vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Then your strategy is to not even worry about the market, spend your time looking at individual stocks and investments and wait until some come along that's well undervalued. That may be during a market correction, or it may be tomorrow. And it's not just good enough to intelligently value your investments, you also have to have psychological fortitude to not panic and to think for yourself. Buffett describes it best. Ben Graham, my friend and teacher, long ago described the mental attitude toward market fluctuations that I believe to be most conducive to investment success. He said that you should imagine market quotations as coming from a remarkably accommodating fellow named Mr. Market who is your partner in a private business. Without fail, Mr. Market appears daily and names a price at which he will either buy your interest or sell you his. Even though the business that the two of you own may have economic characteristics that are stable, Mr. Market’s quotations will be anything but. For, sad to say, the poor fellow has incurable emotional problems. At times he feels euphoric and can see only the favorable factors affecting the business. When in that mood, he names a very high buy-sell price because he fears that you will snap up his interest and rob him of imminent gains. At other times he is depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead for both the business and the world. On these occasions he will name a very low price, since he is terrified that you will unload your interest on him. Mr. Market has another endearing characteristic: He doesn’t mind being ignored. If his quotation is uninteresting to you today, he will be back with a new one tomorrow. Transactions are strictly at your option. Under these conditions, the more manic-depressive his behavior, the better for you. But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice: Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom, that you will find useful.
If it is difficult to sell shares in a company, the risk of holding shares in that company is higher, because you can't ""cash out"" as easily. This increased risk then does change the value of the shares - because even though the corporation's internal value is the same, the projected cashflows of the shares themselves now has a question mark around the ability to sell when desired. Whether this actually has an impact on anything depends on how many people join you in your declaration of ethical investing. Like many other forms of social activism, success relies on joint effort. This goes beyond the direct and indirect impacts mentioned above; if 'ethical investing' becomes more pronounced, it may begin to stigmatize the target companies (fewer people wanting to work for 'blacklist' corporations, fewer people buying their products, etc.)."
People are not good at doing a lot of work, most of which yields nothing, to find one big payoff. They are wired to only look at the present, so they take the best bet they can see at the moment, which is often barely above 50% (and with any misjudgment, it may actually be well below 50%). And people are not good at understanding compound/geometric growth. You can keep multipling 10% gains (1.10 * 1.10 * 1.10 ...), but that can all be wiped out by multiplying by one zero, which is why taking a 51%/49% bet is so dangerous (even though technically it is an advantageous one). They forget to adjust for the geometric aspect of compounding. A 99%/1% bet is one you should take, but if you are allowed to repeat it and you keep going all-in, you will eventually lose and have $0, which is the same as if you took a single all-in bet that has 0% chance of winning. As Buffett says, if you are only allowed to make 20 investments over a lifetime, you will most likely do better because it prevents you from making many of these mistakes."
"I don't think that HFT is a game-changer for retail investors. It does mean that amateur daytraders need to pack it up and go home, because the HFT guys are smarter, faster and have more money than you. I'm no Warren Buffet, but I've done better in the market over the last 4 years than I ever have, and I've been actively investing since 1995. You need to do your research and understand what you're investing in. Barring outliers like the ""Flash Crash"", nothing has changed. You have a great opportunity to buy quality companies with long track records of generous dividends right now for the ""safe"" part of your portfolio. You have great value stock opportunities. You have great opportunities to take risks on good companies the will benefit from economic recovery. What has changed is that the ""set it and forget it"" advice that people blindly followed from magazines doesn't work anymore. If you expect to park your money in Index funds and don't manage your money, you're going to lose. Remember that saying ""Buy low, sell high""? You buy low when everyone is freaked out and you hear Gold commercials 24x7 on the radio."
Part of the FB IPO hype was that institutions (smart money) got first dibs on the IPO shares while retail (dumb money) gets the leftover scraps.  Everybody and their grandma was therefore scrambling to grab the few remaining precious shares before the price skyrockets.  Of course that's not how it turned out as it seems retail stayed put and institutions had trouble unloading their shares.
I wouldn't choose any of the above. Buying stocks and staying long in my case is the cheapest way to go (retail brokerage commissions have just been getting cheaper and cheaper. )   The added costs of trading options make it even dicier for me, a retail investor, to take risks. To understand how to make money with options, I'd have to be much more sophisticated investor.
