Talking Stocks 2.0

[BroncoOne]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

Monetizing in terms of converting it to transact-able funds (cash).

If someone eventually spends (eg in retirement) absent retailers accepting BTC, it will need to move to cash. Or for lambos, of course.

When you can pay the IRS with it, I’m in. I don’t have a personal use case for it but I get the inflation hedge arguments. I just use different strategies. I dont have the personal discomfort with fiat that some CryprtBros have.

That said, blockchain technology is for real and is deployed in a few of our businesses.

[topgear]

Given that the oil price is trending upwards, what are your views pertaining to oil & gas service companies:

Schlumberger SLB
Halliburton HAL
Baker Hughes BHI
Weatherford WFRD

These stocks are trending up, is it a good time to sell? Or shall I hold on for a bit longer?

[rufio0811]

New guy here to both the forum and investing, seeing this thread my initial thought was this is probably full of smart investors.

That being said, what are the better S&P indexes to invest in? I’m currently in with VOO, are there better alternatives?

[SMD]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

I wouldn't say family offices are amateur investors.

Come on be serious. Where did the staff of family offices come from?

[huncho]

Originally Posted by superdog

I would really still love to know what anyone thinks of Grayscale ETF.

worst one of the 9 and they've had very heavy outflows since going live because they have huge fees - 1.5% vs < 0.25% for the others (including like 6-12 of the first months waived). everyone is leaving them and going to the better/more respected ones that are less shady and less greedy

they took a gamble and figured they could afford to have much higher fees because people wouldn't want to leave them due to tax implications, which turned out to blow up in their face as they started selling 500m worth of btc daily for weeks straight once the etfs went live in january

just go with blackrock's or fidelity's, why pay 1.5% for a fund that's on the fast track to having almost no assets. they went from 625k to 330k btc in 3 months and refuse to lower fees still. obviously with 1.5% they can probably lose a significant amount of assets and still be profitable compared to the others but this also doesn't take into account the fact that their parent company is in a bunch of lawsuits for fraud and Barry (the ceo) stepped down as chairman recently for a bunch of legal reasons

all these crypto "funds/firms" can't seem to stay away from doing tons of illegal shit due to greed and i just don't see the reason to support any of them after what they all did in 2022. in this case there's also literally not a single reason to go with them as a new customer over the other 8 who are actually respected firms lol

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by SMD

Come on be serious. Where did the staff of family offices come from?

Oh, I'm quite serious. Do you personally know any because I do, and they were plucked from university endowments and other areas because they:

1. Can make more money (always follow the money)
2. They can have more autonomy with their choices and/or less restrictions that large institutions sometimes have including, but not limited to ESG considerations

[7sins]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

Oh, I'm quite serious. Do you personally know any because I do, and they were plucked from university endowments and other areas because they:

1. Can make more money (always follow the money)
2. They can have more autonomy with their choices and/or less restrictions that large institutions sometimes have including, but not limited to ESG considerations

I work often with family offices, usually their CIO and you are spot on Phillip, they are incredibly talented individuals and the team behind them are quite sophisticated. Speaking mostly to the family office with AUM >$2B. The smaller FO is a different story and I suspect what SMD is eluding to, those are often the individuals I have to explain how accrued interest works.

[superdog]

Originally Posted by huncho

worst one of the 9 and they've had very heavy outflows since going live because they have huge fees - 1.5% vs < 0.25% for the others (including like 6-12 of the first months waived). everyone is leaving them and going to the better/more respected ones that are less shady and less greedy

they took a gamble and figured they could afford to have much higher fees because people wouldn't want to leave them due to tax implications, which turned out to blow up in their face as they started selling 500m worth of btc daily for weeks straight once the etfs went live in january

just go with blackrock's or fidelity's, why pay 1.5% for a fund that's on the fast track to having almost no assets. they went from 625k to 330k btc in 3 months and refuse to lower fees still. obviously with 1.5% they can probably lose a significant amount of assets and still be profitable compared to the others but this also doesn't take into account the fact that their parent company is in a bunch of lawsuits for fraud and Barry (the ceo) stepped down as chairman recently for a bunch of legal reasons

all these crypto "funds/firms" can't seem to stay away from doing tons of illegal shit due to greed and i just don't see the reason to support any of them after what they all did in 2022. in this case there's also literally not a single reason to go with them as a new customer over the other 8 who are actually respected firms lol

Very much appreciate your response.

