>Buy and hold on index funds >Responsible, safe investment

>does not post total return index
>does not understand what long term buy and hold is.
>extrapolates and magically no new high is set in the future like it should based on the past data.

Pls stop trollan newfriend

>>962274

>does not post total return index

look at hypothetical growth of 10k and you'll see that because of the two crashes, unless you invested and withdrew during two small windows of opportunity, you will have lost money

>does not understand what long term buy and hold is.

the market is so volatile even if we're talking about 10+ year investments it's still not guaranteed returns

>extrapolates and magically no new high is set in the future like it should based on the past data.

the extrapolation was not entirely serious but i imagine fluctuations like that will still happen

>>962266
To make it really simple for you.

If you were oldfag and had a kid in 1995 and invested $ 10.000 dollars in the S&P500, that spoiled shitkid would be in university now with $65000.

Hurr durr muh inflation. Inflation adjusted that still turns it into $41250

>>962286

but if you had invested anywhere after 2000? you'd have to have been lucky timing your exit because that's when all the bullshit started happening.

>>962266
If you had invested after 2000 you've been in the market too briefly to draw reliable conclusions.

But for the sake of it , even if you bought at the 2000 peak, you'd still have had 4,23% annual returns.

I don't see how you can say anyone would lose money using the data of this graph. We're currently close to the all-time high so unless you invested less than a year (give or take) ago, you have made a profit, EXCLUDING dividends.

>>962291

I actually invested 4 months ago when it peaked and I'm just butthurt.

Fucking kill me.

>>962293
Invested in the S&P or in what exactly? You'll be fine on the long term and you can balance out your average cost by buying in phases. This prevents you from getting hit hard by a market shock right at the worst possible moment.

>>962297

S&P. 95k inheritance. Spent about six months researching where to invest it all and went with the index fund (single investment because I read it was a great time to invest).

>>962300
what made you think it was a great time to invest? I'm legitimately curious, because everything from the 200 day moving average to macro trends like peak spending age of the baby boomers coming to an end says to me that it's the peak of a huge bubble, aka the worst time to invest. Shit, even parallels to fischer 2 weeks before '29 "we seem to have reached a new permanent plateau". So what is it that told you it was a good time to invest?

>>962300
If your transaction costs are minimal I'd suggest diversifying a bit more and for example going for:

50% S&P500
30% Euro Stoxx 600
20% MSCI Global Emerging Markets

>>962307
>>962300
I assume he just wasn't into investing and/or never had this amount of money to play with.

I work for a large family/investment office and most of our clients (50-250 million portfolio per client) are only 10-15% in listed equity right now.

Private Real Estate and Private Equity are insanely popular right now in the high net worth circles.

>>962266
I know. We should all be market timing because that guarantees good returns.

>>962288
>but if you had invested anywhere after 2000? you'd have to have been lucky timing your exit because that's when all the bullshit started happening.

Are you retarded?

>Invested your money in 2003/2004
>By 2010 your money HAS DOUBLED

>>962288
>hurp derp ... lets look at a cherry-picked medium-term backtest of a proven long-term strategy

>>962318
>I work for a large family/investment office and most of our clients (50-250 million portfolio per client) are only 10-15% in listed equity right now.
lies

File: Nikkei-20-years.jpg (224KB, 1575x729px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1575x729px

>>962274

>>962379
>"We Are Here"
>1990
Fucking time machines.

>market takes a brief shit, loses half of its value in a year in a massive overreaction
>gains it all back in five years and goes a bit over it once things calm down
>IF YOU HAD INVESTED IN INDEX FUNDS FIVE YEARS AGO YOU WOULD HAVE DOUBLED YOUR MONEY!!!

It was always a scam.

>>962398
You are really dumb if not trolling.

The point of index funds isn't 6-mo or yearly gains. It's about gains over years...

People were saying the same dumb shit as you when it was low and then it went past 2 000

>>962399
Index funds are a safe, low-yield option that is guaranteed to grow pretty well over time.

The problem is that they had overly-great gains since the Crash because the market was quick to regain ground and everyone started pretending they're the end-all be-all of investment. It's not going to happen anymore. There are far more ways to beat the market now.

>>962403
like?

>>962403
Tell that to everyone when the S&P hits 3 000 :^)

>>962403
>Index funds are a safe, low-yield option
Why do you call 10-11% "low yield" and why are you so stupid?

>>962394
It's a metaphorical 'here'; clearly we're neither in Japan nor is the year 2000-10.

Ah but what can you expect from a 'the markets always go up!' fag?

>>962446
>Ah but what can you expect from a 'the markets always go up!' fag?
Citation required.

Are you so dumb that you have to make up statements in order to participate in a debate? Make fake memes? Are real facts too tough for you?

You're not gonna make it, son.

>>962446
>Ah but what can you expect from a 'the markets always go up!' fag?

>Historical evidence and logical thinking leads to the conclusion that the marks do indeed, always go up
>Le no retort, ur just a fag who believes that!

This is why 4chan is such a retarded website, they make memes out of everything, they can't communicate without memes

File: 1347799615139.png (42KB, 1585x1527px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1585x1527px

>mfw +90% in the last 5 years from index funds
>mfw retards with crayons keep telling me that everything will burn next week every week since /biz/ exists
>mfw people unironically believe that patterns a 5 year old could recognize will predict the future of extremely complex political, economical and social developments

>>962318
Wouldn't that suggest that he should do more research, vice less?

Asset allocation is pretty cut and dry stuff, even for a scrub like me. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to appropriately invest 50-150k. I'm assuming that guy doesn't know anything about getting target exposure, return variance, or carrying value not always matching up against realized returns.

