|
On April 20 2011 05:43 happyft wrote:
I closely follow global TV sales as well as the Asia consumer electronics supply chain
simple market exposure at this point probably won't get you anywhere, you need to invest in the right companies
what do you read? tracking the asia consumer market supply chain is really interesting, especially because you can compare the numbers in china now to recently developed markets like korea and how that curve looked as korea and others got more developed.
I don't really understand why you think this is a stock pickers market. you can't know stocks won't move. that said, it is a fascinating natural conclusion if you know a market will basically move sideways.
On April 20 2011 08:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I put most of the money into Bank of America (BAC) when it was trading at $4 and everyone thought the world was ending, sold it when it hit $16. Made a huge profit and put the money into VISGX, Vanguard small-cap index, which has more than doubled the growth of the S&P500 over the past year.
Sure, I took quite a big risk, but I was young
you are my hero. i'm curious what you were doing during the flash crash/mideast/japan nuclear crisis.
I'm mostly cash (i know, its awful), with the rest in S&P500, Emerging Market, and Large Cap mutual funds.
I want to experiment with buying index puts when vol is low, and buy index etfs when vol is high. Any opinions? Probably not many opportunities to really put on these trades though.
|
On April 20 2011 09:12 Sm3agol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 09:00 MannerKiss wrote:
I also feel like commenting on peoples perception of mutual funds.
MUTUAL FUNDS ARE NOT SAFER BY DEFAULT
Mutual funds are simply funds that must invest by certain criteria. If you choose a high return fixed income mutual fund for example - they invest in JUNK BONDS. They have substantially higher risk simply because of what style of fund they are. The safety of a mutual fund is all relative to the instruments they invest, and what benchmark they're working against.
This is an important thing to bring up whenever these online forums suggest mutual funds to novice investors. If you just pull up a list of mutual funds you'll see higher risk mutual funds at the top of the list, even for 10 yr performance but its not an accurate comparison of mutual funds. You must read the information provided on WHAT they're investing in.
Usually though, if you have to choose between investing in companies you don't know enough about and a mutual fund that holds similar companies, the mutual fund will do a better job. And if your going the raw materials/energy/etc big company route, they are pretty rock solid from a risk standpoint. Mutual funds is basically investment for dummies. Do a little research, but there's not much to mutual funds, really.If you manage to fark up your entire portfolio of mainly mutual funds, you are doing something BAD wrong, lol. Also, merely having a really diverse portfolio of funds is basically risk free barring an epic market collapse. I, for example have the minimum amount in 7 different funds right now, only two of which deal with similar companies.
I'm not necessarily trying to argue with the points you have. I do believe mutual funds are great tools for amateurs and seasoned investors alike. Let me say that up front. Mutual funds CAN BE alot less risky and most are intended to be(and are) much less risky, or roughly the same risk level as an index fund (a fund that say tracks the S&P500).
However.
People need to understand that the amount of research you do into any given mutual fund should be no less than if you reviewed a certain stock. We're talking HOURS of research.
Its not uncommon for say, YOUNG ADULTS to log into their favorite website (teamliquid) and read in a general form from anonymous posters that "mutual funds are like investing for dummies" and not fully understand what they're getting into.
The problem is trying to help people not "fark up their entire portfolio". We're trying to give ADVICE to keep them from doing something "BAD wrong".
It is certainly possible to BLOW UP your whole portfolio by picking bad mutual funds (even diversified) if you dont know what you're doing.
Being in the profession, its easy to see when people just open up a list of mutual funds after reading the age old "MUTUAL FUNDS ARE FOR NOOBS" and buy all the ones with the high yeilds, not realizing that they've just invested into a mutual fund for junk bonds or an energy mutual fund invested too heavily in one NUCLEAR power company (basically not diversified well enough fund).
Now you do bring up some excellent points (and so do many people in this thread) and i wanna repeat them for anyone seriously reading this thread.
YOU NEED TO DIVERSIFY AND BUY MULTIPLE MUTUAL FUNDS. Some people think that if they buy one mutual fund that owns 30 stocks in all difference sectors that they're diversified. You're not. What if that fund turns out to be fraudulent?
It IS HARD to fark up your whole portfolio in mutual funds if you diversify well.
