Democrats and Fake Republicans want Flowery Minority Speakers With Shakespearean Prose

[Raoul Duke MU]

No it's really not the point. Hindsight investing is always 100% accurate.

Or that the stock market is "Las Vegas", a "gamble".

Over time and over the index, the results are proven. It's not hindsight, like say you wish you could have been an early inverstor in just one stock.

You have less memory than an Atari 400. You always forget I claimed over a short period of time Wall Street is a gamble, and the chips are stacked against the average dummy, who is not getting in on some new IPO and doesn't have access to the algorithms and speed the big boys do. Poker has better odds than day trading or trying to pick individual stocks, and the really lucrative games are not open to the grandma investor. Over 40 or 50 years is an entirely different argument.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Over time and over the index, the results are proven. It's not hindsight, like say you wish you could have been an early inverstor in just one stock.

Bullshit. Plain "Index investing" was virtually ignored by most investors (aside from Jack Bogle) when this hypothetical hindsight "return" is being suggested.

If anyone can easily make 3000% or more on a simple buy and hold strategy then we sure as hell wouldn't be listening to all the haves and have nots complaining. No expertise needed.

 

[19MU88]

Bullshit. Plain "Index investing" was virtually ignored by most investors (aside from Jack Bogle) when this hypothetical hindsight "return" is being suggested.

If anyone can easily make 3000% or more on a simple buy and hold strategy then we sure as hell wouldn't be listening to all the haves and have nots complaining. No expertise needed.

game, set, match Raleigh.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Bullshit. Plain "Index investing" was virtually ignored by most investors (aside from Jack Bogle) when this hypothetical hindsight "return" is being suggested.

If anyone can easily make 3000% or more on a simple buy and hold strategy then we sure as hell wouldn't be listening to all the haves and have nots complaining. No expertise needed.

Plain index funds, no. A diversified portfolio would still probably outperform, and should have been no problem for a man of such great intellect and talent.

The problem with investing is one has to have the money to do it. The have nots sure don't.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

game, set, match Raleigh.

Not at all. The adage that investing in the stock market is the best long term investment strategy isn't new. Like over 2000% over the past 80 years on large stocks alone.

I give Trump credit for maximizing the value of his brand. He was born at the right time though...the 80s were the perfect time to make his brand imagine.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

And he gets better Pie than even you. LMAO

Seriously though, how do you guys even type some of this stuff? You guys are telling a billionaire how he should have invested his money and what he did wrong? Really.

No, he doesn't. His claim that she was this "very successful model" are exaggerated. She wasn't a super-model, top 100 model in the world at any time in her life. She is beautiful, especially for her age, but there were plenty more just like her during her prime.

I am not sure why this is so hard to understand. The guy was given $100 million. Had he simply made a very basic, low-risk investment without needing any work, he would have more money than he does now. He chose a different path - lots of work and far more risk - to yield less of a profit. That isn't good.

His business was real estate. He took $100m inheritance and now has a net worth of ~$3-4bil.

Oh, so you're calling him a liar? He has repeatedly claimed his worth is around $10 million.

No it's really not the point. Hindsight investing is always 100% accurate. Any average moron can look back and say what someone else should have done with their money over the last 30-40 years. It doesn't take an expert to do that.

His business was real estate.

What's the point of having a business if it yields less than what a basic, low-risk investment would do? Look at the example in my previous post. Does earning $200,000 from my real estate rehab company make me a great businessman? Of course not. A basic, low-risk investment with no work would have earned me more. The same holds true for cheeto.

Hey, he can make money in real estate. He could have made more with a lot less work and risk by making basic investments. That makes him the opposite of a good businessman.

 

[Walden Pond]

All it would really take for him to instantly become a great businessman is to adopt the liberal agenda.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Plain index funds, no. A diversified portfolio would still probably outperform, and should have been no problem for a man of such great intellect and talent.

The problem with investing is one has to have the money to do it. The have nots sure don't.

Well hell....lets just continue to change the premise of the article provided and the original discussion while you are at it.

The point that was attempted to be made by "nutjob" was that it should be easy to grow your net worth (in Trump's case by 3000%) simply because one inherits a large fortune. That's a completely ignorant, naïve statement.

As evidence he uses an article (with hindsight 20/20 expertise) that cant even present accurate comparisons or terminology.(1.discussing an S&P based "mutual fund" being the same investment vehicle as an "index fund" is completely inaccurate. 2. Which S&P mutual fund or Index Fund? There are dozens. Yes that matters based on their equity holdings and weightings throughout the decades).

"Had the celebrity businessman and Republican presidential candidate invested his eventual share of his father’s real-estate company into a mutual fund of S&P 500 stocks in 1974, it would be worth nearly $3 billion today, thanks to the market’s performance over the past four decades.

