Vanguard

Are you retarded?

>>1695690
At least invest a million, retard. 10 grand is nothing.

>>1695690
>vanguard
>10k

even if you got 7% ROI per year, after 20 years it will be 38.6k

safe investment desu

>>1695690
open a forex account and trade

>>1695690
Put it in bitcoins. If you want to diversify, add penny stocks

>>1695707
This. Ignore the meme advice.

>>1695690

Why are you asking us? We all have less than 10k to our names and we just work shit part time jobs and watch anime all day

>>1695690
>Any suggestions?
Yes, two:
1. Target Retirement Fund 2035
2. bogleheads.org
This board is toxic right now, probably because the kids are on vacation from school.

>>1695690

Look up lazy/3 fund portfolio on Bogleheads. Alternatively (my personal suggestions), just drop everything in VTI.

>>1695698
Wtf are you talking about

>>1696186
Good advice. I also add VNQ and VWO

>>1696177
Came here to post this.

>>1695690
at your current age, i would just suggest the broad market index available at vanguard total market index fund.

VTSMX is the investor name, for under 10k and
VTSAX is the admiral name for over 10k

the difference is VTSAX has a cheaper rate on it, allowing you to get more but you need to stay above 10k, meaning there is more warrant to put additional money in monthly, but if you can't do that then you should start smaller in VTSMX.

A total market index fund is a measure of the entire broad market stock fund which measures the stock market, sort of like holding tons of fractional shares. When the market goes up, you go up, and when it goes down, you go down. Because of this it is aggressive and volatile. This should not be considered a bad factor, because of the maximum diversification provided, as long as you continue to hold the fund the market has always recovered from lows.

Of note, it is also tax efficient, paying out small dividends only per 3 months (quarter) which most people reinvest back into the fund while most of the gains are in the growth of the fund itself, meaning you only pay end up paying the majority of taxes when you sell shares.

It is one of the 3 boggleheads fund approach and probably the first one should invest in when you get started at a young age. If you choose to start out with all 3 funds, you certainly can, but then I would suggest picking an automatic transfer of funds monthly to continue to boost your holdings over time.

>>1696257
Thank you.

>>1695690
stocks are very much inflated they quantitative easing went straight into these investment assets.

i wouldn't invest now learn about over and undervalued state of assets. right now gold and silver is overvalued stocks are overvalued bonds are overvalued to their yields real estate is overvalued.

crash is coming nigga. people don't consume don't take loans they save and save and compete over these very asset classes. it can only end one way: deflation real fucking deflation. after that either a zombie economy going nowhere or hyperinflation. depending on the reactions of the fed.

so if you want to put your money right now into anything just be patient and wait! aside bitcoin i don't know a single thing that has a potential not to fall bad soon. but btc is pretty fucking risky it could fold over before all the others.

>>1696662
now two things, if you want to hedge against sudden devaluation, keep cash, but cash is not producing you anything, over a long enough period of time stocks will recover, but you really screw yourself to the potential of wealth you could have in 20 years from now if you boy at inflated prices. if you want to start a dollar average investment going for 20 years or so then go ahead you will not lose that much if people saying what i'm saying are right in the end. just don't put all your money into publicly traded stocks right fucking now!

>>1696257
This is solid advice.
also, if you want to get your feet wet, you can take 10% of that and pick your own stock(s), although investing the whole 10k in a single index might be better if you want admiral shares

>>1696686
solid advice except you could buy the stocks for half the current price soon. PE ratio is solidly in the overvalued range for stocks. if you are a smart man you buy under 10. like i said with small regular buys it doesn't matter much over time with a single "big" purchase that op suggest it does matter a lot.

>>1695690

Solid investment. but u should put money in every year.

>>1696213
He's saying that even a 7% return for 20 years on $10,000 initial deposit is nothing.

>x = 10000; 20.times { x *= 1.07 }; puts x
>38696.844624861835

>>1697255
>400% return
>nothing
And this is why you'll always be poor.

>>1697261
28k over 20 years is nothing, you brain dead retard.

>>1697267
>28k
If you're so poor that the only capital you earn in 20 years is $10K, then an additional $28k is quite significant. That's how percentages work, kid.