TL/DR Mutual funds require just as much due diligence as stock purchases. If you're investing alone, you have no one to blame but you if shit goes wrong in one (or many) of them.
PS (not an attack on you I promise your point isnt wrong) "merely having a really diverse portfolio of funds is basically risk free" Dont tell anyone in finance this or you'll get facepalmed.
EDIT: Re-reading this ...this post sounds sort of hostile. I'm really not attacking any of the information in this thread, just trying to issue a warning to any people seriously reading this thread.
|
On April 20 2011 09:52 cskalias.pbe wrote:
you are my hero. i'm curious what you were doing during the flash crash/mideast/japan nuclear crisis.
I'm mostly cash (i know, its awful), with the rest in S&P500, Emerging Market, and Large Cap mutual funds.
I want to experiment with buying index puts when vol is low, and buy index etfs when vol is high. Any opinions? Probably not many opportunities to really put on these trades though.
To be honest I believe mostly in just buying and holding low-cost index funds for the long term. The only reason I made such an aggressive bet was because the situation was so unique and it was a great opportunity. My only advice is to invest purely with your head and don't ever let emotion (especially fear) dictate your decisions. It doesn't take a genius or intense technical analysis or fancy trading to make money in the market, just independent thinking and common sense.
|
Just wondering, is there any way to see who (the major players) made the price of a stock go up/down? For example, suppose the stock of company A dropped 10% today. Is there any way to find out that it was mutual fund X who dumped that stock?
|
On April 20 2011 10:38 Yferi wrote:
Just wondering, is there any way to see who (the major players) made the price of a stock go up/down? For example, suppose the stock of company A dropped 10% today. Is there any way to find out that it was mutual fund X who dumped that stock?
Yes. People pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to try and find out who big players are. Biggest players do their best to disguise themselves because of high freq. traders.
High freq. traders basically use algorithms to "sniff out" big players, and buy shares ahead of their big purchase orders.
Big trades or "high touch" trades are slowly becoming a thing of the past now. Most firms find it cheaper to use low touch or trading algorithms that basically split their giant say, 1 million share purchase into many 100 share or 200 share purchases. They usually outsource this to other firms that specialize in using these algorithms though, so finding them now is extreamly difficult.
For the amateur investor unless you read about it or manage to see fund x has 1m shares in company y today, and 0 tomorrow, you'll never know.
|
On April 20 2011 10:42 MannerKiss wrote:
People pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to try and find out who big players are.
Considering that's sooo many times more than my net worth, I guess that's one idea out the window. Thanks for the info 
|
It is precisely that i lack the information and understanding that i do not invest
Packaging, buying and selling risk on the other hand, is something i am much more familiar with
|
On April 20 2011 09:12 Almin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 07:49 Skillz_Man wrote:
Imo penny stocks are the way to go. You just have to be smart about it.
A year ago we bought $400k of Nova gold at $0.63 cents, then sold at $9 dollars maybe four months later. My parents are practically set for life and now they are doing safe investments. You need to be smart with penny stocks, read up a lot on them, and use human phycology against people.
Also we keep 90% of all the money they own in gold, as the US dollar is extremely unstable volitile and I expect it to crash within a couple years and gold will become the world currency. As you can't print off gold like mad, unlike the US bills. And so far that's gone well, from $800 per ounce to $1500 is pretty good in such a short timerate, and I recommend for everyone here to invest in gold, much safer and easy profit. News keeps trying to trick people on how the price of gold is as high as it can go now it will plummet. Don't listen to that BS, they are just trying to get you to sell.
Don't believe me? Do some research on it. Problem is, US Dollar is the currency of the world, and it's doing better than the Euro LOL. I don't like your fear mongering. Only people who want to sell their gold stock are like "TIME TO BUY GOLD IS NOW, btw buy from me!", quite a scam in my opinion.
I agree with this, the entire doom-sayer attitude is not cool. Besides, it's a bit late to jump on the gold train now, the peak may be very close.
I'd keep clear from the gold altogether, it can be classified as high risk right now.
"Nothing gold can stay" perhaps fitting here, heh.