If he’d invested the $200 million that Forbes magazine determined he was worth in 1982 into that index fund, it would have grown to more than $8 billion today"

This article was too vague at best. But lets assume (for the sake of not going off in some new direction)that the author understood what was being written and sticking with the assertion made nutjob and what the article pretends to "know"....Why the hell does it matter how much money one has to invest if it is so easy with these implied guarantees of return you are now supporting?

If it's so easy to increase one's wealth by 3000% in such an investment strategy (that even Grandma could do without algo's).....what does it matter how much you have now? Even a relatively small amount of $$$ could "automatically" grow into the millions...just by "doing nothing". Based on this premise, there simply should not be have nots.

If "doing nothing" and claiming hindsight hypotheticals is proof of one's expertise.........then there would be a "Monday Morning QB" wing at the HOF.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Oh, so you're calling him a liar? He has repeatedly claimed his worth is around $10 million

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........Don't you mean $10billion? LOL.

With that said, I only go by what Forbes estimates for this discussion. They have access to most of the numbers. Its the simplest way to try and have a discussion with Monday Morning QBs. $10million. Bahahahaha

 

[raleighherdfan]

Look at the example in my previous post. Does earning $200,000 from my real estate rehab company make me a great businessman?

Except for the fact he took ~100mil and is now worth about ~3-4bil.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........Don't you mean $10billion? LOL.
$10million. Bahahahaha

Ohhhh! You got me! Wow, you really got me good. I mean, it isn't like the "m" and "b" are one letter away or anything. It isn't like reading comprehension would have shown an average idiot that it was intended to be "billion." Why else would it have made since for cheeto to boast about being worth $10 million, then have me reference the $3-$4 billion claim you made?

See, this is where pure stupidity comes in. I could spend all days correcting morons on their spelling and grammar; people who don't know the difference of what is right versus wrong. For instance, '429, at least twice in the last day or two, has used "to" instead of the appropriate "too." I could do the same with many of your posts. These aren't simply accidental mistakes by typing the wrong key, but rather the inability to know the correct way. You, on the other hand, are too dumb to determine when things are simply mistakes of typing an unintended key compared with somebody just not having the intelligence to know the proper way.

$10million. Bahahahaha

Ohhh! That was such a good one that you got me in that you had to start and finish your post with it! Man, you really showed me.

 

[NutcaseConservative]

Well hell....lets just continue to change the premise of the article provided and the original discussion while you are at it.

The point that was attempted to be made by "nutjob" was that it should be easy to grow your net worth (in Trump's case by 3000%) simply because one inherits a large fortune. That's a completely ignorant, naïve statement.

As evidence he uses an article (with hindsight 20/20 expertise) that cant even present accurate comparisons or terminology.(1.discussing an S&P based "mutual fund" being the same investment vehicle as an "index fund" is completely inaccurate. 2. Which S&P mutual fund or Index Fund? There are dozens. Yes that matters based on their equity holdings and weightings throughout the decades).

"Had the celebrity businessman and Republican presidential candidate invested his eventual share of his father’s real-estate company into a mutual fund of S&P 500 stocks in 1974, it would be worth nearly $3 billion today, thanks to the market’s performance over the past four decades.

If he’d invested the $200 million that Forbes magazine determined he was worth in 1982 into that index fund, it would have grown to more than $8 billion today"

This article was too vague at best. But lets assume (for the sake of not going off in some new direction)that the author understood what was being written and sticking with the assertion made nutjob and what the article pretends to "know"....Why the hell does it matter how much money one has to invest if it is so easy with these implied guarantees of return you are now supporting?

If it's so easy to increase one's wealth by 3000% in such an investment strategy (that even Grandma could do without algo's).....what does it matter how much you have now? Even a relatively small amount of $$$ could "automatically" grow into the millions...just by "doing nothing". Based on this premise, there simply should not be have nots.

If "doing nothing" and claiming hindsight hypotheticals is proof of one's expertise.........then there would be a "Monday Morning QB" wing at the HOF.

Here's another article with more detail about Biff's wealth... I know you won't believe it and you feel obligated to defend Orange Sphincter, hell you'd defend Biff if he took a dump in your own living room. I think you're taking this all too personal.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/katest...-better-off-investing-in-stocks/#6191c39e437b

 

[raleighherdfan]

Ahhh yes. The usual and expected "I am smart and you are dumb" reply.

It was only a matter of time before Rifle offered up his brilliant reply.

Here's another article with more detail about Biff's wealth... I know you won't believe it and you feel obligated to defend Orange Sphincter, hell you'd defend Biff if he took a dump in your own living room. I think you're taking this all too personal.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/katest...-better-off-investing-in-stocks/#6191c39e437b

You just can't seem to get the point.