You should get used to dealing with small numbers. It's going to plague you your entire life.

>>1695690

Roth ira best bet imo

>>1695690
>>1697372
getting rich from investing is a meme, you should be looking at making as safe an investment as possible

>>1697320
big words coming from someone salivating over what equates to 1.4k gains per year, although much less than that in the beginning.

>>1697391
Until you learn that only the percentages matter when judging investments, you're going to remain an eternal poorfag.

>>1697429
it's kind of cute how daft you are. he has 10k, do you not understand that? no realistic/attainable gain percentage will turn that into a fortune, at least not in his lifetime.

this isn't about the percentage gain, but the fact that 10k is jack shit. he's better off using that money for hookers and blow. at least he'll have stories to tell instead of 20 years of wait for nothing.

>>1697436
>he has 10k
Are you under the impression that this all the money OP will earn in his lifetime? You apparently believe he should make investment decisions based on the assumption that he'll never acquire another dollar in his life.

>no realistic/attainable gain percentage will turn that into a fortune
I don't recall OP asking how to turn his capital into a "fortune"" nor do I recall any reasonable person in this thread suggesting that it would be possible.

The only retard in the thread thinking there's some magic way to turn $10k into a fortune is ... you.

This isn't high school and you're now answering a story problem, kid. This is real life, and OP is trying to learn how to invest reasonably for next two decades. You have nothing to offer in this discussion. Go back to the crypto or RH circlejerk threads.

>>1697457
>Are you under the impression that this all the money OP will earn in his lifetime?
that's why i'm suggesting he use the 10k for something he enjoys. are you really that stupid, or can just not fathom that 10k is not a lot of money?

once he actually gets a decent enough income so that he doesn't have to worry about 10k he can start investing his little heart away. i do realize that this is a foreign concept to you like the bulk of the broke vagrants on /biz/.

>>1697436
>i don't understand compounding

That's literally all you've had to say instead putting on your edge fedora. Also you're assuming he'll never invest another penny after the principle 10k which in itself is a whole new level of retardation.

OP do this: >>1696257
Go all in on vtsax or vti. Save a bit each month and buy more. At your age there's really not much reason to have anything invested in bonds which is what a target retirement fund will do.

>>1697467
>10k is not a lot of money
It's $40K in OP's investment horizon, properly and safely invested. Are you too stupid to understand how investing works?

>once he actually gets a decent enough income
So you make advice based on facts not in evidence? We don't know OP's income, now or in the future. Yes it would be nice if OP provided this to us, but that doesn't mean we can't answer the question as asked. You're just being an autist.

>something he enjoys
Spoken like a true poorfag, cancer of /biz/. Someone asked how to invest money and your answer is "YOLO 420 swag it." kys faggot.

>>1697478
>Also you're assuming he'll never invest another penny after the principle 10k which in itself is a whole new level of retardation.
he won't after a market correction hits and he sees his 10k life savings drop down to 9k so he panics and cashes out.

i have yet to see a single successful 5 figure or less "investor" on /biz/. anyone that knows what they are doing has 6 figure+ investments.

>>1697497
no, it's 38k after 20 years. your judgement is clouded because you're a poorfag. i'm willing to bet you don't have more than a few thousand dollars to your name.

what i do know is that he is 23 years old and his life savings are 10k. if he sees that figure drop he will cash out as i said in >>1697498 and become turned off from investing.

before you reddit transplants invaded /biz/ with your idiotic "you can do anything xD xD xD" attitude and started shitting up the board we had a few people that weren't morons and they understood that there is a barrier to entry when it comes to properly investing. you can start with your life savings of 1k or 10k if you want, but you'd be better off investing the money into bettering yourself than some measly gains a quarter of your life into the future.

>>1697498
>a market correction hits
[citation missing]
>sees his 10k life savings drop down to 9k
[citation missing]
>he panics and cashes out
[citation missing]

Maybe you are indeed a wizard and can predict these things. I've heard extended virginity can convey these kinds of powers. I have no first-hand experience with it.

