RenHoek said:

There needs to be another jump in technology before we start talking 1000 kilometers on a single charge...

It would have been so sweet to cruise through Europe in a smooth, silent, non-stinky ride.

I've got some mutual funds. My financial advisor is holding off on putting more dough in them right now, due to market uncertainty, but I'd be surprised if I didn't start investing in them again in the near future.

Vendetta1 said:

Yeah, it's unfortunate that a lot of people don't realize that the market always rebounds.

Interesting contrary view, from '08:

http://www.macleans.ca/business/economy/article.jsp?content=20081022_87670_87670

Ace said:

I've got some mutual funds. My financial advisor is holding off on putting more dough in them right now, due to market uncertainty, but I'd be surprised if I didn't start investing in them again in the near future.

Vendetta1 said:

Yeah, it's unfortunate that a lot of people don't realize that the market always rebounds.

Interesting contrary view, from '08:

http://www.macleans.ca/business/economy/article.jsp?content=20081022_87670_87670

Interesting indeed. Thanks. That was a good read.

retina said:

RenHoek said:

There needs to be another jump in technology before we start talking 1000 kilometers on a single charge...

It would have been so sweet to cruise through Europe in a smooth, silent, non-stinky ride.

tru dat but I wanna try the 0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds (or whatever...)

gofastgofastgofast!!!

Vendetta1 said:

RenHoek said:

RE: Tesla...

I thought they started fair outta the gate (it's not like they were going to double in value ) and cooled a little faster than I had expected... Their smartest move was the announcement of the continued production of the E-RAV4 (Toyota design) in their "new" Bay Area plant. I think it's CRITICAL that they make an "approachable" e-car. Sure we'd all LOVE to have the Roadster (150k ) or the S Sedan (60k ) but they really NEED an entry level vehicle, around 30k.

(prices probably not accurate but they're around there... I think.)

What I find funny is how they don't ask the public would they purchase such cars before they manufacture them. I would love an e-car but paying 30 or more is out of the question for me. At least it's a Toyota. I am never buying American again.

I work for a large mutual fund company.

I see the market going back up the remainder of the year

thru 2011 but then another bubble will hit.

A few yrs ago we lost a HUGE amount of $$ in "stocks" ...1st time I have ever lost that much in over 30 yrs

Mach said:

A few yrs ago we lost a HUGE amount of $$ in "stocks" ...1st time I have ever lost that much in over 30 yrs

u and every 1 else.

pink sheets is where it's at.

that is all.

Cerebus said:

Vendetta1 said:

What I find funny is how they don't ask the public would they purchase such cars before they manufacture them. I would love an e-car but paying 30 or more is out of the question for me. At least it's a Toyota. I am never buying American again.

Sorry pumpkin. I've had 4 American cars and 2 foreign. Ford gave me nothing but grief. My two Chevys were pieces of garbage.

0x41414141 said:

pink sheets is where it's at.

that is all.

Think so, huh? Why?

I love this thread

I've not dabbled in anything quite yet. Grad school and traveling are my primary interests right now, so I'm not at a point where I can really focus on it. Plus I don't have much optimism in regards to the stock market right now.

I'm trying to get back into it (I was doing tons of research last year). When I do start investing I want to start off with mutual funds...then progress to bonds and blue chip stocks. I don't think I'll ever get into the more volatile stocks (Google, SBUX). I'm not very risk tolerant in any aspect of my life and most certainly not my paper

Investopedia and stocktrak are definitely useful resources

[Edited 8/3/10 15:45pm]

Mach said:

A few yrs ago we lost a HUGE amount of $$ in "stocks" ...1st time I have ever lost that much in over 30 yrs

Very sorry to hear that. Was it during one of the big crashes, or did you just happen to pick crappy stocks?

Edit: And did you hold onto the stocks after they crashed to see if they'd rebound or did you sell?

