happens to be correct. /pol/ is the biggest piece of shit this site has ever produced, worse than /b/ hands down.

No quite the opposite. Rich people have no business investing in fragmented small scale operation that sell for 3-5X earnings because they are too time consuming the manage. Warren Buffet said he could make 30-50% a year easy if he wasn't limited to large caps/mega caps. In fact the first market Warren Buffet dominated was his local newspaper routes.

I'll genuinely be interested to see if views about index funds change on biz once fed rate hike contractionary monetary policy starts to come into play. It won't cause a crash, but it definitely will slow indices down, as intended.

/pol/ is always right in the way that Warren Buffett is always right: You only find out how right they are when IT'S HAPPENING.

>but to look at just the past 10 years (essentially a recovery period from 08, filled with quantitative easing, lower interest rates, and increasing business confidence is shortsighted
Who's looking at just the past 10 years?

You think the most recent bull market is an aberration or something? Um, bull markets dominate bear markets throughout history, in frequency, duration, and magnitude.

You think the most recent bull market is driven entirely by QE? Then explain how it is that the QE ended in 2014 and yet the bull market continues. And explain why Japan hasn't had bull markets when they've been using QE since the 80's.

You distrust the bull market because business confidence is high? That's a bit ass-backwards. Maybe business confidence is high because the economy is doing really well and is expected to continue doing so into the future.

I get that you've made an effort to sound reasonable, but you're still saying stupid things. The markets have risk, always, and I'd applaud you if you discussed that in an intelligent manner. But your post is just lazy and ill-informed.

>Warren Buffet said he could make 30-50% a year easy if he wasn't limited to large caps/mega caps.
You're a gullible little minge, huh?

That graphic is INCREDIBLY biased. Protip: If you have a bear market wipe out 45% of the market, then a bull market with increases of 108%, what's your net change? IT'S NEGATIVE.

There's literally no point in investing in the market until it collapses.

>it definitely will slow indices down, as intended
The Fed's already raised rates, and the market shrugged it off. These things get priced in weeks and months ahead of time, precious.

And why would the Fed "intend" to intervene in stock market prices? I think your tinfoil hat is cutting off the blood supply to your atrophied brain. Sure the Fed's policies have an effect on the markets, but to claim that the Fed has either the intend or directive to manipulate the markets is just delusional.

It's quite easy to find mutual/investment funds that consistently outperform the index. You just have to do a bit of research.

Index funds invest in everything, even overvalued shit that common sense tells you to avoid.

TIL that percentages and time measurements are "INCREDIBLY biased"

>There's literally no point in investing in the market until it collapses.
t. retarded poorfag in 2010
t. retarded poorfag in 2011
t. retarded poorfag in 2012
t. retarded poorfag in 2013
t. retarded poorfag in 2014
t. retarded poorfag in 2015
t. retarded poorfag in 2016
t. You

>It's quite easy to find mutual/investment funds that consistently outperform the index. You just have to do a bit of research.
Name five that have done it in consecutive five-year periods.

The point still stands that he would have a larger pool of investment opportunities to choose from and greater possible returns.

No the point does not stand because you base it on two faulty premises:

1. That Warren Buffett cannot invest in anything he wants. Protip: he can.

2. That smaller M&A opportunities have a consistently higher return on capital than larger ones.

You see, logic requires that you have both a premise and a conclusion. You apparently like to leap straight to the end. It makes you sound stupid.

Well our education system is so tied up in beauracracy we still have trouble figuring out evolution.

>>There's literally no point in investing in the market until it collapses.
>t. retarded poorfag in 2008
id be assmad too if I lost money then.

>implying I didn't go all in in late 2008 and haven't been rich as fuck in the intervening years

Read Antifragile by Taleb.

Yellen doesn't wake up saying "How do I fuck this market up today?" One of the Fed's main jobs is to maintain a steady rate of inflation. Rates and selling off of assets they hold are methods which they can use. But how do they know if what they're doing is having an affect? Well, they can look to indicators like the S/P 500 (which is of course probably one of many indicators they use, like the CPI), to see if what they're doing is having the desired influence. An example of why indices would slow down is because rate hikes could decreased earnings reported, due to higher finance costs for businesses, this could lead to investors selling off, as earnings are important indicators for many people. A lot of people will also choose to investor more in government bonds when rates are increased, further having an affect on the S/P 500. It's not that they directly intend to fuck up the market, but it does show them whether what they're doing is working.