The overbought silver, however, looks like a tempting short.
|
On April 20 2011 08:43 Nqsty wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This is some advice I can give you from past experience in investing in stock.
The main mistake people do is randomly picking a stock, speculating on its future value, and buying or not by finding excuses/reasons to do so.
The way to do it is the exact opposite.
Start macro-wise, what are your expectations for the future world economy ? Boom or recession ? Depending on this your short or long positions will vary. Check consumer confidence indexes, building permits, patent deposits etc, there are also statistics on expectations of leading firms head of purchases. These give you an idea of where things are going, and are extremely good indicators.
Next, you need a stream of ideas. Pope allows condoms ? Look into latex. China cut rare earth exports ? Check mining companies. Economy picking up ? Check railway companies.
For instance assume you believe the demand for condoms will rise due to Christian's being allowed to use them . Does that mean you have to invest in the biggest Condom company in the US ? No.
You probably have over 30 companies to pick from. May they be in Indonesia, Chile, France or Saudi Arabia.
Choose the one which suits your beliefs, highest ROI ratio, lowest PE, solid management, very simple concepts.
If you wanted, you could also short companies who sell contraceptive pills, or god knows what, to increase your stake in a belief.
For the Airline industry for instance, I once looked up to 70 different companies, and pick the one which suits my beliefs the best.
This is bar far the best way to invest intelligently. If backed up by serious research, knowledge in statistics, and good intuition on ideas, you can make very good return.
I know a lot of people who invest differently however, and who also manage very well.
Also, something I like to do a lot is check security trading records for CEO's or major stakeholders, its entirely legal inside information and company buybacks are also great indicators of future stock movements.
Finally, dehumanise yourself. Don't cry over losses and don't cheer over gains. The best traders in the world only reach their expectations on 4 out of 10 trades. Why ? Because they cover risk and set strict sell out limits for themselves. The only time you should feel emotion over your investment is at the end of the year when you look at your final return.
There are thousands of investment strategies, but I am honestly convinced this is the best way to go. You rely only on yourself, and funnily enough, often end up going against the masses most of the time.
Macro analysis -> Idea -> Industry analysis -> Idea -> Stock analysis -> go long/short is RIGHTAnyone here have the same approach ?
I do the same, and I think any buy-side analyst worth his salt has the same approach. Everyone who's interested in fundamental investing should read Nqsty's post, although I don't put too much emphasis on buybacks/major holders -- I've found from experience that even mgmt and funds regularly get it wrong, especially if it's a turnaround/show-me story.
On April 20 2011 09:06 Glacierz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 04:06 happyft wrote:On April 20 2011 03:33 buhhy wrote:
I'm just getting into investing as well. Been reading books lately mainly, like the Ben Graham classics and the book by Swenson and Bogle.
I don't have much money, only a few grand, so I don't plan on doing anything fancy yet. Also, brokers in Canada charge ridiculous rates, so I plan on maybe picking up an index ETF, and some bonds for the time being.
Personally, I don't find many of the top tech stocks very appealing (AAPL, GOOG, NVDA), because they seem really speculative with high P/E and no dividend. Looking at the depressed nuclear stocks could really pay off though, but I don't have enough money to speculate with. If you're going to be investing with that kind of style, I highly recommending reading up on asset allocation strategy books too. (Just read one, they're all the same) Let me save you the time and money -- they all say, the best way to enter and play the market is to invest a fixed amount every month. In other words, if you've got a 401k plan, do it. (That's probably the only useful sentence in all of those books) Let me give you a quick reason why AAPL is actually slightly undervalued. AAPL has $64/shr in cash on its balance sheet alone. Street estimates are at $23.10 for FY11 and $26.70 for FY12 (and Street estimates tend to be conservative on stocks they're bullish on). In other words, AAPL trading at today's price of $335 implies 11.7x FY11 EPS ex-cash. The S&P500 is currently trading at 14.1x forward earnings. So rather than saying AAPL is expensive, you have to either argue that AAPL will grow slower than the overall market (a very poor argument, look at iPhone and iPad sales growth), or that AAPL will see its iPhone margins get cut in half due to price competition from Android or other competitors (which is actually a legit concern in the sense that if this does happen, the stock will take a big hit...but that's a BIG if, very big, and likely very unlikely). Mm...probably a good spot for me to say the usual disclaimer stuff i.e. I'm not recommending nor soliciting anyone to buy or sell any aforementioned securities, data is not intended as factual, investing in the market is risky, etc. etc. On April 20 2011 03:53 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
I made about $10,000 riding the waves day trading ATVI stock last year. Sold all of my shares and stepping out of the game for a while so that I can get a build credit/get a house. Wow. On how much capital? And were you doing true day trading, or what was your average holding time period? And how long have you been following ATVI that you were able to day trade it? And on what basis did you trade? (fundamentals, technicals, weird indicator stuff, quant models?) Have you considered key personnel risk for AAPL that is Steve Jobs?