[Edited 8/3/10 17:43pm]

etifaim said:

I love this thread

I've not dabbled in anything quite yet. Grad school and traveling are my primary interests right now, so I'm not at a point where I can really focus on it. Plus I don't have much optimism in regards to the stock market right now.

I'm trying to get back into it (I was doing tons of research last year). When I do start investing I want to start off with mutual funds...then progress to bonds and blue chip stocks. I don't think I'll ever get into the more volatile stocks (Google, SBUX). I'm not very risk tolerant in any aspect of my life and most certainly not my paper

Investopedia and stocktrak are definitely useful resources

[Edited 8/3/10 15:45pm]

The whole issue of risk tolerance is very interesting. I'm a bit schizophrenic when it comes to that; my current portfolio is divided into 50% very low risk stuff (government bonds, corporate bonds and other interest generating papers) and 50% very high risk stuff (hand-picked highly volatile stocks). So you could say that overall, it's a medium risk portfolio. It doesn't feel like that to me though since the psychology is that I have a solid platform to lean on so that I can really gamble with the other half.

As most financial advisors would tell you, the risk level should depend on whether you want to be short-term or long-term in your investment. The higher the risk, the better it's suited for long-term since the risk then has time to pay off and you don't have to worry about sharp but relatively brief drops. And vice versa, if you want a year-by-year steady cash flow (i.e. short term), you should go with low risk.

I can't say that I always follow that rule of thumb though. I'm making a living out of my trading and to achieve that you sometimes have to take higher risks in the short term perspective in order to generate enough money. In those cases though, you have to make sure that you're on the ball and sell fast before a drop, or at least immediately after it's begun. Otherwise it doesn't work.

retina said:

Mach said:

A few yrs ago we lost a HUGE amount of $$ in "stocks" ...1st time I have ever lost that much in over 30 yrs

Very sorry to hear that. Was it during one of the big crashes, or did you just happen to pick crappy stocks?

Edit: And did you hold onto the stocks after they crashed to see if they'd rebound or did you sell?

[Edited 8/3/10 17:43pm]

Yeah it was a crash they were really good stocks ~ left the ( approx ) 100 grand outta 350 there and as the company is regaining strength the stocks are improving ~ not back to the $ total yet but MAYBE in several more yrs Th co just picked up a major military "going green" project so ... *fingers crossed *

so...

IF

I get into some serious investing (and it's a pretty big IF... ) then I am ALL OVER dividend stocks...

The Dividend Play for a Lifetime

now, granted, I use The Motley Fool as a GINORMOUS crutch but what's the overall OrgVestor impression? Are they on to something??

What are some other really great investor-info sites that you know of and are willing to share??

RenHoek said:

so...

IF

I get into some serious investing (and it's a pretty big IF... ) then I am ALL OVER dividend stocks...

The Dividend Play for a Lifetime

now, granted, I use The Motley Fool as a GINORMOUS crutch but what's the overall OrgVestor impression? Are they on to something??

What are some other really great investor-info sites that you know of and are willing to share??

Pretty much any wirehouse website will be a wealth of information. Some will even let you set an account to trade imaginary money. If I think of those or come across them at work, I'll share them here.

Vendetta1 said:

RenHoek said:

so...

IF

I get into some serious investing (and it's a pretty big IF... ) then I am ALL OVER dividend stocks...

The Dividend Play for a Lifetime

now, granted, I use The Motley Fool as a GINORMOUS crutch but what's the overall OrgVestor impression? Are they on to something??

What are some other really great investor-info sites that you know of and are willing to share??

Pretty much any wirehouse website will be a wealth of information. Some will even let you set an account to trade imaginary money. If I think of those or come across them at work, I'll share them here.

what did you think of the article? How good is The Fool really? What's your take on dividend investing? It seems to me that that's where it's at...

(hope your'e feeling better!)

Mach said:

retina said:

Very sorry to hear that. Was it during one of the big crashes, or did you just happen to pick crappy stocks?