>i have yet to see a single successful 5 figure or less "investor" on /biz/. anyone that knows what they are doing has 6 figure+ investments.
Everyone has to start somewhere. The earlier they start doing it soundly and intelligently, the sooner that 5-figure portfolio turns into a 6-figure portfolio.

>And in case you haven't noticed, most intelligent investors are smart enough to leave /biz/ once they realize it's filled with idiots like you.

>>1697515
>there is a barrier to entry when it comes to properly investing
True. That barrier is a modest level of intelligence and a degree of discipline and patience.

You fail on on accounts.

>>1697517
>>1697525
>all that delusion
kek

okay, buddy. enjoy your 5 figure or less "investments."

>>1697498
>>1697515

Your whole premise is hitched to the fact that he'll panic sell once any correction hits. If he does that at such a young age that's his own problem and he deserves whatever he gets. But it's not like you become a disciplined investor only after saving x dollars.

Whatever though. This is pointless to explain to you with your sub-500 dollar robinhood account.

>remember when 4chan was good??

>>1697531
>enjoy your 5 figure or less "investments."
Is my net worth really relevant to the facts I'm stating in my posts? I'm not really sure how my wealth (or lack thereof) correlates to the wisdom of the investing advice I'm giving in the thread.

I'd be happy to post evidence of my portfolio size, if you can give one credible argument why it's in any way relevant here.

>>1697517
imo market correction will come and unless ha cashes out in time it will more likely to halve or third his investments. but i can't tell you when it will happen i can only tell you how much it will possibly hurt when it finally happens. some people have been preaching doom for a long time and it was staved off and they had to ramble excuses but sooner or later they will be right. you can't fuck with market cycles and net get bit in the ass. i think economists know that by now they just don't want to be THE guy when it happens.

File: pig_blog_full_version1.jpg (209KB, 1000x538px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1000x538px

>>1697549
>market correction will come and unless ha cashes out in time it will more likely to halve or third his investments. but i can't tell you when it will happen i can only tell you how much it will possibly hurt when it finally happens
Yes, bear and bull markets happen. And if OP was asking about a short-term investment, then we wouldn't be suggesting that he look into the markets.

But OP has a 20 year investment horizon. That's more than enough time to weather potential market declines and reap the rewards of the good years -- which vastly outnumber the bad years in both frequency and duration. Look at pic related: would you place your bet on red or blue?

>you can't fuck with market cycles and net get bit in the ass
No, you can't. That's why long-term investing is the only proven strategy. Because given enough time, the blue mountains are much steeper and broader than the red valleys.

>>1697565
i wonder how that graph would look like inflation adjusted... would the good years still outnumber the bad?

>>1697585
oh well obviously in a growing economy they have to. but right now the economy just doesn't want to grow and the prices still go up. that's what they call a bubble.

File: SP500_real_return.png (10KB, 550x395px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 550x395px

>>1697585
Inflation exists in good years and bad years. An inflation adjusted market would simply have lower peaks and less shallow valleys. But it doesn't change the shape of the curve.

>>1697601
Ok.

File: 188165.png (51KB, 1000x716px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1000x716px

>>1697601
>the economy just doesn't want to grow
#fakenews

GDP growth has been strong every year since the last recession. Stop getting financial advice from Breitbart.

File: [email protected] (75KB, 1460x680px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1460x680px

>>1697612
well everything is relative i guess

>>1697608
the shape no, but it will change your real yield on those years significantly.

>>1697618
#fakenews

That's a chart that shows the marginal change from year to year, not the growth rate itself. So if the GDP goes from 3% to 2% your chart shows that as a negative 33% drop. While correct, strictly speaking, it's pretty meaningless. The more important fact is that the economy grew in both years.

>it will change your real yield on those years significantly
You keep missing the point. Yes, inflation will affect your real rate of recovery. But it doesn't change the fact that bull markets outnumber bear markets in:

* frequency
* duration; and
* magnitude.

Betting against the market has NEVER been a winning long-term strategy. Inflation is irrelevant here.

>>1696163
woah there faggot, don't go full retard

>>1697612
>>1697633
Is this what CTR pays to shill for nowadays? The shit fund you recommended has been virtually stagnant for two years and got destroyed during the last recession.

