Is Vanguard a meme?

Totally disagree with that. As amateur investors on Zig Forums, you are not going to outsmart institutional investors and professional traders. They have a huge information edge over you. There has to be a winner and a loser on opposing sides of each trade, and the loser is likely the individual getting his info from seeking alpha or a stock tip from a friend. This is how the pros make money, by exploiting the trades of low information individuals (and through fees charged to their clients). With the rise of index funds, there are less suckers to take advantage of, so the competition for alpha is even more cutthroat. With a diversified, low fee portfolio you capture the real gains of the overall economy. Gambling on individual stocks is just speculation at the casino. Spoiler alert: the house will take your money unless you are the house (the market).

Attached: winning the losers game.jpg (662x1000, 125.23K)

you're wrong. corporations fuck up all the time and plummet all the time (see kraft heinz). worst case, some of them actually go to 0 (see bear stearns). the wells fargo ceo just said some racist shit i believe for example. you could get lucky with a tesla but the best bet is just to own a SP500 etf if you're to play the boomer market

>t. degenerate gambler

Except the empirical evidence is in stark contrast to your claims.
People on /smg/ and Zig Forums seem to think they are better money managers than 80-90% of the mutual fund industry and a large proportion of the hedge fund industry. These fund managers can not even beat the index and at most match it, over a long time horizon

Attached: Buffett'vs Hedge Fund.png (604x79, 14.65K)

Stonks are laughable gains at best user. Safety is a meme. Clover42 fixes this especially if poorfag or new.

VTI or VOO?

Assuming that institutional investors know about a given industry as well as someone that works in said industry.

Invest in what you know, follow the trends.

Look at Apple or Netflix vs SP500

Derivatives are a zero sum game but long term investments in an individual stock is not -

FNGU or die niggers

Attached: o9ik5g00a9p51.jpg (630x768, 37.4K)

>just beat the market, dummy
If you can do that you should be managing billions and taking the commission millions

I doubt any group or individual has perfect knowledge on what the price of a stock should be, regardless of whether they are in the industry or not. Corporate executive at the top of the industry are probably some of the major contributors to price discovery, however the price of stock reflects the expectations of millions of investors in the most competitively traded, most liquid market of all time. It is unlikely that someone can detect some magical undervaluation that the rest of the market cannot see for some reason (and reliably exploit it). Also, if you are already working in the industry or heavily invested in it, security is one of the major reasons to diversify out of it in case there is a downturn (also impossible for individuals to reliably predict).

VTI for increased exposure to small caps, but they are both good choices.

valuewalk.com/2016/05/80-percent-stocks-lifetime-return-zero/
Look at 80% stocks having a lifetime return of 0. Sure, you might get lucky and get large gains with an individual stock, but realize your risk adjusted gains will be lower than the broad market.

It's like people saying the market is for boomers, just double your money in a day with blackjack ;)

Attached: the simple path to wealth.jpg (324x500, 31.41K)

im going to drop a nice redpill on you
50% TQQQ/SOXL, no hedge, be a fucking man, hold and buy more on the -50% downswings. you will be rich as fuck

Attached: 1588809527734.png (217x233, 148.5K)

>he still believes the efficient market hypothesis in 2020
Do you realize that implies humans become omniscient just because they're pooled into a market? No, humans are just humans, markets reflect their consensus psychology, and popular consensus can and very often turn out to be incredibly wrong, especially that of sclerotic institutional investors. Markets have consistently been wrong about how to go about with longer term tech investing, for example, because boomers are unable to have any foresight for it.
And of course, the rise of passive investing is a massive bubble and an example of such herd mentality. Have fun getting rekt when boomers start selling. There is no free lunch - if you're outperforming the market by doing nothing, that should tip you off that something is fishy.
>what is liquidity
>burdened with being unable to take any real risks

>is an established, low-cost fully legitimate brokerage a meme?

Attached: are-you-a-fuckin-ass.jpg (324x218, 47.08K)

i use a spread of 10 different ETFs as basic savings accounts. Have made about 15% in 2 years. Much better than high yield savings accounts, and far less risky than crypto. Its basically my backup retirement fund if LINK doesnt 10 x from here

Oh, I didn't realize you were omniscient and you can outsmart the market consensus with your predictions. It's so simple, just buy the right stocks! The ones everyone else forgot about. You sure must be rich with that investment skill, maybe you should start a hedge fund and be one more person taking on risk to help support price discovery. I will be taking advantage of this contribution with my plain old index funds.

I have to get some sleep so I won't be replying anymore, but keep any eye on the S&P500 over the years. If you add up all your trading wins and losses over a period of 25 years, I guarantee the index will have beaten you. Especially if you're counting taxes and transaction fees.

10 different ETFs
The fees you must be paying for each one would offset the interest, surely?

>People on /smg/ and Zig Forums seem to think they are better money managers than 80-90% of the mutual fund industry and a large proportion of the hedge fund industry. These fund managers can not even beat the index and at most match it, over a long time horizon

You are wrong. What you were told:
> No one can guess which fund manager will do better than the [S&P500] average.

What you heard:
> No one can beat the average

What you repeated:
> Fund managers never beat the average.

This is true if you're a brainlet. If you look at the stocks that have skyrocked over the past decade, it's not exactly a surprise. Let's see here
Wow the company that revolutionized phone hardware did really well
Wow the company that dominated online retail did really well
Wow the company that mass-marketed the electric car did really well
Was it really "alpha" that these companies would perform well in the 2010s? This isn't some bullshit where it's all hindsight, "how could anyone have known!?"...they were clear and obvious innovators right out of the gate with tons of excitement. We all used Amazon back in 2010 too, we all had iPhones, so all it took to outperform boomer index funds was to use your head for ~30 seconds.

>We all used Amazon back in 2010 too, we all had iPhones, so all it took to outperform boomer index funds was to use your head for ~30 seconds.

This user is absolutely fucking correct. Index funds are for retards. Just pick a stock for a valuable company that will still exist 1 or 2 decades from now and hold onto it for a while.

For example I would not buy netflix in 2020 because they're peddling globohomo shit. And apple will get fucked if trump sanctions some chip maker they use. But amazon is still good to go.

i'd say apple/amazon/microsoft/google/faceborg are good to go for the long term. AMD/Intel/Qualcomm/TSM/NVIDIA also good to go long term. verizon, t-mobile, g2g longterm, at&t probably but lots of debt so would not put a lot into that. activision/tencent also longterm holds. around 35% of my portfolio is tech/telecom/semis/gaming, and to be honest it's all i'm buying going forward since it's the only real growth industry in this clownworld.