Edit: And did you hold onto the stocks after they crashed to see if they'd rebound or did you sell?

[Edited 8/3/10 17:43pm]

Yeah it was a crash they were really good stocks ~ left the ( approx ) 100 grand outta 350 there and as the company is regaining strength the stocks are improving ~ not back to the $ total yet but MAYBE in several more yrs Th co just picked up a major military "going green" project so ... *fingers crossed *

Sorry, just for clarification: You invested $350,000 in one single company? Then the market crashed and you kept stocks for a value of $100,000 and sold the rest? Perhaps reinvested them in something else? And now the overall result is approaching the level before the crash?

Or are you saying that the stocks were worth $350,000 after the crash, and you then sold everything except the $100,000? If so, how much were they worth before the crash?

Or am I getting it backwards altogether? lol

Young people make the mistake of panicking and selling when markets go down, if you have a retirement account, and your in your 30's/20's, it is okay to be risky and if market crashes, dont sell...ride it out...let the market come back (it will), in fact when the market crashes, start investing, that is what I do. Back in 08-09' I started buying. It is like a clearance sale at walmart

If its a retirement account you shouldnt be monitoring it so closely anways.

Now if your old and it is your life savings..that is another story.

retina said:

The whole issue of risk tolerance is very interesting. I'm a bit schizophrenic when it comes to that; my current portfolio is divided into 50% very low risk stuff (government bonds, corporate bonds and other interest generating papers) and 50% very high risk stuff (hand-picked highly volatile stocks). So you could say that overall, it's a medium risk portfolio. It doesn't feel like that to me though since the psychology is that I have a solid platform to lean on so that I can really gamble with the other half.

As most financial advisors would tell you, the risk level should depend on whether you want to be short-term or long-term in your investment. The higher the risk, the better it's suited for long-term since the risk then has time to pay off and you don't have to worry about sharp but relatively brief drops. And vice versa, if you want a year-by-year steady cash flow (i.e. short term), you should go with low risk.

I can't say that I always follow that rule of thumb though. I'm making a living out of my trading and to achieve that you sometimes have to take higher risks in the short term perspective in order to generate enough money. In those cases though, you have to make sure that you're on the ball and sell fast before a drop, or at least immediately after it's begun. Otherwise it doesn't work.

It's interesting that you say that (@ the bolded) because I've always taken it the other way. Highly volatile stocks are more beneficial for the short term, IMO, because folks (often daytraders) can keep close watch on the volatility and act accordingly (buy, short, sell) and potentially make higher profits in the short term. That takes a hell of a lot of time and dedication though. For the long term I would think that the overall return from high risk stocks would balance out over time, yet probably give a return equivalent to investing in lower risk stocks, so to me all that time and dedication trying to reap high returns doesn't really pay off in the long term.

For lower risk stocks, I think it would be most beneficial for the long term since (in the case of blue chip stocks) the stock has a history of giving a steady return over the years that would on average give an annual return between 6-8% which is great for putting into a Roth IRA or 401(k). I'm more interested in long term investing, so blue chips are the way to go in that regard!

[Edited 8/4/10 10:20am]

etifaim said:

retina said:

The whole issue of risk tolerance is very interesting. I'm a bit schizophrenic when it comes to that; my current portfolio is divided into 50% very low risk stuff (government bonds, corporate bonds and other interest generating papers) and 50% very high risk stuff (hand-picked highly volatile stocks). So you could say that overall, it's a medium risk portfolio. It doesn't feel like that to me though since the psychology is that I have a solid platform to lean on so that I can really gamble with the other half.

As most financial advisors would tell you, the risk level should depend on whether you want to be short-term or long-term in your investment. The higher the risk, the better it's suited for long-term since the risk then has time to pay off and you don't have to worry about sharp but relatively brief drops. And vice versa, if you want a year-by-year steady cash flow (i.e. short term), you should go with low risk.