File: real-price-sp500.png (85KB, 1320x836px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1320x836px

>>1697633
you miss the point, if you take the yields on stocks above inflation only you will have a very different graph similarly shaped but with a different zero and more flat.

bull and bear is no interest those are psychological misnomers purely.

>Betting against the market has NEVER been a winning long-term strategy.
i can not argue with that, but in ops case it's sub-optimum decision to buy now.

>Inflation is irrelevant here.
it's really not i don't get it why you don't understand. you say hey op you can gain 380% on your cash that's nice right? but you don't add that there will be at least 200, maybe more% inflation in the time period probably more and there will be periods where he straight out in the minus with his investment and if he is forced to cash out he will get fucked hard.

really the only thing that interests me is yield over inflation. to buy now on top of this saw tooth all considered is ill advised.

>>1697639
Jesus, you're dumb. Target Retirement 2035 is up 6.5% YTD plus it has over a 2% yield. Perfectly appropriate for someone with a 20 year investment horizon who want to grow their money without taking stupid chances.

And the fact that you somehow ascribe a political bent to my stock recommendation says more about your intelligence than any insult I could muster. Enjoy your eternal poverty, cuck.

>>1697646
>it's sub-optimum decision to buy now
I really wish you doomsayers would just die already. We've been listening to you every year since 2008 and you never. shut. up.

You don't have a fucking clue what the markets are going to do in the future (nor do you have a working understanding of the effect of inflation on investing). You cannot time the market, though I'm sure you try.

>but you don't add that there will be at least 200, maybe more% inflation
As soon as you can name an investment that isn't subject to inflation, then I'll factor it into my recommendation. But as long as OP is a human being who lives in a functioning economy, ANY investment he owns is going to be subject to an inflationary adjustment to his real spending power.

Stop being an autist. Inflation is only relevant WHEN it creates monetary differences between two investment alternatives. You think if OP holds his cash for your magically predicted "happening" that it won't be subject to inflation? Just stop. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

>>1695690
Put it in a Vanguard Lifestrategy 80 fund
annualised return over 5 years - 12% you'll double your money every 6 years (72/12).

It's also relatively conservative as it just tracks stock indexes from around the world - but mostly US and northern europe for 80% and the rest is in Bonds.

>>1697657
http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/funds/snapshot/snapshot.aspx?id=F00000MLUQ

>>1697656
So you're a shill or a cretin then. I can perfectly well see the dip that inflates the YTD, but that's not what I talked about. The fund has been stagnant. Do you even practice what you preach? You've been in this thread for hours. Why not post your portfolio?

>>1697656
>though I'm sure you try.
i will try yes, until i see this fucked up situation ending where almost every asset is way overpriced i will just hold onto my cash thank you. i will buy when the idiots are burning their wealth away in panic sell.

>As soon as you can name an investment that isn't subject to inflation, then I'll factor it into my recommendation.
that is why you have to keep the cyclical nature of the economy in mind, nothing will be good all the time nothing, you have to shift your wealth buy stocks when they are undervalued sell them when they are overvalued etc... that is how you can pretty consistently perform better than someone that just buys a bunch of index funds and sits on it.

now the "don't try to time the market" has a different context in which it makes perfect sense. if op would buy index funds for a $1000 every month for 20 years he might perform just as well as a guy that tires to move his wealth around and fucks up a few times (well because we are all human).

>>1697674
>The fund has been stagnant.
It's an index fund, moron. It's performance matches the benchmarks exactly.

I can't change the fact that 2015 was a flat year, or that the market tanked in January. Just as you can't change the incredible performance of the markets in 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Stop. being. stupid.

>Do you even practice what you preach? You've been in this thread for hours. Why not post your portfolio?
I do invest in Vanguard funds, so yes I practice what I preach. I do not invest in Target Retirement 2035 because I have a different financial situation than OP. My capital level, investment horizon and risk tolerances are all very different.

Investing isn't a "one-size-fits-all" thing, kid. You need to find the solution that meets your specific needs and goals.

>>1697686
>i will just hold onto my cash
Great strategy, naysayer. The same strategy that caused people like you to miss the greatest bull market of the generation.