Unless Jobs actually passes away, I don't think there will be an impact to the stock. He's taken multiple leaves of absences now, and the company continues to execute as if nothing has happened. As to what will happen if he actually does pass away -- well, that's anyone's guess. But I imagine there will be a few days of sell-off, some overhang for several weeks until their next earnings report, and then people's senses will come back.
Btw, Intel reported great numbers and gave great guidance too last night, and gave an optimistic forecast for the year, better than what IDC or Gartner had been forecasting (especially since IDC recently decreased their PC forecast for the year). So I'm feeling better about being long now, even if Intel commented the growth was all in emerging markets, whereas consumer is still a little weak in US/EU (though offset by strength in enterprise).
Also, AT&T reported 3.6M iPhones activated (+33% yoy) in 1Q vs. 32% yoy growth in 4Q, so pretty good. Gives me stronger confidence AAPL will beat consensus expectations on iPhone sales when they report tonight.
On April 20 2011 09:52 cskalias.pbe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 05:43 happyft wrote:
I closely follow global TV sales as well as the Asia consumer electronics supply chain
simple market exposure at this point probably won't get you anywhere, you need to invest in the right companies
what do you read? tracking the asia consumer market supply chain is really interesting, especially because you can compare the numbers in china now to recently developed markets like korea and how that curve looked as korea and others got more developed. I don't really understand why you think this is a stock pickers market. you can't know stocks won't move. that said, it is a fascinating natural conclusion if you know a market will basically move sideways.
Haha well...since you asked...
DigiTimes gets you a lot of the information you need on what's happening in Asia BUT ... HUGE BUT here ... DigiTimes will publish anything and everything they hear, including completely baseless rumors, and they will publish articles that contradict things they said the day before. So take what they say with a huge grain of salt.
A more trustworthy source would be to follow the LCD panel industry, like GLW/AUO/LPL. GLW provides a lot of macro annual data on its quarterly calls, whereas AUO/LPL give a lot of quarterly granuality. Other sources of info include hard-drive makers, notebook manufacturers, and LED chipmakers. And then there's the whole semiconductor space (the guys who provide the processors, raw materials, cameras, touch sensors, DVD drives, and all the specific components that go into handsets like baseband, wifi, gps)
Finally, another very big warning -- these guys are just the suppliers. A good or bad quarter for the supplier doesn't necessarily mean a good or bad quarter for the customer -- but a good quarter for the customer does mean a good quarter for the supplier. This holds true especially when you think about inventory corrections -- even if iPads are growing spectacularly, if AAPL say ordered 60M of them but only sold 40M for the year, AAPL wouldn't give another order to its suppliers until that extra 20M is sold off, which might take 6 months. That's 6 months of no orders from AAPL for these suppliers. When situations like this happen, that's really bad for the suppliers, and the further "upstream" you are (or the further you are from the end-market/end-customer), the worse the inventory problem will get for you.
Ehh...I feel pretty dissatisfied with a post like this, because I could spend days further expanding on each paragraph. This is pretty much why your first year as an analyst on Wall Street you're pretty much doing nothing but learning and are nearly useless to your boss except doing really simple stuff. Even in your second year, it takes a lot for you to be able to meaningfully contribute anything.