I can't say that I always follow that rule of thumb though. I'm making a living out of my trading and to achieve that you sometimes have to take higher risks in the short term perspective in order to generate enough money. In those cases though, you have to make sure that you're on the ball and sell fast before a drop, or at least immediately after it's begun. Otherwise it doesn't work.

It's interesting that you say that (@ the bolded) because I've always taken it the other way. Highly volatile stocks are more beneficial for the short term, IMO, because folks (often daytraders) can keep close watch on the volatility and act accordingly (buy, short, sell) and potentially make higher profits in the short term. That takes a hell of a lot of time and dedication though. For the long term I would think that the overall return from high risk stocks would balance out over time, yet probably give a return equivalent to investing in lower risk stocks, so to me all that time and dedication trying to reap high returns doesn't really pay off in the long term.

For lower risk stocks, I think it would be most beneficial for the long term since (in the case of blue chip stocks) the stock has a history of giving a steady return over the years that would on average give an annual return between 6-8% which is great for putting into a Roth IRA or 401(k). I'm more interested in long term investing, so blue chips are the way to go in that regard!

[Edited 8/4/10 10:20am]

However in the end it's best to diversify and not put all your eggs in one basket, but I err on the side of lower risk securities since I want a steady return over a long period of time.

etifaim said:

retina said:

The whole issue of risk tolerance is very interesting. I'm a bit schizophrenic when it comes to that; my current portfolio is divided into 50% very low risk stuff (government bonds, corporate bonds and other interest generating papers) and 50% very high risk stuff (hand-picked highly volatile stocks). So you could say that overall, it's a medium risk portfolio. It doesn't feel like that to me though since the psychology is that I have a solid platform to lean on so that I can really gamble with the other half.

As most financial advisors would tell you, the risk level should depend on whether you want to be short-term or long-term in your investment. The higher the risk, the better it's suited for long-term since the risk then has time to pay off and you don't have to worry about sharp but relatively brief drops. And vice versa, if you want a year-by-year steady cash flow (i.e. short term), you should go with low risk.

I can't say that I always follow that rule of thumb though. I'm making a living out of my trading and to achieve that you sometimes have to take higher risks in the short term perspective in order to generate enough money. In those cases though, you have to make sure that you're on the ball and sell fast before a drop, or at least immediately after it's begun. Otherwise it doesn't work.

It's interesting that you say that (@ the bolded) because I've always taken it the other way. Highly volatile stocks are more beneficial for the short term, IMO, because folks (often daytraders) can keep close watch on the volatility and act accordingly (buy, short, sell) and potentially make higher profits in the short term. That takes a hell of a lot of time and dedication though. For the long term I would think that the overall return from high risk stocks would balance out over time, yet probably give a return equivalent to investing in lower risk stocks, so to me all that time and dedication trying to reap high returns doesn't really pay off in the long term.

For lower risk stocks, I think it would be most beneficial for the long term since (in the case of blue chip stocks) the stock has a history of giving a steady return over the years that would on average give an annual return between 6-8% which is great for putting into a Roth IRA or 401(k). I'm more interested in long term investing, so blue chips are the way to go in that regard!

[Edited 8/4/10 10:20am]

You're right that you can earn a lot of money in the short term with high risk if you're very active, knowledgable and lucky. That's basically what I was talking about in the third paragraph.

However, I maintain that if you compare a long-term high risk portfolio with a long-term low risk portfolio (long term meaning decades), the high risk portfolio wins every time. It has many ups and downs along the way but the risk pays off over time, much more so than a steady but lower risk (and thereby lower yield) portfolio. So conversely this means that in the shorter perspective you're usually better off with low risk since it gives you a "guaranteed" return, whereas high risk might leave you with a big deficit that you don't have time to compensate for. Just ask any experienced stock investor if you don't want to take my word for it. It's all just standard portfolio building, proven by the whole history of stock investment.

retina said:

etifaim said:

It's interesting that you say that (@ the bolded) because I've always taken it the other way. Highly volatile stocks are more beneficial for the short term, IMO, because folks (often daytraders) can keep close watch on the volatility and act accordingly (buy, short, sell) and potentially make higher profits in the short term. That takes a hell of a lot of time and dedication though. For the long term I would think that the overall return from high risk stocks would balance out over time, yet probably give a return equivalent to investing in lower risk stocks, so to me all that time and dedication trying to reap high returns doesn't really pay off in the long term.