>you have to shift your wealth buy stocks when they are undervalued sell them when they are overvalued etc
Kek, is this how you idiots rationalize timing the market, despite all available evidence that proves its a losing strategy?

>if op would buy index funds for a $1000 every month for 20 years
You do know that lump-sum investing outperform dollar-cost averaging in 66% of cases, historically?

It's like you deliberately seek out strategies that make LESS money. I'm beginning to think you're a massive troll. I find it hard to believe there's a person who seemingly fell for EVERY investing meme and false theorem in existence. It's statistically improbable that anyone who tries would make so many mistakes as you have advocated.

>>1697696
>You do know that lump-sum investing outperform dollar-cost averaging in 66% of cases, historically?
yeah maybe so, but when you buy matter a lot statistically i bet those 33% where it doesn't bought in an overpriced over-inflated stock market (which we are in right now).

there is a very simple rule to "timing the market" buy when PE ratio is 10 not when it's 30. really that simple.

>>1697696
Where's that portfolio off yours? I'm dying to see how the expert invests. Clearly, I have much to learn from you. Surely, you won't deny me that opportunity.

>>1697705
>overpriced over-inflated stock market
[citation fucking missing]

Protip: you saying we're in a bubble doesn't make it true. So you can stop any time now. No one is listening to you anyway.

>>1697706
>Where's that portfolio off yours?
As soon as you give me one decent reason why by portfolio is relevant to the quality of my advice, I'll happily post it.

>You might be disappointed though, because it's not 5 or even 6-digit. I'll tell you that right now.

>>1697705
tldr it doesn't really matter when you start a "dollar-cost average" investment but it bloody hell matters when you start a "lump-sum" one.

if you want to deny this common sense rule you have to show something in the proof department.

>>1697712
You're right that if anyone KNEW the market was going to tank in the next 12 months, they should avoid a large lump sum investment.

The problem is that you perma-bears don't know, you're just guessing. You guessed in 2009 and you were WRONG. You guessed in 2010 and you were WRONG. You guessed in 2011 and you were WRONG. You guessed in 2012 and you were WRONG. You guessed in 2013 and you were WRONG. You guessed in 2014 and you were WRONG. You guessed in 2015 and you were WRONG. You guessed in 2016 and you were WRONG.

And now -- shockingly -- you're making the same damn prediction for 2017.

I'll grant you that if you're a fucking retard and predict a market decline EVERY YEAR you're going to be right, eventually. You'll also miss out on massive gains by sitting on the sidelines all the years that you were wrong. Studies prove the biggest determinative of your long-term stock performance is TIME IN MARKET. Not timing the market; time IN market.

Not to mention, that while the timing of your investment may matter a lot if you had a 3 year investment horizon, the fact is that when you have a 20 year investment horizon -- like OP -- it matters a LOT less.

If you want to deny this common sense rule you have to show something in the proof department.

>>1695698
Good lucking getting 7% pa over the next 20 years, LOL

>>1697267
correct. best to hold onto every dollar in a bank account for decades until you have exactly 500k, then put it all in vanguard and wait another 30 years to collect dem sweet gainz

>>1697722
well statistically you wait 8 years tops to gain 60% on your initial investment. but if it happens sooner your yield/time for your patience gets a hell of a lot better. but yes, if you wait long enough even with the big correction you lose out assuming you just let your money sit and not have alternative investments meantime.

i mostly have cash with some little metals (which really won't do well in the short-medium term) and some short term gov bonds that really perform just barely above inflation (basically cash again).

i guess i will wait and see what happens for a while more. this question will only be critical if i have more savings compare to my annual earnings.

>>1697746
>i mostly have cash with some little metals (which really won't do well in the short-medium term) and some short term gov bonds that really perform just barely above inflation (basically cash again).
Sucks to be you. You lost money to inflation in 2016, while there are stodgy index funds that returned over 28% YTD.

Just because you didn't lose money doesn't mean you didn't lose opportunity. You fucked up, and pretty badly too.