The person may just want to get out of that position in order to buy a different stock, he or she feels may go up faster. There is really a lot of reasons.
Picking yourself is just what all the fund managers are trying to do, and history shows that the majority of them fails the majority of the time to beat the index fund. That is the core reason of the current run after index funds. What that means is that although it doesn’t sound so hard, it is not easy at all to beat an index consistently. Of course you can assume that you are better than all those high-paid specialists, but I would have some doubt. You might be luckier, but then you might be not.
Most of it is probably due to ignorance and disbelief. A few years ago, I started doing week-long trades with my IRA. For a while I would make money each time, and over the first year I had about a 20% rate of return. If you asked me if I thought I was smarter than other people in the market, I would've told you no - I just spent more time, and most people accepted a small financial penalty for not having to spend the time directly managing their portfolio. Then I made a few poor choices, and all my previous earnings disappeared quickly. In the short term, yeah, things were great, but that didn't extrapolate out. So now that I'm a few years into investing, I'm almost entirely in index funds.
I'm not sure who specifically you are talking about. Those are some pretty broad generalizations. Where do you draw the line about what is too much concern about entry price? On what basis do you make the assertion that they are overly concerned with it? For those that do: Probably because when you are buying anything, a lower price is preferable in general. Why WOULDN'T you want to get the best deal possible? I think you are making assumptions (about whom I don't know) that people always invest based on cold hard logic. This is not often the case.
The satisfaction from gains packs less of an emotional impact than the fear of loss. It's very difficult for many people to overcome this fear, so when prices begin to fall, many investors sell to minimize their potential loss. This causes a further drop, which can lead to more selling as other investors reach their emotional threshold for loss. This emotion-based selling keeps the market inefficient in the short term. If there aren't enough value investors waiting to scoop up the stock at the new discount, it can stay undervalued for a long time.
"It is absolutely normal for your investments to go down at times. If you pull money out whenever your investments decrease in value, you lock in the losses.  It is better to do a bit of research and come up with some sort of strategy about how you will manage your investments.  One such strategy is to choose a target asset allocation (or let the ""target date"" fund choose it for you) and never sell until you need the money for retirement.  Some would advocate various other strategies that involve timing the market.  The important thing is that you find a strategy that you can live with and that provides you with enough confidence that you won't buy and sell at random.  Acting on gut feelings and selling whenever you feel queasy will likely lead to worse outcomes in the long run."
Mostly we invest in companies to make money. The money can be paid to as in the form of dividends that are a share of the profit.   Or the company can convince enough people that it will make a lot higher profit next year, so its stock prices increases. Clearly a company that reinvests its 20% profit from one shop to open an 2nd shop is doing well and is a good investment.      But, But, But... we only have the companies word for it!    A dividend paying company finds it a lot harder to hide bad news for long, as it will not have the money in the bank to pay the dividends.
Pretty sure the major retail brokerage firms require 25k to daytrade.    Read the top comment. You will get crushed by commissions. There are commission free ETFs, but that's not the kind of investing you seem to want to learn about.
"You should spend zero on your stock research company.  If the management of the company actually had persistent skill in picking stocks, they would not be peddling their knowledge to the retail market for a few hundred dollars.  They would rake in millions and billions by running a huge hedge fund and buy themselves a private island or something.  Unfortunately for them, hedge fund investors are not as gullible as retail investors and are more likely to sue when they discover they have been lied to. Many stock ""research"" companies are trying to manipulate you into paying too high a price for stocks.  They buy a small stock, recommend it, and then sell it at the artificially (and temporarily) high price.  Others are simply recommending stocks pretty much at random. You could do that just as well as they can, and for free. Portfolio performance evaluation is a complex problem.  The research company knows that its recommendations will ""make good money"" about half the time and that's enough to bring in a lot of uninformed people.  To know whether your portfolio actually did well you need to know how much risk there was in the portfolio and how a competing ""dumb"" portfolio with similar characteristics fared over the same time period.  And you need to repeat the experiment enough times (or long enough) to know the outcome wasn't luck.  I can say confidently that your portfolio performance doesn't back up the claim that the research company has skill above and beyond luck.  Much less $599 worth of skill. I can also say very confidently that there are no investors with a total of 20 thousand dollars to invest for whom purchasing stock recommendations is worth the cost, even if those recommendations do have some value.  Real stock information is valuable only to large investors because the per-dollar value is low. Please do not give money to or otherwise support a semi-criminal ""stock research"" enterprise."
"The problem I have with this argument is exemplified by the following statement:  *""Focusing on share-restricted hedge funds between 1999 and 2008, Sadka and Ozik found that funds with recent inflows on average earned an additional 5.6 percent annually compared to funds that experienced outflows.*""  Funds that are doing well tend - on average - to see customer inflows.  Funds that are doing poorly tend - on average - to see customer outflows.  It's the concept of ""hot money.""  The authors here imply that it's the fund inflows that prompt the outperformance, when - in reality - outperformance prompts fund inflows."
It's not the investing that gets you into trouble and costs you a lot of money; it's the rapid buying and selling and attempting to time the market that proves costly, which is what you're doing when you implicitly bet that the distribution of the stock's prices is positively skewed. To address the commission fee problem, assuming a fee of $8 per trade ... and a minimum of $100 profit per sale Commissions aren't your only problem, and counting on $100 profit per sale is a significant assumption. Look at point #4 above. Through your use of limit orders, you're making the implicit assumption that, more often than not, the price will trigger your upper limit order before your lower limit order. Here's a simple example; let's assume you have limit orders placed at +2 and -2 of your purchase price, and that triggering the limit order at +2 earns you $100 profit, while triggering the limit order at -2 incurs a loss of $100. Assume your commission is $5 on each trade. If your upper limit order is triggered, you earn a profit of 100 - 10 = 90, then set up the same set of limit orders again. If your lower limit order is triggered this time, you incur a loss of 100 + 10 = 110, so your net gain is 90 - 110 = -20. This is a perfect example of why, when taking into account transaction costs, even strategies that at first glance seem profitable mathematically can actually fail. If you set up the same situation again and incur a loss again (100 + 10 = 110), you're now down -20 - 110 = -130. To make a profit, you need to make two profitable trades, without incurring further losses. This is why point #4 is so important. Whenever you trade, it's critical to completely understand the risk you're taking and the bet you're actually making, not just the bet you think you're making. Also, according to my ""algorithm"" a sale only takes place once the stock rises by 1 or 2 points; otherwise the stock is held until it does. Does this mean you've removed the lower limit order? If yes, then you expose yourself to downside risk.
Penny stocks are only appealing to two types of investors: Most of the beginners who invest in penny stocks only do so because they don't have a lot of money to invest in the marketplace while starting out, or they would otherwise like to avoid investing their savings into penny stocks. * If you are a beginning investor - do NOT invest in Penny Stocks *
people buy stocks because there is more to Return on Investment than whether dividends are issued or not. Some people want ownership and the ability to influence decisions by using the rights associated with their class of stock. Another reason would be to park capital in a place that would grow faster than the rate of inflation. these are only a few of many reasons why people would buy stock.
"Let me see if I can restate your question: are speculative investments more volatile (subject to greater spikes and drops in pricing) than are more long-term investments which are defined by the predictability of their dividend returns? The short answer is: yes.  However, where it gets complicated is in deciding whether something is a speculative investment. Take your example of housing.  People who buy a house as an investment either choose to rent it out (so receive ""rent"" as ""dividend"") or live in it (foregoing dividends).  Either way, the scale of the investment is large and this is often the only direct investment that people manage themselves.  For this reason houses are bound up in the sentimental value people attach to a home, the difficulty of uprooting and moving elsewhere in search of cheaper housing or better employment, or the sunk cost of debt that can't be recovered by a fire-sale.  Such inertia can lead to sudden sell-offs as critical inflection points are reached (such as hoped-for economic improvements fail to materialise and cash needs become critical). At different levels that is true of just about every investment. Driving price-volatility is the ease of sale and the trade-offs involved.  A share that offers regular and dependable dividends, even if its absolute value falls, is going to be hung on to more frequently than those shares that suffer a similar decline but only offer a capital gain.  For the latter, the race is on to sell before the drop neutralises any remaining capital gain the investor may have experienced. A house with a good tenant or a share with stable dividends will be kept in preference for the quick cash-return of selling an asset that offers no such ongoing returns. This would result, visually, in more eratic curves for ""speculative"" shares while more stable shares are characterised by periods of stability interspersed with moments of mania. But I have to take your query further, since you provide graphical evidence to support your thesis.  Your charts combine varying time-scales, different sample rates and different scales (one of which is even a log scale).  It becomes impossible to draw any sort of meaningful micro-comparison unless they're all presented using exactly the same criteria."
"It has little to do with money or finance.  It's basic neuroscience.  When we get money, our brains release dopamine (read Your Money and Your Brain), and receiving dividends is ""getting money.""  It feels good, so we're more likely to do it again. What you often see are rationalizations because the above explanation sounds ... irrational, so many people want to make their behavior look more rational.  Ceteris paribus a solid growth stock is as good as a solid company that pays dividends. In value-investing terms, dividend paying stocks may appear to give you an advantage in that you can keep the dividends in cash and buy when the price of the security is low (""underpriced"").  However, as you realize, you could just sell the growth stock at certain prices and the effect would be the same, assuming you're using a free brokerage like Robin Hood. You can easily sell just a portion of the shares periodically to get a   ""stream of cash"" like dividends. That presents no problem whatsoever,   so this cannot be the explanation to why some people think it is   ""smart"" to be a dividend investor. Yes, if you're using a brokerage like Robin Hood (there may be others, but I think this is the only one right now), then you are right on."
For risk management, using limit orders is a start, but see my point above about positively skewed prices. Limit orders aren't enough. In general, if an active investment strategy seems like a ""no-brainer"" or too good to be true, it's probably not viable. In general, as a retail investor, it's foolish to assume that no one else has thought of your simple active strategy to make easy money. I can promise you that someone has thought of it. Trading firms have quantitative researchers that are paid to think of and implement trading strategies all the time. If it's viable at any scale, they'll probably already have utilized it and arbitraged away the potential for small traders to make significant gains. Trust me, you're not the first person who thought of using limit orders to make ""easy money"" off volatile stocks. The fact that you're asking here and doing research before implementing this strategy, however, means that you're on the right track. It's always wise to research a strategy extensively before deploying it in the wild. To answer the question in your title, since it could be interpreted a little differently than the body of the question: No, there's nothing wrong with investing in volatile stocks, indexes, etc. I certainly do, and I'm sure many others on this site do as well. It's not the investing that gets you into trouble and costs you a lot of money; it's the rapid buying and selling and attempting to time the market that proves costly, which is what you're doing when you implicitly bet that the distribution of the stock's prices is positively skewed. To address the commission fee problem, assuming a fee of $8 per trade ... and a minimum of $100 profit per sale Commissions aren't your only problem, and counting on $100 profit per sale is a significant assumption. Look at point #4 above. Through your use of limit orders, you're making the implicit assumption that, more often than not, the price will trigger your upper limit order before your lower limit order.
Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed."
Chris Rea's comment captures it -- most people don't have working crystal balls. Unless you are a trader, you address risk with diversification. There are several questions on this site discussing strategies to diversify your portfolio. In many ways, the markets offer investors false choices. We have an emotional desire to react to stimuli -- but that often leads to lousy outcomes. For example, selling your NASDAQ 100 fund after its value falls is usually a bad idea.
(This is how Warren Buffett made it big.) You can make it work, but it's like starting a business: it's a ton of work, requires a good amount of money to get going, and you still risk losing lots of it. The fourth case is the guy who mostly invests in broad market indexes like #1, but has a little money set aside for the stocks he's researched and likes enough to invest in like #3. He's not going to make money like Warren Buffett, but he may get a little bit of an edge on the rest of the market. If he doesn't, and ends up losing money there instead, the rest of his stocks are still chugging along. The last and stupidest way is to treat it all like magic, buying things without understanding them or a clear plan of what you're going to do with them. You risk losing all your money. (You also risk having it stagnate.) Good to see you want to avoid it. :)"
Are you suggesting that the banks are using marketing to convince retail customers to buy financial products that they would not normally purchase due to the products' complexity?  While that concerns is certainly valid, I believe it can be applied all the way down to the simplest of securities, e.g. stocks, or even assets, e.g. houses.   That does not mean with should prohibit the sale of these products to retail customers.