>Well our education system is so tied up in beauracracy we still have trouble figuring out evolution.
I hear ya. I've seen stories of indexing being taught, but it was in a college-level finance course. The vast majority of students finish their formal education with no useful tutoring in personal finance or investing.

>P.S. Despite the pic, I'm not shitty on Millennials exclusively -- though they are the least financially literate generation ever.

>>implying I didn't go all in in late 2008 and haven't been rich as fuck in the intervening years
I'm not implying anything. I'm fucking stating it.

You're not rich.
You're a LARPing faggot.

Clear enough, snowflake?

The government has literally no reason to educate their subjects in personal finance. It'd be like ruining your serfs by teaching them how to read.

Yes they are.

Automation and technology driven down the fees on passive investing.

Here's a simple mind experiment. Let's take a set of funds investing in stock, trying to beat the market. Let's assume they follow normal distribution.
This way 50% of the funds will be higher than average and 50% will be lower.

So in 50% of cases active management brought you loss.

Ok but let's factor the management fees. Standard deviation of S&P 500 is around 10%. Fees are 2% on average. That means that 58% of the time you'd be better of investing in index.

Ok but let's factor in the fees on ETF tracking index. It should be less than 0.5%, let's assume 0.5% here. If we check z-table, active management will be 56% of time below the index-tracking ETF.

SO if you want to invest long-term, index investing will beat active investing, unless you are fucking lucky.

>Yellen doesn't wake up saying "How do I fuck this market up today?"
Correct.
>One of the Fed's main jobs is to maintain a steady rate of inflation.
Correct
>Rates and selling off of assets they hold are methods which they can use.
Correct
>But how do they know if what they're doing is having an affect? Well, they can look to indicators like the S/P 500 (which is of course probably one of many indicators they use, like the CPI), to see if what they're doing is having the desired influence.
Wrong.
>It's not that they directly intend to fuck up the market, but it does show them whether what they're doing is working.
Wrong.

The S&P 500 is not an inflation indicator, nor is any stock index. There has never been a strong correlation between equity prices and CPI. The Fed has actual measurements of inflation at their disposal; they certainly don't look to the stock index to derive the information.

To be clear, I'm not saying that QE (and other Fed policies, for that matter) don't have an effect on the markets. They obviously do. But you are simply wrong to state or imply that the Fed seeks to intervene in the markets themselves. You are confusing causation and correlation. Fed policy may move the markets, but the markets do not move Fed policy.

>It'd be like ruining your serfs by teaching them how to read.
In America, the government does teach its citizens how to read. I'm sorry that's not true where you come from.

Please go back to /qst/, /r9k/ or whatever abortion of a board you call home. We really don't want your kind here.

Stay poor faggot. My family and many others I know have easily beat the market investing in our own small business. 450K a year now after being in business for 9 years, and >1.2M in property, machines, stocks, bonds, and no debt. Enjoy earning

Please stop rolepalying on this board NEET

Very well. Have fun with your crypto-currencies, then.

>My family and many others I know have easily beat the market investing in our own small business.
Um, that's your job, dumbass. Everyone "beats the market" with the job because they're trading time and skill for cash.

>meanwhile I continue getting rich
Hmm, should I believe that someone who doesn't know the difference between business ownership and investment is "rich"? Well you did type it, so it must be true, right? Sure, you haven't posted any evidence, and your posts make you sound like a 10 year old, but no one would go on the internet and lie about their wealth.

>Faggot

>Have fun with your crypto-currencies, then.
I've been advocating index investing and somehow that makes you think I own shitcoins? You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, huh?

I don't know you personally but I've been around long enough to know that this is a containment board for cryptocurrency shills. But okay you "win" the argument. Enjoy that rush of dopamine as you make no progress on your real goals in life.