>>1697797
>You lost money to inflation in 2016
not really, you see i do some trading and have some other tricks also some interest on the bonds. all in all i probably didn't lose a dime. didn't win either. and there is an important thing to remember, it's not like you actually gained anything on stocks (aside dividend) unless you cashed out. it's all on the poker table still and just a number in your notebook. we will see how this turns out. maybe next year i will laugh at your ass.

opportunity cost comes with a percentage anon, you can't just use it in retrospect or people will call you a fucking idiot for not going all in on bitcoins back then.

>>1696163

*watch twitch all day

>>1697797

I just started reading the intelligent investor by graham and you seem to advocate exactly the same principles.
I'm new to investing so I have to say that day trading (or more like week/month trading) seems attractive but I keep hearing that you will often lose in the end, or just make smaller profit than going for defensive stocks (or bonds but they seem to be a terrible investment right now with the rates hike from what I understand).
I have 20k or so to invest and I was thinking to put 18k on 9 more or less defensive stocks and 2k on bitcoin or something volatile to have fun. What do you think? It it better/more profitable to invest in funds?

>>1697905
jesus you want to go 10% on bitcoin right fucking now?

>>1697930
welcome to /biz/

>>1697853
>it's not like you actually gained anything on stocks (aside dividend) unless you cashed out
My net worth says otherwise. You have odd ideas about money, and I don't mean that in a flattering way.

>opportunity cost comes with a percentage anon, you can't just use it in retrospect
Um, opportunity cost is ALWAYS looked at in retrospect. That's why it's called opportunity cost, not prospective cost.

Ironic that the guy who thinks he can predict the future is unwilling to look at the past and admit his own obvious mistakes. You're not going to be wealthy, anon.

>>1697905
I've never read Intelligent Investor, but I know it by reputation. I'm not inventing anything new here. These are basic, proven investing principles that are backed by decades of research and experience. It's not sexy or mind-blowing, but it works.

Bitcoin isn't an investment; it's a coin toss. Pure speculation without an ounce of fundamentals. Please don't put it in the same category as equities, let alone index funds.

Unless you have reason to believe that you somehow have the capacity to outperform the markets, be it with 10% or 100% of your money, then put it all in index funds. This presumes (a) you have a steady income, (b) you have a fully-funded emergency fund, (c) you have at least a 10 year investing horizon and (d) that you have the patience and discipline to be a long-term buy-and-hold investor.

>>1697930
>>1697945

No not now obviously. I'm gonna wait a few months to buy after the bubble and maybe try to short on the way down. Not even sure I'll buy any.

>>1697948
>Um, opportunity cost is ALWAYS looked at in retrospect. That's why it's called opportunity cost, not prospective cost.
no opportunity cost is multiplied by chance of success and looked before making a decision anon. let's say you give bitcoin 1% chance to double in price that means if you don't put your money in bitcoin that costs you exactly 1% on your money. this doesn't work or rather doesn't make sense in retrospect even a blind dumb fuck could make decisions in retrospect with 100% odds. in fact in retrospect nothing you say makes sense if you know what's gonna happen your potential gains are off the fucking charts.

>>1697948
>My net worth says otherwise.
you remember that chick that had billions of dollars of net worth and overnight came to 0 anon? i think you are the one with weird ideas about what is your money.

>>1697953
That you don't know the difference between "expected value" and "opportunity cost" confirms all of my judgments about you.

>>1697959
>you remember that chick that had billions of dollars of net worth and overnight came to 0 anon?
No, because it never happened?

Is this what you're reduced to? Your earlier posts were well-written, despite the obvious flaws and defects. Now you're just pulling things out of your ass.

>>1698015
i might be mixing terminology up english is not my first language.
>No, because it never happened?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/06/01/from-4-5-billion-to-nothing-forbes-revises-estimated-net-worth-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes/

>>1697255
Yeah but he said Vanguard is a bad investment decision. Like Vanguard is the investment and not the stocks or bonds or whatever he chooses.

>>1698017
I don't care what language you speak. If you don't know the concepts, then don't pretend you do. Talk less; listen more. You need a lot of education.

>Forbes estimate
>realistic value for Theranos is $800 million
>At such a low valuation, Holmes’ stake is essentially worth nothing
>$800 million
>nothing
Stop falling for shitty clickbait, moron. Or if you do, at least read the article not just the headline. You suck.