In regards to why I think the market will move sideways (and by that I mean it will move up and down within a range) is that there doesn't seem to be many levers or possibilities for upside or downside to where we're at right now, and it seems like most people's expectations are correctly set this way. Cautiously optimistic but not sticking your neck out is everyone's attitude, and that's how it should be. That being said, greater minds than mine are able to make great calls on when the consumer will recover, I leave that to the macro economist/analyst. I feel much more comfortable making calls on individual companies, because I have a much better grasp of how a specific product will sell, then on some nebulous global debt or GDP number =P But huge props to those macro guys who can do that well, and consistently!
|
On April 20 2011 09:54 MannerKiss wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 09:12 Sm3agol wrote:On April 20 2011 09:00 MannerKiss wrote:
I also feel like commenting on peoples perception of mutual funds.
MUTUAL FUNDS ARE NOT SAFER BY DEFAULT
Mutual funds are simply funds that must invest by certain criteria. If you choose a high return fixed income mutual fund for example - they invest in JUNK BONDS. They have substantially higher risk simply because of what style of fund they are. The safety of a mutual fund is all relative to the instruments they invest, and what benchmark they're working against.
This is an important thing to bring up whenever these online forums suggest mutual funds to novice investors. If you just pull up a list of mutual funds you'll see higher risk mutual funds at the top of the list, even for 10 yr performance but its not an accurate comparison of mutual funds. You must read the information provided on WHAT they're investing in.
Usually though, if you have to choose between investing in companies you don't know enough about and a mutual fund that holds similar companies, the mutual fund will do a better job. And if your going the raw materials/energy/etc big company route, they are pretty rock solid from a risk standpoint. Mutual funds is basically investment for dummies. Do a little research, but there's not much to mutual funds, really.If you manage to fark up your entire portfolio of mainly mutual funds, you are doing something BAD wrong, lol. Also, merely having a really diverse portfolio of funds is basically risk free barring an epic market collapse. I, for example have the minimum amount in 7 different funds right now, only two of which deal with similar companies. I'm not necessarily trying to argue with the points you have. I do believe mutual funds are great tools for amateurs and seasoned investors alike. Let me say that up front. Mutual funds CAN BE alot less risky and most are intended to be(and are) much less risky, or roughly the same risk level as an index fund (a fund that say tracks the S&P500). However. People need to understand that the amount of research you do into any given mutual fund should be no less than if you reviewed a certain stock. We're talking HOURS of research. Its not uncommon for say, YOUNG ADULTS to log into their favorite website (teamliquid) and read in a general form from anonymous posters that "mutual funds are like investing for dummies" and not fully understand what they're getting into. The problem is trying to help people not "fark up their entire portfolio". We're trying to give ADVICE to keep them from doing something "BAD wrong". It is certainly possible to BLOW UP your whole portfolio by picking bad mutual funds (even diversified) if you dont know what you're doing.
Being in the profession, its easy to see when people just open up a list of mutual funds after reading the age old "MUTUAL FUNDS ARE FOR NOOBS" and buy all the ones with the high yeilds, not realizing that they've just invested into a mutual fund for junk bonds or an energy mutual fund invested too heavily in one NUCLEAR power company (basically not diversified well enough fund). Now you do bring up some excellent points (and so do many people in this thread) and i wanna repeat them for anyone seriously reading this thread. YOU NEED TO DIVERSIFY AND BUY MULTIPLE MUTUAL FUNDS. Some people think that if they buy one mutual fund that owns 30 stocks in all difference sectors that they're diversified. You're not. What if that fund turns out to be fraudulent? It IS HARD to fark up your whole portfolio in mutual funds if you diversify well. TL/DR Mutual funds require just as much due diligence as stock purchases. If you're investing alone, you have no one to blame but you if shit goes wrong in one (or many) of them. PS (not an attack on you I promise your point isnt wrong) "merely having a really diverse portfolio of funds is basically risk free" Dont tell anyone in finance this or you'll get facepalmed. EDIT: Re-reading this ...this post sounds sort of hostile. I'm really not attacking any of the information in this thread, just trying to issue a warning to any people seriously reading this thread.
Pretty much everything you said is true, but I will argue that unless you're going with relatively obscure funds, you don't have to do hours and hours of research on them. For instance I have several of Fidelity's really big funds, recommended by just about every market analyst out there. For things like that......really there is no major risk, and I probably only have a couple hours total in research in those big funds.... They invest solidly, and have been performing very solidly for the last 10 years. The returns might be projected as a bit higher for some of the more random obscure funds, but........obviously they are more risky.