When googling best funds to invest in, much of this doesn’t come up. But I felt something was off, which is why I waited, and asked.

So again, thank you.

[huncho]

Originally Posted by superdog

Very much appreciate your response.

When googling best funds to invest in, much of this doesn’t come up. But I felt something was off, which is why I waited, and asked.

So again, thank you.

here's the full breakdown of fees so really any of them are a much better option and it's just personal preference to the brand at that point. i think i read that blackrock's etf has been the most successful etf launch in history so far and after 3 months already has almost $20b of assets

[superdog]

Originally Posted by huncho

here's the full breakdown of fees so really any of them are a much better option and it's just personal preference to the brand at that point

this is amazing!!!

Cannot thank you enough. Still holding off for a small bit. But watching and doing my best to learn.

[77T]

That's a good chart - please note the footnote about temporary (er promotional) fee rates.

I believe you might plan on fees rising to the ~1% level. If you're staying in the fund long run it might not matter much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[HHIslander]

Originally Posted by 7sins

I work often with family offices, usually their CIO and you are spot on Phillip, they are incredibly talented individuals and the team behind them are quite sophisticated. Speaking mostly to the family office with AUM >$2B. The smaller FO is a different story and I suspect what SMD is eluding to, those are often the individuals I have to explain how accrued interest works.

Family offices have very little regulatory oversight, they aren’t subject to the public info disclosure requirements of other funds with stricter fiduciary obligations, they don’t have to comply with institutional investor ESG/etc. checklist requirements and they have minimal public relations obligations. The ability to focus on “making money” without other obligations attracts some of the best money managers in the world. The best ones I know have all moved in that direction.

[m j b]

LOL.

Here at work, our Internet security guys have firewalls and filters and all kinds of stuff to keep us safe. So we can't get to Facebook or Tweeters or adult sites or (added recently) personal email sites. I just discovered (trying to look up Grayscale) that they also block anything dealing with cryptocurrency. If that's not a big waving red flag, I don't know what is.

[huncho]

Originally Posted by 77T

That's a good chart - please note the footnote about temporary (er promotional) fee rates.

I believe you might plan on fees rising to the ~1% level. If you're staying in the fund long run it might not matter much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

those indicate the funds have fees waived until either 1b of inflows or for the first 6 months or something like that. good point though about fees maybe rising eventually

[SMD]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

Oh, I'm quite serious. Do you personally know any because I do, and they were plucked from university endowments and other areas because they:

1. Can make more money (always follow the money)
2. They can have more autonomy with their choices and/or less restrictions that large institutions sometimes have including, but not limited to ESG considerations

None of this changes my initial point -- which was unless you do this for a living or were trained in a handful of places, you are an amateur investor. Bringing up family offices (because I didn't list off every single place a sophisticated investor works or gets trained) does not change that point at all.

[superdog]

Originally Posted by SMD

None of this changes my initial point -- which was unless you do this for a living or were trained in a handful of places, you are an amateur investor. Bringing up family offices (because I didn't list off every single place a sophisticated investor works or gets trained) does not change that point at all.

is there anything lower than amateur?

I ask only because that is me!

[SMD]

Originally Posted by 7sins

I work often with family offices, usually their CIO and you are spot on Phillip, they are incredibly talented individuals and the team behind them are quite sophisticated. Speaking mostly to the family office with AUM >$2B. The smaller FO is a different story and I suspect what SMD is eluding to, those are often the individuals I have to explain how accrued interest works.