>>1698028
>Talk less; listen more.
and you suck my cock you pretentious nigger

oh you little cuck if your net worth goes from $4500 to $800 million overnight you will fucking cry like a baby.

anyhow that is "net worth" in stocks it can drastically change day to day. so stop pretending like you have that money!

>>1698757
Dude shut up... like anon said, talk less, listen more.

>>1698786
yeah that's why i'm here actually i just can't stand that guys attitude. i'm throwing in what i understand but what he says is not convincing and he is really irritating.

also he is wrong about the opportunity cost thing
>Because opportunity cost is a forward-looking calculation, the actual rate of return for both options is unknown.
source: investopedia
>opportunity cost is a forward-looking calculation
>forward-looking
so you only have returns multiplied by odds.

File: 2728.jpg (27KB, 500x390px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x390px

>>1698800
>yeah that's why i'm here
No it's not. You're apparently here to shitpost and spread false information. Let's recap.

1. You insist the markets are a in bubble but cite no evidence to support your position.

2. You believe stocks are inflated by QE but you don't seem to know that QE ended in 2014.

3. You predict that a crash is imminent, as if you can predict the future movements of the market.

4. You assert that hyperinflation is coming, contrary to the prediction of every economist in the world.

5. You advocate for bitcoin, a meme gambling vehicle.

6. You believe in the concept of "dry powder" despite all evidence proving that time in market is the biggest performance determinative.

7. You argue for DCA despite studies proving that LSI outperforms 2/3rd of the time.

8. You believe you can predict not only the timing of a crash but also the magnitude (50%).

9. You believe that market cycles happen at regular, predictable periods even after I show you a chart proving that's untrue.

10. You falsely claim that inflation has an effect on the duration and relative magnitude of bull and bear markets.

11. You don't know the difference between GDP growth and marginal GDP growth.

12. You don't understand that a 20-year investment horizon makes short volatility irrelevant to long-term performance.

13. You believe that metals are a hedge to market disruptions despite that not being true for decades.

14. You don't understand the concepts of "opportunity cost" or "expected value."

15. You think its admirable to have zero gains in your portfolio in a year where the broad market was up double-digits and some index funds returned over 28%.

16. You think that a diversified stock portfolio can go to zero value overnight.

Given all this, is it any wonder I treat you like the ignorant noob that you are? If my "attitude" annoys you, maybe you should stop making false, disproven arguments, and stop making market predictions based on "muh gut feelings."

This is OP.

I just read through the thread, honesty a little over my head. I just graduated and got a job making about 3k monthly.
> 27k debt
> 10k savings
> 4k 401k
I'm going back for grad school to hopefully make 90-150k after. I'm going to save like 3-4k for emergencies while at grad school, I just want my 10k to be doing something.

P.S. I won't panic and pull out, I'm willing to invest and forget about it. I'll start adding in 5-6 years when I'm making money and debt free.

So far I'm thinking:
> VTSAX is the admiral name for over 10k

Anyone have any more questions feel free to ask! I appreciate a the advice so far. I don't think I'm sophisticated enough to predict a crisis, just want it working for me.

>>1695690
I believe vanguard to be privately held, you cannot invest in them. You can buy their products if you like.

>>1699140
>I believe vanguard to be privately held, you cannot invest in them.
Vanguard is actually owned by its funds. When you invest in any Vanguard fund, you essentially become an equity holder of Vanguard as well. Any excess profits earned by Vanguard are funnelled back to the funds.

This is a big reason why Vanguard is the leader in low-cost funds. They literally have no incentive to screw their investors by charging high fees or inflating profits because after actual expenses, it all goes back to the investors anyway.

https://about.vanguard.com/what-sets-vanguard-apart/why-ownership-matters/

What would be the best Vanguard funds to pick for 2017, according to /biz/?

Only for 2017, so assuming a time horizon of one year.

From most analyses I read there is a forecast recession for 2018-2019 as the current economic cycle ends (it had a good and long run), and Trump's policies might accelerate the end due to increased inflation.