Basically just want to say this, kind as a little bit of an argument against you but, not really. Mutual funds ARE investing for dummies. But that doesn't mean you don't need to research anything. It just means most of your research is already done for you by the 10 million market analysts out there, and apart from your initial/annual/whatever investment in them, they are pretty much worry free and don't need any micromanagement.
Here is what I did to select my funds.
Figure out which sector you want to invest in. I selected raw materials and natural resources initially due to the market situation, and what i believe will be a big part of the worlds economy in the near future. Since I was starting, i went with large cap....big companies. I looked for long standing funds managed by people with a lot of experience. That narrowed down my intial process really far, and a couple of 4/5 star rated(Morningstar) funds really stood out. From there you really can't go wrong.
Looking forward, and as I do more study, I'm definitely looking at some healthcare related small cap funds. A little more risky, but I believe health care will be the next big play, and so I'm looking at a comparatively risk free way to jump into that market.
|
On April 20 2011 03:58 Yttrasil wrote:
Just wondering, why do you think you guys will perform better than hedge funds and professional investors that has years of experience and more importantly amazing formulas and computerpower plus great information sources to use. While you guys are having it as almost a hobby and don't act in any rational way and constituting maybe at most 5% of the investors with no capital in comparison. How do you believe you can perform better than them, they will just take your money and some parts of what they make come from you guys.
Wish you luck but I'd love to hear a reasonable response, I'm studying economics have read stock books and these kinds of threads and I just don't get it. I know people love to gamble and this is the only thing I can compare it to, except that it sounds professional.
Edit: Buying property for long-long term and stocks as well in markets you really DO understand makes sense I'd say, but daytrading or changing stocks on whims, doesn't make sense to me.
Keep in mind those "hedge funds and professional investors" do not necessarily have the same modus operandi as the little guys. The standard hedge fund cost structure is the infamous "2 and 20" (although I think in the past year or so that's come down to "1 and 15") -- "2" for the 2% management fee on all assets under management every year and "20" for the 20% performance fee over and above some set pre-set hurdle (usually 15%).
If you do the math, as these managers all do, you will realize that you can make muuuuuch more money by growing your asset base and earning that "2" than by outperforming the market to earn that "20". And how do you grow that asset base? By slowly compounding your returns? Hell no. You go out and beg pension funds and other institutional investors to give you billions of dollars at a time.
As the industry stands, incentives are misaligned. Large fund managers are highly incentivized to be good salesman and marketers -- people who can go on the road and sell their story, attracting investment capital to earn that "2". They are not, for the most part, incentivized to actually perform really well. Nor does the size of their fund indicate how well they actually have done....
One other advantage the individual investor has is the ability to move into positions that larger funds might not even care about. As an example, look at all the small-cap companies out there with market capitalizations of around $500 million. Do you know what a $500 million investment for a $10 billion fund represents? That's 5% of their total portfolio. In other words a $10 billion fund would have to buy the entire company just to make an impact on their own returns. So there's an entire world of stocks that the big guys don't even look at. Which means your competition as the individual investor is less, "hedge funds and professional investors" than it would be if all you looked at were mega-caps.
|
While I largely agree that you shouldn't invest the brunt of your money in penny stocks...it can be so fun and exciting, particularly if you research it sufficiently.
The only penny stock I'm currently invested in is CUU (Copper Fox Metals Inc.)
http://www.google.ca/finance?client=ob&q=CVE:CUU
Bought it at $1.21 a few weeks ago, its doubled since. Pundits didn't catch on to copper fox early because copper fox did a bad job of selling itself, so the company was undervalued. Then, over the last month, they've done various tests at their site to see the scope of the deposit they will be mining. My understanding is that they are extremely conservative about what information they release so there could be a larger deposit than is currently suggests. And in mid June their feasibility study should be complete - so if that goes well (I'm optimistic) the value of this stock could double or triple once again.
Did I mention its so exciting?
|
Calgary25972 Posts
There's very little rhyme or reason to how I invest, haha. I should probably just buy index funds to be honest.
|
On April 20 2011 09:39 allecto wrote:
Technical forex trading. Go big or go home.