Basic logic would tell you that simply asserting what someone else should have done with their money 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago, in order to prove that the ~3000% they actually grew their wealth over the same period, isn't enough for your perceived demands for expert levels of business acumen is preposterous.

That's not taking it personal or defending Trump specifically. It's basic common sense.

What's incredibly ironic is watching you libs suddenly take up the mantle of Wall St and the "Science of Investing" through the use of a "hoarding" strategy like "buy and hold" as proof of one's superior intellect.

 

[C.K. Ocsevol-Evad]

Ahhh yes. The usual and expected "I am smart and you are dumb" reply.

It was only a matter of time before Rifle offered up his brilliant reply.
.

There really isn't much more that needs to be said when somebody posts, twice, that a simple unintended keystroke is so funny or proves something.

 

[raleighherdfan]

You know what's really funny??

Waiting on the self proclaimed business and investment experts here to tell us what the value and return on the S&P will be ~32 years from today.

Since it's so simple and guaranteed according to historical theoreticals, might as well count my future profits and returns (before I actually have them).

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

What's incredibly ironic is watching you libs suddenly take up the mantle of Wall St and the "Science of Investing" through the use of a "hoarding" strategy like "buy and hold" as proof of one's superior intellect.

I must not be a lib, I have been investing since my early 20's. I also understand I didn't start with enough to end up filthy fvcking rich like Trump...who started off filthy fvcking rich to begin with. That's the point you can't seem to grasp. Filthy rich but so consistently in debt up to his eyeballs that he has multiple bankruptcies. . That isn't impressive. I am much more impressed with Steve Jobs, who was, like Trump, a scumbag, but at least he did it from nothing, and did it with ideas.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Waiting on the self proclaimed business and investment experts here to tell us what the value and return on the S&P will be ~32 years from today.

Who cares, we will all be dead by then.

 

[i am herdman]

No, he doesn't. His claim that she was this "very successful model" are exaggerated. She wasn't a super-model, top 100 model in the world at any time in her life. She is beautiful, especially for her age, but there were plenty more just like her during her prime.

I am not sure why this is so hard to understand. The guy was given $100 million. Had he simply made a very basic, low-risk investment without needing any work, he would have more money than he does now. He chose a different path - lots of work and far more risk - to yield less of a profit. That isn't good.



Oh, so you're calling him a liar? He has repeatedly claimed his worth is around $10 million.




What's the point of having a business if it yields less than what a basic, low-risk investment would do? Look at the example in my previous post. Does earning $200,000 from my real estate rehab company make me a great businessman? Of course not. A basic, low-risk investment with no work would have earned me more. The same holds true for cheeto.

Hey, he can make money in real estate. He could have made more with a lot less work and risk by making basic investments. That makes him the opposite of a good businessman.

Then why does anybody invest in real estate?

Lol stick to coaching football.

 

[Walden Pond]

The best part is these libs whining about the plight of the poor yet talking about investing and living a life of excess. Talking like they're rich. How about dividing it up among some minimum wage workers until you all have the same amount?

 

[19MU88]

Then why does anybody invest in real estate?

Lol stick to coaching football.

I thought he was unemployed?

 

[raleighherdfan]

I must not be a lib, I have been investing since my early 20's. I also understand I didn't start with enough to end up filthy fvcking rich like Trump...who started off filthy fvcking rich to begin with. That's the point you can't seem to grasp. Filthy rich but so consistently in debt up to his eyeballs that he has multiple bankruptcies. . That isn't impressive. I am much more impressed with Steve Jobs, who was, like Trump, a scumbag, but at least he did it from nothing, and did it with ideas.

Well then, you must not be investing in the same passive funds that Trump "should have" in order to beat the 3000% growth he's experienced as the linked articles suggest.

Remember, according to the articles, the same type of passive "index" that any grandma could buy and hold.....ultimately "outperforming" Trump's returns, in the hundreds of businesses he's started or owned over the years.

Which leads to your comments on Jobs vs Trump. Jobs essentially started two companies. No one denies his brilliance. However comparing T&J business is largely an apples to oranges comparison. Both entrepreneurs focused on completely different sectors/industries. Sectors/industries with countless variations in their respective cycles and trends that impact overall returns.

Which begs the question based on nutjobs assertions. Had Jobs taken his $250mill he was worth when he was 25 yrs old and invested in more shares of his own company in the early 80's, his estate would have been worth over $160 billion, and not the $10 billion it ended up being at his death. Apparently Jobs wasn't as smart a business guy as everyone thinks. (See how hindsight investing works?)

 

[raleighherdfan]

Who cares, we will all be dead by then.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Well then, you must not be investing in the same passive funds that Trump "should have" in order to beat the 3000% growth he's experienced as the linked articles suggest.