And the fact that something is popular, for example private equity, shouldn't automatically trigger "oh I should be in that right now." Example: digital marketing companies have doubled in the past year, from ~900 to 1800+. My take is that a bunch of talentless hacks are "building value" and "delivering online presence" for companies that have too much free cash right now, and the hacks' inability to properly quantify their own value will pop that particular bubble, right alongside private equity shit. That said, I'm effectively not in equity markets right now and am holding significant cash, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.

>>962498
well said anon

>>962498
How much did you lose in MER?

>>962284
That's why you keep buying, you could buy a lump sum at the top of a bubble and yeah you'd be fucked, but if you buy some at the top and buy some at the bottom and keep buying more as it goes up then you'll do much better, then it crashes and you buy more and repeat the process, through the magic of compound interest you'll make a bunch of money

File: spx-index[1].png (20KB, 550x358px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 550x358px

>ITT: Idiots who don't understand logarithmic graphs and secular markets

File: 1401932247146.jpg (12KB, 420x320px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 420x320px

>>962741
DOW Jones 100,000 here we come

>>962266
>He didn't buy the dip
Feel free to be left behind

>>962266
I dont think you understand the term "buy and hold" or the word "average" OP

File: Capture.jpg (35KB, 799x356px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 799x356px

>>962497
>>Historical evidence and logical thinking leads to the conclusion that the marks do indeed, always go up
But that's not true. See pic.

Past performance is no indicator of future performance; and any 'trend' is just a coincidence. Markets are true random, and a zero sum game (although the game gets bigger as technology improves).

>memes, memes, memes, all you guys do is meme!
>>>/reddit/
Also markets always go up is the biggest meme.

>>963075
>Markets are ... a zero sum game
Nope. Thanks to technology, population growth, manufacturing, production and transportation efficiencies, regulations, and societal changes there is a strong positive bias in the markets.

>Also markets always go up is the biggest meme
No one literally believes that the market always goes up. A cursory glance at any chart would show otherwise.

The real statement is that due to the externalities mentioned above THE MARKET will ALWAYS have a strong positive bias that tends to make it GO UP given enough time in market for a long-term, fully-diversified, low-cost portfolio.

But that's a lot of words, and people tend to be lazy.

>>962748
People in the 80s would laugh if you said the Dow would reach even half of what it hit in 2006

>>962987
I work in purchasing at a manufacturing plant. We sell to fastenal, john deere, cummins and polaris.

Everything is drying up. Luckily the owner has never laid anyone off in 45 years of owning it.

File: grinning prime minister of scotland.jpg (37KB, 466x396px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 466x396px

>>963075
>Past performance is no indicator of future performance; and any 'trend' is just a coincidence. Markets are true random, and a zero sum game

wanna know how i know you're a dumb ass?

>>962379

This is one of the most sane posts in this thread. The truth is, no one knows what will happen. Invest if you want to, but it's not a magical get rich quick scheme.

>>963629
>This is one of the most sane posts in this thread.
Pointing out the results of a single market and holding it up as a cautionary tale is not a "sane" approach to long-term investing. Diversification doesn't just mean holding different investments in the same market; it also means holding investments in different markets. No sane person would have put all their investments in one country's equity markets.

>it's not a magical get rich quick scheme
I don't see anyone claiming that it is, to I'm not sure why you're making the comment. All investment has risk.

The real question is how to manage that risk, and to balance that risk with the anticipated level of reward. This is the strength of an index fund strategy. On a risk-adjusted basis, its one of the (if not the) best performing strategies ever studied. And on an absolute basis, the risk profile tends to fit well with the needs of most retail and even institutional investors.

(Not to mention, indexing is inherently tax efficient, cheap to implement and own, and simple to establish and maintain.)

So what was your point again?

>>963644
This reminds me of how whenever someone brings up the health risks of smoking there's ALWAYS this one guy thats going to tell you the life story of his grandpa and how he used to smoke 3 packs a day and got super old.
Some people simply can't grasp the meaning of the term "on average" and will always cherry pick anecdotal evidence. It's probably in our DNA or something.

>>962741
Past pattern happened at a time without computers. Therefore past pattern won't repeat again in the future, now that we have computers and any idiot can trade in the stocks with a click of a button.

Remember, the stock market is made up of people. Computers made it possible for idiots to participate in the stock market, making tried and tested patterns obsolete.

Quantitative easing is a relatively new thing too. IF you notice, the present secular bear trading range looks different from the previous three.

File: Clipboard01.jpg (42KB, 603x353px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 603x353px

>>963692
>Therefore past pattern won't repeat again in the future, now that we have computers
Yes, the world has changed and so have the barriers to trading. As a consequence, there are more people trading, higher volume, more markets, faster execution, better information, more regulation, and greater liquidity.

All of this results in the markets being MORE efficient, and LESS unpredictable.

So thanks for making the point, but unfortunately you were 180 degrees wrong on the effect.

>Quantitative easing is a relatively new thing too.
No it's not. Governments have been using expansionary monetary policy for decades. While the methods of implementing the policy have changed with advances in the banking liquidity markets, the basic strategy of pumping liquidity into the economy by the Fed purchasing financial assets has been around since at least the 1930's and 1940's.

Indeed, on a relative basis, the most recent wave of expansionary monetary policy is dwarfed by the Fed's activity throughout the 1930's and 1940's. We've yet to approach (and likely will not surpass) what was done back then.

The point of which, of course, is that you are wrong. Again.