Forex trading was the bane of my financial simulation classes. Still wake up in cold sweats because of the volatility of currency trading. No way I could do that full time.
|
AAPL just reported numbers and they crushed it. $24.7B rev and $6.40 EPS vs. Street's $23.4B and $5.37. Even bigger is their gross margin of 41.4% vs. Street's 38.9%! iPhone unit shipments of 18.6M vs. Street's 16.25M!
Only two blemishes: iPad units were strangely below expectations, likely due to huge shortage and pent up demand for iPad 2 (launched in 3/11), not worried about that at all -- and their guidance was slightly below Street estimates, which is a little strange considering how much they beat this quarter, even though they always significantly under-promise over-deliver on their guidance every single time.
Stock up only +2.5% after hours, but man, what a beat. Intel beating strongly last night, now Apple, tech is doing really well.
|
I think what most of you probably don't realize
1) Everybody makes it sound like beating the market it easy after some research. You do realize that its really rare that professionals actually beat the market? Net of expenses, mutual funds generally don't beat the market.
2) For all you people with advice in this tread, must of it is... You guys really have no clue about the amount of risk your taking on.
Now to get to hedge funds. It it really relevant to this thread? Does anybody here have the actual capital to actually invest in one? Anyway, must of the successful hedge funds don't even report to an index and are closed to investments
|
My opinion as a professional trader with a 7-digit personal portfolio and a few years of experience is that you should get nowhere close to investing significant amounts of money unless you have a deep understanding of what you are doing and the risks you are incurring.
I personally find this thread somewhat disturbing, actually.
|
On April 21 2011 10:05 Hatsu wrote:
My opinion as a professional trader with a 7-digit personal portfolio and a few years of experience is that you should get nowhere close to investing significant amounts of money unless you have a deep understanding of what you are doing and the risks you are incurring.
I personally find this thread somewhat disturbing, actually.
Why is that? With the sheer amount of readily available information available to anyone that looks for it, it's not hard to be fairly well informed, and as long as you aren't delving too hard in really small cap companies and going crazy with spec picks instead of just going long-term with solid companies, most people do just fine without professional help.
On April 21 2011 08:30 IronFenix wrote:
I think what most of you probably don't realize
1) Everybody makes it sound like beating the market it easy after some research. You do realize that its really rare that professionals actually beat the market? Net of expenses, mutual funds generally don't beat the market.
2) For all you people with advice in this tread, must of it is... You guys really have no clue about the amount of risk your taking on.
Now to get to hedge funds. It it really relevant to this thread? Does anybody here have the actual capital to actually invest in one? Anyway, must of the successful hedge funds don't even report to an index and are closed to investments
YOU have no idea what you are talking about here. I have several funds with DECADES of history of averaging 10-12% annual returns, with expense ratios of <1%. How do you think people save up and retire at all? By keeping your money in a pillow or burying it in your back yard? How do you think annuities and retirement accounts work?? You don't have to necessarily "beat the market", you just need to let compound interest work over time.
|
On April 21 2011 10:05 Hatsu wrote:
My opinion as a professional trader with a 7-digit personal portfolio and a few years of experience is that you should get nowhere close to investing significant amounts of money unless you have a deep understanding of what you are doing and the risks you are incurring.
I personally find this thread somewhat disturbing, actually.
No one here is talking about investing significant amounts of money. We're talking about small idle money with rates barely covering inflation, and what to do with it.
Don't act like you're above everyone else, be useful, give a few tips to people who don't have your experience. Trying to get off as a Modest Warren buffet isn't helping anyone here, and especially not yourself.
Read posts, criticize, and help out the community, because if you actually are a professional trader, you probably have a lot to share !
|
@Sm3agol
Your more then welcome to elaborate. The question is not whether or not you got returns or not. It's beating the market. Did your fund have better returns then say the S&P for the same amount of systematic risk?
and for your record. Mutual funds typically have 2-3% in fees. Add in trailer fees, admin fees and general expenses, these fees ad up pretty quickly. Also, most of general financial literature will agree that mutual funds don't do better then the market. That fund managers can't consistently beat it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