Remember, according to the articles, the same type of passive "index" that any grandma could buy and hold.....ultimately "outperforming" Trump's returns, in the hundreds of businesses he's started or owned over the years.

Which leads to your comments on Jobs vs Trump. Jobs essentially started two companies. No one denies his brilliance. However comparing T&J business is largely an apples to oranges comparison. Both entrepreneurs focused on completely different sectors/industries. Sectors/industries with countless variations in their respective cycles and trends that impact overall returns.

Which begs the question based on nutjobs assertions. Had Jobs taken his $250mill he was worth when he was 25 yrs old and invested in more shares of his own company in the early 80's, his estate would have been worth over $160 billion, and not the $10 billion it ended up being at his death. Apparently Jobs wasn't as smart a business guy as everyone thinks. (See how hindsight investing works?)

He probably should have, instead of blowing most of it. But his last ten million is an interesting comparison in styles here. Jobs took $10 million in The Graphics Group which became Pixar and sold it to Disney for $7 billion, beating both Trump and this index investing idea on return. Trump was busy filing bankruptcy and stiffing people. Shit, Taj Mahal barely lasted a year before bankruptcy. Maybe Trump should have taken some LSD and got some ideas...now that's hindsight. And there again is my comparison: Trump did nothing brilliant.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Speak for yourself.

WW III is coming.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Trump was busy filing bankruptcy

And still grew his net worth by 3000%.

The Graphics Group which became Pixar and sold it to Disney for $7 billion,

Actually, he personally netted about $4billion, according to public records. (The market cap was 10bil.). A key difference between personal net worth and market cap of a business.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Then why does anybody invest in real estate?

Lol stick to coaching football.

I think I know what you are trying to say, but I'm not sure I even think you are dumb enough to be trying to say it.

Where did I ever say you couldn't make money in real estate investing? What most readers could imply was that I argued that investing in something that yielded positive, large returns decade after decade after decade was a far safer, far more efficient, and far easier endeavor than investing in real estate.

I thought he was unemployed?

I've been self-employed for nine years and have made more in the first two years (and the last two, if you want to use a different timeframe) than you will make in a decade.

 

[19MU88]

I think I know what you are trying to say, but I'm not sure I even think you are dumb enough to be trying to say it.

Where did I ever say you couldn't make money in real estate investing? What most readers could imply was that I argued that investing in something that yielded positive, large returns decade after decade after decade was a far safer, far more efficient, and far easier endeavor than investing in real estate.




I've been self-employed for nine years and have made more in the first two years (and the last two, if you want to use a different timeframe) than you will make in a decade.

LMAO....you don't know squat. In any case, I'm happy to hear you landed on your feet after becoming an unemployed ex small college assistant coach...most people don't end up significantly improving their situation in that case. Good for you. And if you really are making that cash (which would be very significant if you topped my decade LOL)...with your investing prowess in index funds you should be a multi millionaire/billionaire in no time!!

 

[i am herdman]

I think I know what you are trying to say, but I'm not sure I even think you are dumb enough to be trying to say it.

Where did I ever say you couldn't make money in real estate investing? What most readers could imply was that I argued that investing in something that yielded positive, large returns decade after decade after decade was a far safer, far more efficient, and far easier endeavor than investing in real estate.




I've been self-employed for nine years and have made more in the first two years (and the last two, if you want to use a different timeframe) than you will make in a decade.

The women you bed are top notch. I will give you that kind sir. A tip if the cap.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

LMAO....you don't know squat. In any case, I'm happy to hear you landed on your feet after becoming an unemployed ex small college assistant coach...most people don't end up significantly improving their situation in that case.

When was I never not on my feet where I would have to "land" on my feet? I made far more before ever coaching and during coaching from other endeavors than I have coaching.

I didn't coach for one season. Last year, my QB finished in the top 10 in the country at FCS in total offense per game, passing yards per game, TD/INT ratio, completions per game . . . as a sophomore.

My situation didn't "significantly improve." It was already improved before ever having coached.

Yes, clearly I know squat, and you aren't it.

 

[19MU88]

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm happy to hear you are doing well and always have. I also could care less what you think of me, I don't come to message boards for some strange self validation.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

LMAO....you don't know squat. In any case, I'm happy to hear you landed on your feet after becoming an unemployed ex small college assistant coach...most people don't end up significantly improving their situation in that case. Good for you. And if you really are making that cash (which would be very significant if you topped my decade LOL)

I'm not tugging on rifle's root, but yeah he does pretty good without coaching, and has for a while...I would guess that's what allows him to be in coaching without downgrading the lifestyle he is accustomed to. Which is awesome. I found my calling, the one I think God meant me to do, and my lifestyle has gone to shit lol.

 

[i am herdman]

WW III is coming.

I agree with you there.