For lower risk stocks, I think it would be most beneficial for the long term since (in the case of blue chip stocks) the stock has a history of giving a steady return over the years that would on average give an annual return between 6-8% which is great for putting into a Roth IRA or 401(k). I'm more interested in long term investing, so blue chips are the way to go in that regard!

[Edited 8/4/10 10:20am]

You're right that you can earn a lot of money in the short term with high risk if you're very active, knowledgable and lucky. That's basically what I was talking about in the third paragraph.

However, I maintain that if you compare a long-term high risk portfolio with a long-term low risk portfolio (long term meaning decades), the high risk portfolio wins every time. It has many ups and downs along the way but the risk pays off over time, much more so than a steady but lower risk (and thereby lower yield) portfolio. So conversely this means that in the shorter perspective you're usually better off with low risk since it gives you a "guaranteed" return, whereas high risk might leave you with a big deficit that you don't have time to compensate for. Just ask any experienced stock investor if you don't want to take my word for it. It's all just standard portfolio building, proven by the whole history of stock investment.

It's not so much about taking someone's word for it, as it is doing your own research and coming to a conclusion based on what makes sense for you. Suze Orman and Buffett have different approaches based on what works best for them. There is certainly no one way to invest is basically the conclusion I've come to and was seeking to point out.

And I indeed have colleagues who work/have worked as brokers and finance professors that I've spoken with on several occasions, so in the end it's more than taking someone's word for it.

etifaim said:

retina said:

You're right that you can earn a lot of money in the short term with high risk if you're very active, knowledgable and lucky. That's basically what I was talking about in the third paragraph.

However, I maintain that if you compare a long-term high risk portfolio with a long-term low risk portfolio (long term meaning decades), the high risk portfolio wins every time. It has many ups and downs along the way but the risk pays off over time, much more so than a steady but lower risk (and thereby lower yield) portfolio. So conversely this means that in the shorter perspective you're usually better off with low risk since it gives you a "guaranteed" return, whereas high risk might leave you with a big deficit that you don't have time to compensate for. Just ask any experienced stock investor if you don't want to take my word for it. It's all just standard portfolio building, proven by the whole history of stock investment.

It's not so much about taking someone's word for it, as it is doing your own research and coming to a conclusion based on what makes sense for you. Suze Orman and Buffett have different approaches based on what works best for them. There is certainly no one way to invest is basically the conclusion I've come to and was seeking to point out.

And I indeed have colleagues who work/have worked as brokers and finance professors that I've spoken with on several occasions, so in the end it's more than taking someone's word for it.

Sure, I just figured that since you were making the exact kind of assumptions about risk that most inexperienced stock investors make, I'd offer an approach more anchored in the actual history of the numbers of high and low risk investment respectively. It's an approach that is not exact science, but it is considered pretty well-established by now and advice along those lines is routinely given by most banks to new investors. You're very welcome to go ahead and do what you want and think is best though. It's your money. And sometimes the contrarian perspective works.

retina said:

etifaim said:

It's not so much about taking someone's word for it, as it is doing your own research and coming to a conclusion based on what makes sense for you. Suze Orman and Buffett have different approaches based on what works best for them. There is certainly no one way to invest is basically the conclusion I've come to and was seeking to point out.

And I indeed have colleagues who work/have worked as brokers and finance professors that I've spoken with on several occasions, so in the end it's more than taking someone's word for it.

