I'll put it very directly, please don't take offense, I don't mean any harm. But what you are showing is not a strategy. You can't just say that from next year onwards I'll only invest in companies that will make 20% gains. If your suggestion worked like that, we would all soon be multimillionaires.
Do you know the Dunning-Kruger effect? You're at the 'peak' right now.
https://www.growganic.de/dunning-kruger-effekt-teufelkreis-der-inkompetenz/
Do you know the Dunning-Kruger effect? You're at the 'peak' right now.
https://www.growganic.de/dunning-kruger-effekt-teufelkreis-der-inkompetenz/
•
22
•
4Mon
@Lukas2998 Thank you for your answer and the critical words. My point is not to claim that I will always achieve the results of the example calculation. I did not claim that either.
This should only be the starting point for a constructive discussion.
In another answer, for example, the difference between investing and trading was emphasized and should not be confused.
This was a very important clarification for me in my thought process, because these are completely different approaches and therefore completely different strategies:
A: opt for a stock that you hold for a long time and thus participate in the long-term increase in value
B: Rather focus on many small successes, but at a much higher frequency
I don't yet want to make a final assessment of how promising this approach is - the rather skeptical evaluations here definitely help me with my personal assessment.
However, I still see opportunities in rather short investment horizons.
This approach can also be completely absurd, otherwise there would be no day trading or certain option strategies, etc.
In any case, it is also very interesting to see how this sample calculation apparently triggers some people. I'd like to make it clear once again that I'm not talking about the 60%, but that the example is only intended to illustrate that small fry make muck (sometimes perhaps even more)...
This should only be the starting point for a constructive discussion.
In another answer, for example, the difference between investing and trading was emphasized and should not be confused.
This was a very important clarification for me in my thought process, because these are completely different approaches and therefore completely different strategies:
A: opt for a stock that you hold for a long time and thus participate in the long-term increase in value
B: Rather focus on many small successes, but at a much higher frequency
I don't yet want to make a final assessment of how promising this approach is - the rather skeptical evaluations here definitely help me with my personal assessment.
However, I still see opportunities in rather short investment horizons.
This approach can also be completely absurd, otherwise there would be no day trading or certain option strategies, etc.
In any case, it is also very interesting to see how this sample calculation apparently triggers some people. I'd like to make it clear once again that I'm not talking about the 60%, but that the example is only intended to illustrate that small fry make muck (sometimes perhaps even more)...
••
@ag84 Whether you call it trading, investing or whatever, it won't work the way you think it will.
And the mere fact that day trading exists does not mean that it works. The majority of day traders lose money. And of the few who don't lose money, even fewer manage to outperform a broadly diversified ETF.
It's not the math that triggers people. It's more the fact that you're talking about absurd profits here, but your plan has absolutely no substance. Your calculation may work in theory, but it requires the right selection of companies and the right timing. You say nothing about this and that's exactly where it will fail.
And the mere fact that day trading exists does not mean that it works. The majority of day traders lose money. And of the few who don't lose money, even fewer manage to outperform a broadly diversified ETF.
It's not the math that triggers people. It's more the fact that you're talking about absurd profits here, but your plan has absolutely no substance. Your calculation may work in theory, but it requires the right selection of companies and the right timing. You say nothing about this and that's exactly where it will fail.
••
4Mon
@Lukas2998 I completely agree with your penultimate sentence. The choice of values would of course be decisive. But that was not the point of the discussion. I was more interested in discussing the short-term and long-term perspective.
Timing and selection are certainly the greater challenge in the short-term variant.
Timing and selection are certainly the greater challenge in the short-term variant.
•
11
•