With a job I'd be earning $30-40 max/hr in this industry. Please tell me what kind of job leads to making $225K+ per person doing woodworking and owning respectively 600K after 9 years.

In a few years we might even be breaking 1M/yr profits jointly.

Listen, it's better to get 6% a year from a proper investment than it is from something like cryptocurrencies, even if somehow the risk was the same.

I don't believe I ever made that argument and I agree with you.

My point was that it's infinitely* better to buy during a market collapse then hold and profit during the recovery, than it is to be invested in a market that could collapse at any time wiping out not only your previous gains, but also your original investment. I highly recommend Antifragile by Taleb. Limit your exposure to negative black swans as much as possible and increase your exposure to positive black swans as much as is safe.

>vanguard goes up 15% over two years
>crypto goes up 500%

hmmm

My point is even if I could get 100% on a crypto investment for the same risk as 6% on an index fund, I'd still pick the index fund because it's a proper investment.

Did you just fail to understand a simple analogy? I don't know why the person you replied to didn't call you out on it, but I will.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions about your age. And adult would have understand the point I was making, though it clearly went over your head.

But just incase you're merely dim, I'll repeat it in ELI5 format: In this thread, we're talking about index investing. Read the OP. Its pretty fucking clear. Index. Investing. Google it -- it's a type of passive investment that smart people use yo grow your wealth.

Now because you're not very bright, you keep talking about your job. Your job is not a passive investment. Your job is your job. Most people have them. But unless you happen to be a fund manager, your job is not index investing. They're different things. Not mutually exclusive things.

When people make logical arguments, they try to compare apples to apples. So you'd try to compare one passive investment to another passive investment. What you should never do is compare apples to oranges. While both fruits, they're not the same thing so any comparison lacks merit. You are comparing apples to oranges. A job is not a passive investment. An apple is not an orange.

Do you get it now? I'm sure sure you're worth the effort, and I honestly don't think I could dumb it down any more....

>Did you just fail to understand a simple analogy? I don't know why the person you replied to didn't call you out on it, but I will.
In order to be applicable, the analogy has to have some correlation to the analogized premise. I pointed out that it doesn't. He understand that, but you're apparently not as bright.

Okay, I don't agree with that, that's just illogical. There's no such thing as a "proper investment".

I'm too polite.

>He understand that
Wrong! Don't overestimate me.

A medieval state uses peasants to produce food. Teaching them to read would actively hurt their output of food to the state.

A modern globalist state uses its peasants to create demand by abusing credit. Teaching them basic personal finance would actively hurt their consumatory spending habits.

>10% a year

Jesus, I aim for 10% a day...

Sample #1. Claim that the government does not teach finances:
>The vast majority of students finish their formal education with no useful tutoring in personal finance or investing.

Sample #2. A statement supporting the previous claim. Uses a historical analogy to provide a potential explanation. The logical correlation is clearly present.
>The government has literally no reason to educate their subjects in personal finance. It'd be like ruining your serfs by teaching them how to read.

Sample #3. The person who made the original claim reacts negatively to a statement supporting his claim. Mistakenly believes that "teaching people how to read" was being discussed in the present term, rather than as a historical comparison to not teaching personal finance in the modern age.
>In America, the government does teach its citizens how to read.

>Teaching them to read would actively hurt their output of food to the state.
Faulty premise. Crop yields have increased commensurate with the education level of the society.

You can crawl back into your hole now.

Veeky Forums is an English-speaking site. Please try again.

>Faulty premise. Crop yields have increased commensurate with the education level of the society.
I was thinking of specifically the Russian Tsars (particularly Catherine) who tried to educate the serfs to increase their economic output, which merely resulted in them becoming discontent with their place in society and ultimately resulted in the communist revolution. It turns out that if you have a production system dependent on serf labor, that teaching them to read does not in fact increase their food output.

Now I'm really going to blow your mind: which comes first, the increased crop yields or increased education of the population? The answer might shock you!

My post is not that hard to understand. I don't believe it has any grammar mistakes other than the omission of the subject at the start of phrases. You didn't just say that to try to dodge the argument because you realized you were wrong, did you?