My initial point was (almost) everyone on here is an amateur. I tried listing out some exceptions where you would not be an amateur but because I forgot to list family offices as a place where experienced people also work, there was the post -- ha ha ha what about family offices. My response to that was that was a ridiculous response because OF COURSE family offices are filled with skilled and experienced people.

Some of the same people on here playing trader because they stayed at a Holiday Inn were the same ones pumping Canadian Cannabis stocks. But they have memory holed that and have now moved on to someone other "investment".

[BraveBold]

I’m not an amateur investor (by any definition) but will point out one thing I know with 100% certainty. There are amateur investors that are more sophisticated than many pros (pros being in the categories discussed above). Within those groups there is no consistent or definitive hierarchy of better vs worse (in terms of ability). As with many things in life, there are tradeoffs / pros and cons. Some people fit into an area better than others, etc.

That said, the typical amateur investor, however, would likely do best sticking to index funds or following the advice of an advisor.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by SMD

My initial point was (almost) everyone on here is an amateur. I tried listing out some exceptions where you would not be an amateur but because I forgot to list family offices as a place where experienced people also work, there was the post -- ha ha ha what about family offices. My response to that was that was a ridiculous response because OF COURSE family offices are filled with skilled and experienced people.

Some of the same people on here playing trader because they stayed at a Holiday Inn were the same ones pumping Canadian Cannabis stocks. But they have memory holed that and have now moved on to someone other "investment".

I will add that over short or even medium time frames even the biggest dunderheads can look brilliant. Often those who take excessive risk or concentrated bets. The facade is eventually undone and incompetence exposed - in most cases. Of course even the most (truly) brilliant can have misses - though over longer time frames, those who are truly brilliant understand the benefit of risk management and tend do well.

I remember when that moron from barstool sports (or whatever) was being covered in the press. Including comments referencing Buffett… did not age well and most smart investors knew better than to pay it any heed. Similarly, Cathie Wood got a lot of press when her extreme risk plays were paying off due to retail investors piling into terrible “investments”… she still gets press but has at least been exposed for what she is. A low quality investment manager with strong marketing.

I could go on… but will say that once you do real digging there are few truly exceptional investors…

[superdog]

Originally Posted by SMD

My initial point was (almost) everyone on here is an amateur. I tried listing out some exceptions where you would not be an amateur but because I forgot to list family offices as a place where experienced people also work, there was the post -- ha ha ha what about family offices. My response to that was that was a ridiculous response because OF COURSE family offices are filled with skilled and experienced people.

Some of the same people on here playing trader because they stayed at a Holiday Inn were the same ones pumping Canadian Cannabis stocks. But they have memory holed that and have now moved on to someone other "investment".

I lost a small fortune during that debacle!!!!

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by superdog

is there anything lower than amateur?

I ask only because that is me!

An amateur who recognizes their limits is pretty high up on my list of “likely to do just fine”… it gets dangerous when confidence far outstrips capability. That is when things tend to (eventually) go sideways.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by superdog

I lost a small fortune during that debacle!!!!

Well, that tells me you either went beyond your limits in that instance or have a large fortune. In which case no big deal, right?

;-)

[superdog]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

Well, that tells me you either went beyond your limits in that instance or have a large fortune. In which case no big deal, right?

;-)

Lmao. Well fortunes, both big and small are relative. And really just a figure of speech.

But I lost about 60k. Thankfully no, that’s effecting my life much. Still hurt.

Not as much as my next mistake. That was a lot more. Also not changing my life much.

Both times lessons were learned. Not to be repeated. :-).

[superdog]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

An amateur who recognizes their limits is pretty high up on my list of “likely to do just fine”… it gets dangerous when confidence far outstrips capability. That is when things tend to (eventually) go sideways.

Indeed, I could not agree more. My FA handles everything now.

I simply now have a small personal account that I play around with. Even with this, I’m buy and hold. And nothing too risky. But in this account I continue to add weekly.