>>1699180
You're not going to like the answer, even though its correct: if your timeframe is a year or less, then you should not invest in stocks at all. If you can't commit to investing your savings for at least 3-5 years. you don't belong at Vanguard in the first place.

I'm not going to resume the debate about your ridiculous market prediction. I've already said all that I care to about people who try to time the markets. But regardless of that, based on your post, your fortunes lie somewhere other than Vanguard.

>>1699209
Ok, I wouldn't necessarily leave the money for only a year. Just wondering what people think are the most reasonable funds to invest in. I guess something tracking the S&P500 as long as I don't put too much of my money into it is fine?

Really, I mostly want to get my feet wet and get the ball rolling to eventually invest more seriously.

I'm not in the US btw, I want to get into the American market because our economy is due for a crisis and our currency is likely to depreciate.

>>1699018
>No it's not.
yeah you would know why i'm here.

>You advocate for bitcoin, a meme gambling vehicle.
not exactly no, i'm just saying it could actually go up unlike everything else which based on previous patterns will go down.
>You argue for DCA despite studies proving that LSI outperforms 2/3rd of the time.
my problem with that statistic it doesn't tell anything. unless it would be a statistic about investments started in a fucking bubble they are meaningless to this discussion.

>You don't understand the concepts of "opportunity cost" or "expected value."
apparently you don't.

>You think its admirable to have zero gains in your portfolio
no it sucks but it's pretty safe for now. i will invest in stocks once i'm convinced it's time. i'm far from convinced right now and you are not helping one bit.

>You think that a diversified stock portfolio can go to zero value overnight.
not zero no, but my argument was about "net worth" how it doesn't mean shit in the context of how much money you have. unless you cashed out your net worth is just a number that doesn't exist.

>You falsely claim that inflation has an effect on the duration and relative magnitude of bull and bear markets.
where did i say that? i said that bear and bull markets are meaningless that's what i said. one shouldn't make investment decisions on fucking meme terminology.

meh i have no time to answer to all your stupid bullshit anon. you are talking nonsense again.

>>1699281
>based on previous patterns will go down.
Jesus, you're a TA fag too? The list of your financial incompetence is just staggering.

>>1699286
well all i can tell you what i see looking at the charts, they scream at me don't fucking buy stocks right now! and if i'm wrong you have said nothing that would make it obvious even tho you clearly think so.

File: duck-ta.jpg (32KB, 516x335px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 516x335px

>>1699290
Tell us more about the patterns you see in the stock charts, kid. We're all fascinated by your deep insight and wisdom.

>>1695690
if u wanna waste ur money u can give it to me

He probably sees something like this? (which is impossible to ascertain anyway)

https://twitter.com/FelipeCamposPC/status/809859053132349440

>>1699286
>Jesus, you're a TA fag too?
no i only believe in the great cycles repeating themselves but not in an exact predictable manner (which perfect timing investments would actually require) and always with a bit of twist.

the reason for this is not some esoteric bullshit but human psychology.

>>1699228

Where you from anon?
Do you pay your sweet kush in euros?

>>1700397
Colombia, so our currency will depreciate as the dollar gets stronger and the oil price corrects itself

what is kush?

>>1695690
Don't make 20 year investments right now.

>>1695704
How do i open a forex account?

>>1698800
Lol who gives a shit about his attitude what he says is what matters you fucking cub scout

>>1700722
but what he says is also wrong that's my other problem.

opportunity cost is the difference between expected returns. not returns.

>>1699119
The quick and easy way is to put your age as a %in bond indexes, and put the rest into equity indexes. You can be simple about it and do a vangaurd whole market or vanguard 1000 index for 80% of your allocation and a whole bonds index for 20% (or if you were 50, 50% equity 50% bond) and then cashout to an locked annuity when you retire.

Or you can be more complex and do something like 40% domestic equities index, 20% Developing equities index, 10% REIT, and 20% Bonds.

I do the above, but as ~50% of my holdings with rental properties as the other 50%.

But William Bernstein actually wrote something just for you, your age, your belief in market fundamentals. Its short and better than I can write it.

https://www.etf.com/docs/IfYouCan.pdf

>>1700713
just use the vanguard page. its idiot proof.