Yes but it's not a PROPER investment like stocks, I mean...do you even wear a suit?

>I was thinking of specifically
That's the problem with trying to use a barely applicable analogy: it doesn't correlate with your premise in many cases.

It's nice that you learned about Russian history in school today, but you still made a shitty argument. Try better next time.

Make an argument if you want a response. I'm not here for my amusement, and your post was incomprehensible.

Okay, I'll forgo analogy and fun for the moment.

The USA government has no interest in ensuring the USA population is taught basic personal finance because they are counting on young people to spend over 100% of their income on consumer goods by abusing credit in order to keep demand high enough to prevent businesses from collapsing and the credit system from imploding.

Someone made a post that agreed with what you said. The post also contained an analogy that attempted to explain why people were not being taught personal finance. In your next post you took that analogy and replied to it as if it was a counterargument to what you said. This shows that you misunderstood the post that you replied to. I decided to bring attention to this misunderstanding.

There is no argument to make here. I pointed out a post where you answered in a completely nonsensical manner because I wanted to. That being said, I agree with most of your posts in this thread.

If your not here for amusement then why are you here? To learn about Indonesian erotic cartoons?

>The USA government has no interest in ensuring the USA population is taught basic personal finance because they are counting on young people to spend over 100% of their income on consumer goods by abusing credit in order to keep demand high enough to prevent businesses from collapsing and the credit system from imploding.
A bit off topic, and clearly delusional, but at least you made an effort.

The U.S. government is funded from two primary sources: tax revenue and sale of government bonds. Both of these increase when the population is educated and make sound financial decisions. And increased revenue is what allows the government to actually effectuate and implement the policies of those in charge.

The tax side is pretty easy to understand: as a citizen's wealth increases, so do their taxes. Putting aside the fairness of the percentages, the fact remains that the more you make, the more you pay on on an absolute basis. So the government has a direct financial incentive in promoting the wealth of its citizens.

The government debt side is both more complex and more important. In order for the U.S. government to successfully sell its debt (government bonds) buyers must have confidence in the strength of the U.S. dollar and therefore the strength of the U.S. economy. If the dollar were weak, the worldwide demand for U.S. bonds would fall, and the government would bring in less money. By contrast, when the economy is purring, people are saving and investing, and banks are flush with cash to loan, then the dollar is strong and government revenues increase. Thus the government again has a direct monetary interest in the education and financial savvy of its population.

Lastly, dumb consumers aren't better for the economy than smart consumers. Dumb consumers buy TVs and game systems, but smart consumers buy homes and mutual funds. The latter is a much bigger money multiplier than the former.

>Someone made a post that agreed with what you said.
No he didn't. He made a post that I disagreed with. Are you retarded?

>There is no argument to make here.
Yeah, no shit.

>If your not here for amusement then why are you here? To learn about Indonesian erotic cartoons?
You say it like it's a bad thing.

You say it like you're not here too.

This guys right, you'll never be a REAL investor unless you either hold stocks or property

>A bit off topic, and clearly delusional, but at least you made an effort.
I appreciate you recognized the effort I made.

The rest of your post, unfortunately, is basic as fuck. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding (although you got the surface "educated" understanding correct) of what the USA federal government is attempting to do, and why it is doing it, and what they need to do to accomplish their goals is, you got all that wrong. I recommend you read Tragedy & Hope by Carroll Quigley to understand the modern government in general, then think long and hard about why politicians do what they do.

Rising interest rates and an unwinding of the fed balance sheet will crush the stock market - good business market or not. Everything will get repriced lower.

You think they teach wealth management in American schools?

They didnt even start teaching weight management yet.

Why is it that every retarded dipshit with a conspiracy theory is completely incapable of articulating a cogent thought or writing a comprehensible sentence, but they invariably have a book or video that "explains everything"? It honestly makes me wish Darwinism worked at a macro scale so that you retards would die off before my eyes.

QE ended in 2014 and interest rates have already been raised. And the market keeps on chugging along.

Protip: Stop going through life scared of every little shadow. You'll never have any financial success if you duck under the covers whenever risk rears its head.

>The tax side is pretty easy to understand: as a citizen's wealth increases, so do their taxes. Putting aside the fairness of the percentages, the fact remains that the more you make, the more you pay on on an absolute basis. So the government has a direct financial incentive in promoting the wealth of its citizens.

False.

>borrow money
>spend it
>tax revenue increases
>spend more time working paying back loan + interest
>those who lent money pay taxes on the interest gained in profit
>citizenry is in poor financial health, govt gains

Alternative:
>citizen works
>saves money in tax advantaged retirement accounts
>saves and spends frugally without excessive debt
>retire
>withdraw funds at a lower marginal rate

Consumers with poor financial education are absolutely better for the US economy. You're confusing a more technologically advanced and efficient economy as opposed to one where in which the populace has a sound understanding of finance. To be fair though, I don't think there's some governmental conspiracy in holding back financial knowledge

Your arguments are shit and consist of the same logical fallacies you deride others about. You're condescending and arrogant at the start of your argument to frame yourself as superior. No this is not ad hominem, it's a cheap tactic that doesn't fool me.

Your "assessment" about bonds is atrociously wrong.

>>borrow money
Are you so stupid that you think borrowing money (your words) is the same thing as increasing wealth (my words)? No wonder you're poor. Those two things are the exact opposite.

>Your "assessment" about bonds is atrociously wrong
And yet you're too stupid to explain why. Typical retard.

Interest rates are barely near the historical norm. It's unlikely they've had an effect on the rate of return investors demand on stocks. Getting 1.4% vs 1% on a CD or 2.3% vs 2% on a Treasury doesn't change much.

You're also assuming markets are always rational. Massive amounts of petroleum were being pumped worldwide in 2012 and 2013, but it took until 2014 for the price to crash.

And who's to say I'm scared? Your ad hominem attacks are irrelevant.

QE ended but that doesn't mean that the fed can't sell off its 2 trillion in bonds or 2 trillion in MBS. What happens to the price when more things are sold without a commiserate increase in demand? Hmmmm...

There's little risk in holding swathes of cash or low interest baring highly liquid assets for the next 2-3 years in this low inflationary period in anticipation of a continuing trend of macroeconomic changes. This is particularly true of young people with much time on their side. The risk is missing out on gains which indexers will just ride off with losses come the next crash.

You're offering little good empirical evidence as to why the market should keep chugging along in a higher interest rate environment other than "hurr durr it's done so for a year therefore it'll continue"

The point is the government does not have a financial incentive to promote the wealth of its citizens in order to increase revenue. My alternative example showed the govt will gain less with an increase in wealth for the citizen and gain more when the citizen loses wealth.

You're pretty bad at this and all you do is call people retards and poor. I'm sure you're successful, but not at these arguments.

I will not drone on about your assessment about bonds. 2+2=5, if you don't explain in detail why I'm wrong, well then your opinion will be discarded as well.

Have a wonderful evening.

>Interest rates are barely near the historical norm. It's unlikely they've had an effect on the rate of return investors demand on stocks. Getting 1.4% vs 1% on a CD or 2.3% vs 2% on a Treasury doesn't change much
What's your point? If interest rates are near the historical norm, then how do make an argument about the future direction of equities?

I'm pretty sure you're batshit insane, but I'll give you the chance to make an argument if you can. But don't just state a bunch of observations. Link them together with logic and make an argument.

>You're also assuming markets are always rational.
We're talking about an eight year bull market here. I don't need for markets to be rational all the time to conclude that they're rational over an eight-year time frame. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

The absence of any actual argument is, again, noticeable.

>What happens to the price when more things are sold without a commiserate increase in demand?
Assumes facts not in evidence. You don't know the Fed's plans with respect to its current balance sheet, nor can you predict future demand for those assets.

>There's little risk in holding swathes of cash or low interest baring highly liquid assets for the next 2-3 years
Risk, no. I agree, no risk. But the fucking opportunity cost could be massive.

Faggots like you who sit on the sidelines missed all the gains in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017 year-to-date. Meanwhile you're losing to inflation every year.

So go ahead and take no risks. And enjoy eternal poverty.

>You're offering little good empirical evidence as to why the market should keep chugging along in a higher interest rate environment other than "hurr durr it's done so for a year therefore it'll continue"
And yet that's actual evidence, which is infinitely more than you've offered. Really makes you think ....

>The point is the government does not have a financial incentive to promote the wealth of its citizens in order to increase revenue.
Putting aside the fact that you for some reason responded to a three-year old post (retarded?), you still haven't made a single argument in support of anything you assert. You just type your opinions and expect people to believe them as facts?

>all you do is call people retards and poor
Welcome to Veeky Forums, Nancy. If you need a tissue let me know.

>if you don't explain in detail why I'm wrong
The irony is palpable. I write detailed, articulate, substantiated posts. And you type bullshit and expect me to waste my time responding?

I know I'm expecting too much, but make an argument. Any argument. Support it with facts. Are you even capable of doing that?

I won't hold my breath.

>What's your point? If interest rates are near the historical norm, then how do make an argument about the future direction of equities?

I'll chalk this up to you misreading my comment, but the fact that you aren't even cognizant of what the historical norm of interest rates are really hinders your credibility and financial acumen.

>onus on you to prove otherwise

Onus on what? You're making conjecture that I said the market is being irrational right now when I've made no such claim.

True about the fed. For all I know, they can hold all their assets until maturity, but there's an absolute possibility they won't. RE: committee members' statements about unwinding the balance sheet

The opportunity cost could be massive, but after an 8 year bull run, how much more upside vs the given risk with other less risky return? You're using the stock market as your own personal cult - infallible and unquestionable

And who's to say I sat on the sidelines during 2010-present? The market was an obviously better buy in 2011 than it is now. If you can explain for the given amount of risk - particularly when the equity risk premium is estimated at a paltry 4.5%, why the stock market is a good buy and hold, you let me know.

You're merely a perpetual bull.

Again, all you do is name call and assume it hurts my feelings. In reality it shows how weak your arguments truly are. You boast success and spew nonsense with confidence.

Everything I posted is fact or in response to the opinions you've expressed. You claim nothing I said was factual yet you can't even refute my statements, let alone read them properly. I should call you a nazi to end this argument on the internet.

know any articles or books I can read about finance/economics/index funds? you seem like you know what you're going on about desu

>know any articles or books I can read about finance/economics/index funds?
To be honest, the sigle best place to get sound financial knowledge is the Bogleheads wiki (bogleheads.org/wiki/Main_Page) and/or the finiki wiki (finiki.org/) but only if you're from Canada.

If you prefer paper books, I suggest you look through bogleheads.org/RecommendedReading.php

>You're making conjecture that I said the market is being irrational right now when I've made no such claim.
To be honest, at this point I have no idea or interest in what you claim or don't claim. Your posts are incomplete, barely decipherable, and completely devoid of cogent arguments.

> but after an 8 year bull run, how much more upside vs the given risk with other less risky return?
Gamblers fallacy. Next year's results don't have anything to do with the prior results. Just because you flipped heads 8 times in a row doesn't change the odds of the 9th flip.

>why the stock market is a good buy and hold, you let me know
Time in market beats timing the market. Your bearish attitude rests on the implicit assumption that you somehow magically know the future direction of the markets. Consider me skeptical.

>You're merely a perpetual bull.
Exactly, yes. Finally you get it.

Thankfully I've got economics, history, and experience backing me up that my strategy is the winning approach. Meanwhile, market timers have a proven history of underperforming the markets 90-95 of the time. I like my odds much better than yours.

>assume it hurts my feelings
I neither assume nor care, Sally.

What he means is that some companies are propped up by the government. They seem to be doing good on paper but once the payouts stop, then their value will plummet.

>What he means is that some companies are propped up by the government. They seem to be doing good on paper but once the payouts stop, then their value will plummet.
The word you're thinking of is "subsidies." The words he used were "quantitative easing."

If you think these two terms have anything to do with each other you should consider suicide.

spbp

>/pol/ is wrong about everything
oh ye of little faith

>muh index funds
/pol/ is really autistic 20 year olds that have 60 year old mindsets

meanwhile people is getting rich left and righ from crypto here