[BroncoOne]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

I’m not an amateur investor (by any definition) but will point out one thing I know with 100% certainty. There are amateur investors that are more sophisticated than many pros (pros being in the categories discussed above). Within those groups there is no consistent or definitive hierarchy of better vs worse (in terms of ability). As with many things in life, there are tradeoffs / pros and cons. Some people fit into an area better than others, etc.

That said, the typical amateur investor, however, would likely do best sticking to index funds or following the advice of an advisor.

This is true. Read Charlie Munger and get rich slowly. Hire an advisor. Guard your wins. Only bet with house money, if at all.
Or be Roaring Kitty Dumb Money LOL

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by BroncoOne

This is true. Read Charlie Munger and get rich slowly. Hire an advisor. Guard your wins. Only bet with house money, if at all.
Or be Roaring Kitty Dumb Money LOL

Munger was great, RIP.

Of my library of finance and investment books, this is my recommended must-read:

[SMD]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

I will add that over short or even medium time frames even the biggest dunderheads can look brilliant. Often those who take excessive risk or concentrated bets. The facade is eventually undone and incompetence exposed - in most cases. Of course even the most (truly) brilliant can have misses - though over longer time frames, those who are truly brilliant understand the benefit of risk management and tend do well.

I remember when that moron from barstool sports (or whatever) was being covered in the press. Including comments referencing Buffett… did not age well and most smart investors knew better than to pay it any heed. Similarly, Cathie Wood got a lot of press when her extreme risk plays were paying off due to retail investors piling into terrible “investments”… she still gets press but has at least been exposed for what she is. A low quality investment manager with strong marketing.

I could go on… but will say that once you do real digging there are few truly exceptional investors…

Completely agree. Even so called pros almost never consistently beat the market. Which is why I cringe when I read armchair fundamental analysis from people who don’t know an 8-k from a DEF14A. Best lesson I learned from a decent finance school (Chicago) is that I am smart enough to know that I am not smart enough to beat the market. Nor is any financial advisor who cold called me late at night from ML.

[SMD]

Originally Posted by superdog

I lost a small fortune during that debacle!!!!

I tried…

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...&postcount=606

Seriously, though. Rereading that thread is enlightening, the confidence with which some members spoke was breathtaking. I tried to get people to pump the breaks but such is life in a sector bubble.

For those that weren’t there:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=574658

[superdog]

Originally Posted by SMD

I tried…

https://www.rolexforums.com/showpost...&postcount=606

Seriously, though. Rereading that thread is enlightening, the confidence with which some members spoke was breathtaking. I tried to get people to pump the breaks but such is life in a sector bubble.

For those that weren’t there:

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=574658

oh damn. you went there!!!!



you did try. and I think we might've actually spoken. but yeah, I was certain. and the industry will ultimately do well. but you were absolutely right...obviously.

those companies and the situation was terrible.

on the bright side, it was good for tax harvesting and offset some gains.

[MrGoat]

Had a conversation with my FIL yesterday and he thinks I have too much money sitting in the bank and that I should instead invest it in a money market account because I can’t lose.

As some here know, I had a rough upbringing and then some pretty unpleasant life experiences due to losing everything. This makes me want to keep most (roughly 90%) of my money readily accessible in various FDIC insured checking and savings accounts spread between multiple institutions.

I was self trading in the market and made some but eventually lost more than I made. I pulled out of everything except what was already in retirement accounts.

I would rather have what I have and make a smaller percentage than risk losing it all at this point (this has become a significant ideal of mine in the last 8 months or so, if not longer).

We self insure our home and one account is simply our insurance account in case God forbid we have a catastrophic event.

Would taking my money from these various accounts that are insured by FDIC be in my best interest to put into a money market account when the security of that money means more to me than the potential money it can make in a money market account?

We each have a a few different retirement accounts that not included in this but in the market and funded monthly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk