Indeed, quite the battle. Except of course for Flagpole, LRC's very own Alexander the Great of the investing world
You sound jealous, just like Sally.
No need for me to be jealous as I myself have beaten the market every year since 1896 - when the Dow Jones was first created. Those that doubt me or need proof of such a claim are simply jealous or perhaps too stupid to understand my transcendence to the ethereal plane of pure financial immanence - or both.
Your accomplishment of 32/33 years is adequate though, I suppose.
Indeed, quite the battle. Except of course for Flagpole, LRC's very own Alexander the Great of the investing world
You sound jealous, just like Sally.
You are charming, engaging, smooth with the ladies, to investing what Cornelius Vanderbilt was to the railroads, and belong on the Mt. Rushmore of investing alongside John Bogle, William Buffet and Peter Lynch. Why the hell wouldn't I be jealous of you?!?
No need for me to be jealous as I myself have beaten the market every year since 1896 - when the Dow Jones was first created. Those that doubt me or need proof of such a claim are simply jealous or perhaps too stupid to understand my transcendence to the ethereal plane of pure financial immanence - or both.
Your accomplishment of 32/33 years is adequate though, I suppose.
Oh, you're jealous.
You do realize that someone who beats the Dow 32 of 33 years can actually be doing worse overall than someone who only beats the Dow 50% of the time, right? Beating the Dow isn't necessarily a measuring stick of greatness. If you are well-diversified (as I am), you would have a tendency to drift toward the mean. It's not even close to outrageous to imagine how you could be just above the line often (though to be clear, sometimes I am just above and other times well above). Weird how you people have your panties in a bunch about this. I don't care how your stuff is doing. Very odd. Is your self worth or manhood wrapped up in this in some way? Unbunch those panties!
I'm still losing to the Dow pretty big so far this year, so maybe if I lose to the Dow you'll feel better.
You are charming, engaging, smooth with the ladies, to investing what Cornelius Vanderbilt was to the railroads, and belong on the Mt. Rushmore of investing alongside John Bogle, William Buffet and Peter Lynch. Why the hell wouldn't I be jealous of you?!?
1) I am not charming.
2) I am not particularly engaging.
3) I have no need to be smooth with the ladies as I have been married almost 33 years now. Was I smooth with the ladies before that? Objectively, according to reality, yes.
4) I definitely do not belong on a Mt. Rushmore of investing, and I would say Peter Lynch doesn't belong there, and depending on the criteria used, neither does John Bogle. Bogle helped others make the most of their own investments and was a pioneer in many ways, but as a flat out investor, I wouldn't put him on Mt. Rushmore of investing.
5) At least you are correct that you are jealous of me. You should stop with that. Be your own hero.
You are charming, engaging, smooth with the ladies, to investing what Cornelius Vanderbilt was to the railroads, and belong on the Mt. Rushmore of investing alongside John Bogle, William Buffet and Peter Lynch. Why the hell wouldn't I be jealous of you?!?
1) I am not charming.
2) I am not particularly engaging.
3) I have no need to be smooth with the ladies as I have been married almost 33 years now. Was I smooth with the ladies before that? Objectively, according to reality, yes.
4) I definitely do not belong on a Mt. Rushmore of investing, and I would say Peter Lynch doesn't belong there, and depending on the criteria used, neither does John Bogle. Bogle helped others make the most of their own investments and was a pioneer in many ways, but as a flat out investor, I wouldn't put him on Mt. Rushmore of investing.
5) At least you are correct that you are jealous of me. You should stop with that. Be your own hero.
The only person Flagpole was jealous of was Trump. Smooth with the ladies, charming, engaging, and with “The Art of the Deal,” truly one of the great investors. 👺
No need for me to be jealous as I myself have beaten the market every year since 1896 - when the Dow Jones was first created. Those that doubt me or need proof of such a claim are simply jealous or perhaps too stupid to understand my transcendence to the ethereal plane of pure financial immanence - or both.
Your accomplishment of 32/33 years is adequate though, I suppose.
Oh, you're jealous.
You do realize that someone who beats the Dow 32 of 33 years can actually be doing worse overall than someone who only beats the Dow 50% of the time, right? Beating the Dow isn't necessarily a measuring stick of greatness. If you are well-diversified (as I am), you would have a tendency to drift toward the mean. It's not even close to outrageous to imagine how you could be just above the line often (though to be clear, sometimes I am just above and other times well above). Weird how you people have your panties in a bunch about this. I don't care how your stuff is doing. Very odd. Is your self worth or manhood wrapped up in this in some way? Unbunch those panties!
I'm still losing to the Dow pretty big so far this year, so maybe if I lose to the Dow you'll feel better.
I know how you feel Flagpole. A couple of years ago I laced up my humble non-carbon plated trainers for a simple recovery run in the mountains (this was from the front door of my Swiss chalet that I recently acquired after a small bidding war between myself and some mysterious Illuminati member who represented the local concrete and cement mafia, but who nevertheless succumbed to my more impressive connections - his name was... "Fiat" I believe or some such). I was feeling good from the get go so I decided to pick up the pace. I just kept feeling so good that I didn't even notice I had gone way past my original intended distance of 15 miles and that I was already approaching the 25 mile marker. And here's the kicker - I was on sub 2 hour pace for the marathon! I ended up driving it home to close the full marathon distance in 1:55. I was barely even tired.
But, like you, no one believes me! I really don't know why it's so hard to believe - it wasn't that hard, and it's not really that big of a deal. I assume the pros break 2 hours all the time. I really wish people would unbunch their panties over it. Geniuses and exceptionally talented people like us are truly cursed.
You do realize that someone who beats the Dow 32 of 33 years can actually be doing worse overall than someone who only beats the Dow 50% of the time, right?
Oh, I'm dying to see this one explained in greater detail. What are the chances that someone who beat the DOW 17 of 33 years did better over that 33 year period than Flagpole who claims to have beat the DOW 32 times out of 33? Oh sure, it *could* happen, but the probability is so low as to be entirely indistinguishable from 0.
I think I understand why Flagpole is making this claim. He's not lying, he's just mathematically clueless.
You do realize that someone who beats the Dow 32 of 33 years can actually be doing worse overall than someone who only beats the Dow 50% of the time, right?
Oh, I'm dying to see this one explained in greater detail. What are the chances that someone who beat the DOW 17 of 33 years did better over that 33 year period than Flagpole who claims to have beat the DOW 32 times out of 33? Oh sure, it *could* happen, but the probability is so low as to be entirely indistinguishable from 0.
I think I understand why Flagpole is making this claim. He's not lying, he's just mathematically clueless.
Does Flagpole mean "worse" by percentage or "worse" by dollar amount. The latter is trivial of course because dollar amounts can be adjusted to suit the criteria. For instance I can win 32/33 years but if I started with a penny then I'll still be "losing" to the guy that won 17/33 years that started with $10 billion.
If you consider the former though then I think it becomes almost a traveling salesman problem (or some sort of minimization problem) since you'd have to consider every combination of ways you could win 17 and lose 16
You do realize that someone who beats the Dow 32 of 33 years can actually be doing worse overall than someone who only beats the Dow 50% of the time, right?
Oh, I'm dying to see this one explained in greater detail. What are the chances that someone who beat the DOW 17 of 33 years did better over that 33 year period than Flagpole who claims to have beat the DOW 32 times out of 33? Oh sure, it *could* happen, but the probability is so low as to be entirely indistinguishable from 0.
I think I understand why Flagpole is making this claim. He's not lying, he's just mathematically clueless.
I guess you don't understand how things work or averages or basic math. YOU are the one who is clueless here if you don't understand this simple concept.
A person who is well-diversified will likely stick right around the mean, so if the Dow is 10% in a given year, the diversified person could end up at 10.001% or some other really close number that is JUST above where the Dow hit. You people would completely accept it if I said I was JUST below the Dow all those years at 9.999% in this example, and the difference there is insignificant. Means your negative reaction to it is emotional.
Someone who isn't as well-diversified as I am is more prone to wild swings, so while they might lose to the Dow by a lot, there's also a good chance that they could beat the Dow by a lot in any given year. Average that out over 33 years, then even if there's just ONE more really big win vs. the Dow than big loss, they could easily beat the person who was just above the Dow 32 of 33 times.
You see, this is why I should know better than to get into minutia with you people. I should NOT have needed to explain that.
Oh, I'm dying to see this one explained in greater detail. What are the chances that someone who beat the DOW 17 of 33 years did better over that 33 year period than Flagpole who claims to have beat the DOW 32 times out of 33? Oh sure, it *could* happen, but the probability is so low as to be entirely indistinguishable from 0.
I think I understand why Flagpole is making this claim. He's not lying, he's just mathematically clueless.
I guess you don't understand how things work or averages or basic math. YOU are the one who is clueless here if you don't understand this simple concept.
A person who is well-diversified will likely stick right around the mean, so if the Dow is 10% in a given year, the diversified person could end up at 10.001% or some other really close number that is JUST above where the Dow hit. You people would completely accept it if I said I was JUST below the Dow all those years at 9.999% in this example, and the difference there is insignificant. Means your negative reaction to it is emotional.
you seem to be admitting that you flipped a coin 33 times and got heads 32 times. Is that your argument? Because of course that is a near-impossible feat.
I guess you don't understand how things work or averages or basic math. YOU are the one who is clueless here if you don't understand this simple concept.
A person who is well-diversified will likely stick right around the mean, so if the Dow is 10% in a given year, the diversified person could end up at 10.001% or some other really close number that is JUST above where the Dow hit. You people would completely accept it if I said I was JUST below the Dow all those years at 9.999% in this example, and the difference there is insignificant. Means your negative reaction to it is emotional.
you seem to be admitting that you flipped a coin 33 times and got heads 32 times. Is that your argument? Because of course that is a near-impossible feat.
Oh, I'm dying to see this one explained in greater detail. What are the chances that someone who beat the DOW 17 of 33 years did better over that 33 year period than Flagpole who claims to have beat the DOW 32 times out of 33? Oh sure, it *could* happen, but the probability is so low as to be entirely indistinguishable from 0.
I think I understand why Flagpole is making this claim. He's not lying, he's just mathematically clueless.
Does Flagpole mean "worse" by percentage or "worse" by dollar amount. The latter is trivial of course because dollar amounts can be adjusted to suit the criteria. For instance I can win 32/33 years but if I started with a penny then I'll still be "losing" to the guy that won 17/33 years that started with $10 billion.
If you consider the former though then I think it becomes almost a traveling salesman problem (or some sort of minimization problem) since you'd have to consider every combination of ways you could win 17 and lose 16
Actually this isn't quite correct, since the win percentage is unbounded so you could easily construct such a game so long as you never lose 100%.