Sure, I just figured that since you were making the exact kind of assumptions about risk that most inexperienced stock investors make, I'd offer an approach more anchored in the actual history of the numbers of high and low risk investment respectively. It's an approach that is not exact science, but it is considered pretty well-established by now and advice along those lines is routinely given by most banks to new investors. You're very welcome to go ahead and do what you want and think is best though. It's your money. And sometimes the contrarian perspective works.

Making an assumption vs. studying in depth about investment approaches and coming to a conclusion is not the same thing. You're obviously a more aggressive investor and that's fine. Not everyone is like that. Doesn't make them "inexperienced". Neither of us are experts, it's more of an art than a science at the end of the day.

[Edited 8/4/10 11:35am]

etifaim said:

retina said:

Sure, I just figured that since you were making the exact kind of assumptions about risk that most inexperienced stock investors make, I'd offer an approach more anchored in the actual history of the numbers of high and low risk investment respectively. It's an approach that is not exact science, but it is considered pretty well-established by now and advice along those lines is routinely given by most banks to new investors. You're very welcome to go ahead and do what you want and think is best though. It's your money. And sometimes the contrarian perspective works.

Making an assumption vs. studying in depth about investment approaches and coming to a conclusion is not the same thing. You're obviously a more aggressive investor and that's fine. Not everyone is like that. Doesn't make them "inexperienced". Neither of us are experts, it's more of an art than a science at the end of the day.

[Edited 8/4/10 11:35am]

All I mean by "inexperienced" is that you - just like most people - don't seem to have looked at the actual numbers how investments of various degrees of risk have turned out throughout the history of the stock market. Your line of reasoning is one based on how you think things reasonably should be, rather than how they've actually been. High risk, long-term investments have historically had a better yield than low risk, long-term investments. That's just simply how it's been. And based on that long and consistent history, I'd say it should be fair to make a prediction that the future will follow along those same lines.

But who knows, maybe things will suddenly start to evolve differently from now on? Or maybe the whole world will suddenly suffer through "Japanese lost decades" as referenced in an earlier post? So go with your gut, and the future will prove you right or wrong. I was just trying to offer a helping hand.

retina said:

Mach said:

Yeah it was a crash they were really good stocks ~ left the ( approx ) 100 grand outta 350 there and as the company is regaining strength the stocks are improving ~ not back to the $ total yet but MAYBE in several more yrs Th co just picked up a major military "going green" project so ... *fingers crossed *

Sorry, just for clarification: You invested $350,000 in one single company? Then the market crashed and you kept stocks for a value of $100,000 and sold the rest? Perhaps reinvested them in something else? And now the overall result is approaching the level before the crash?

Or are you saying that the stocks were worth $350,000 after the crash, and you then sold everything except the $100,000? If so, how much were they worth before the crash?

Or am I getting it backwards altogether? lol

The value was 350 ~ crash happened = value then 100 ... now value is nearing original value prior to crash

Mach said:

retina said:

Sorry, just for clarification: You invested $350,000 in one single company? Then the market crashed and you kept stocks for a value of $100,000 and sold the rest? Perhaps reinvested them in something else? And now the overall result is approaching the level before the crash?

Or are you saying that the stocks were worth $350,000 after the crash, and you then sold everything except the $100,000? If so, how much were they worth before the crash?

Or am I getting it backwards altogether? lol

The value was 350 ~ crash happened = value then 100 ... now value is nearing original value prior to crash

Ouch!! Was it all invested in a single company? Or in several, and if so - how many? Just curious.

retina said:

Mach said:

The value was 350 ~ crash happened = value then 100 ... now value is nearing original value prior to crash

Ouch!! Was it all invested in a single company? Or in several, and if so - how many? Just curious.

One company ~

said Company is rebuilding/rehiring and gaining accounts from business all over the world ( new ones as they already hold the corner on the parts they make ) and now the USA military