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 my lord flagpole, you really are a dolt. Not trying to be insulting, just factual. You are mathematically illiterate. No shame in that, most people are.
Trying to be helpful here... set yourself up a spreadsheet and work through a couple of comparative examples and check how easy it is for the hypothetical "average" DOW-beater to get better returns than the equally hypothetical flagpole-super-DOW-beater.
Oh my lord flagpole, you really are a dolt. Not trying to be insulting, just factual. You are mathematically illiterate. No shame in that, most people are.
Trying to be helpful here... set yourself up a spreadsheet and work through a couple of comparative examples and check how easy it is for the hypothetical "average" DOW-beater to get better returns than the equally hypothetical flagpole-super-DOW-beater.
Totally clueless...
Well he did say he doesn't consider the Dow to be the "market."
Wait a second...
OH MY GOD
I figured it out.
This whole time Flagpole has been referring to beating the Venezuelan market. not the US market.
I guess you don't understand how things work or 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.
No. There's a massive difference between "almost" beating the Dow and beating the Dow 26 years in a row (your original streak, I think) and 32 of 33 years.
Let's say you devised a strategy to reliability beat the index 80% of the time. There is still only a 0.3% chance you would exceed it every calendar year for 26 years in a row.
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 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.
No. There's a massive difference between "almost" beating the Dow and beating the Dow 26 years in a row (your original streak, I think) and 32 of 33 years.
Let's say you devised a strategy to reliability beat the index 80% of the time. There is still only a 0.3% chance you would exceed it every calendar year for 26 years in a row.
Nah. Not true. Obviously not true, because I have done it 32 of 33 years. And NO, there isn't a massive difference. It's a line. You are either above it or below it. It is not a Win/Lose situation which is why some of you have your panties in a bunch over this.
Again, if The Dow was at X% each year and I told you I was .999% below every year, you'd have no trouble believing that, but to be just above it on average of those above years (and one really bad year) is too much for you. That's an emotional response.
Oh my lord flagpole, you really are a dolt. Not trying to be insulting, just factual. You are mathematically illiterate. No shame in that, most people are.
Trying to be helpful here... set yourself up a spreadsheet and work through a couple of comparative examples and check how easy it is for the hypothetical "average" DOW-beater to get better returns than the equally hypothetical flagpole-super-DOW-beater.
Totally clueless...
Not true. I explained how what I said was correct, and it was, of course. Sorry dude, but you aren't understanding some simple math here.
No. There's a massive difference between "almost" beating the Dow and beating the Dow 26 years in a row (your original streak, I think) and 32 of 33 years.
Let's say you devised a strategy to reliability beat the index 80% of the time. There is still only a 0.3% chance you would exceed it every calendar year for 26 years in a row.
Nah. Not true. Obviously not true, because I have done it 32 of 33 years. And NO, there isn't a massive difference. It's a line. You are either above it or below it. It is not a Win/Lose situation which is why some of you have your panties in a bunch over this.
Again, if The Dow was at X% each year and I told you I was .999% below every year, you'd have no trouble believing that, but to be just above it on average of those above years (and one really bad year) is too much for you. That's an emotional response.
Technically that would be easy to believe because you could purchase stock in the 30 odd companies that make up the Dow and guarantee you'd be very close (but not above) every year.
But if you claimed to invest aggressively and still be no worse than 1% below the Dow on any calendar year, it would still be on the order of winning a coin toss on your first 26 consecutive tries, so yes it'd still be hard to believe.
No. There's a massive difference between "almost" beating the Dow and beating the Dow 26 years in a row (your original streak, I think) and 32 of 33 years.
Let's say you devised a strategy to reliability beat the index 80% of the time. There is still only a 0.3% chance you would exceed it every calendar year for 26 years in a row.
Nah. Not true. Obviously not true, because I have done it 32 of 33 years. And NO, there isn't a massive difference. It's a line. You are either above it or below it. It is not a Win/Lose situation which is why some of you have your panties in a bunch over this.
Again, if The Dow was at X% each year and I told you I was .999% below every year, you'd have no trouble believing that, but to be just above it on average of those above years (and one really bad year) is too much for you. That's an emotional response.
literally, you are describing a coin toss situation.
I guess you don't understand how things work or 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.
No. There's a massive difference between "almost" beating the Dow and beating the Dow 26 years in a row (your original streak, I think) and 32 of 33 years.
Let's say you devised a strategy to reliability beat the index 80% of the time. There is still only a 0.3% chance you would exceed it every calendar year for 26 years in a row.
You are wasting your time. Flagpole doesn't understand percentages, probabilities, statistics or anything else complex like that. Heck, he lives in central Ohio! Who needs stuff like that there?
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.
Nah. Not true. Obviously not true, because I have done it 32 of 33 years. And NO, there isn't a massive difference. It's a line. You are either above it or below it. It is not a Win/Lose situation which is why some of you have your panties in a bunch over this.
Again, if The Dow was at X% each year and I told you I was .999% below every year, you'd have no trouble believing that, but to be just above it on average of those above years (and one really bad year) is too much for you. That's an emotional response.
literally, you are describing a coin toss situation.
Aye carumba.
Flagpole doesn't even understand what he is arguing. He said it is not a win/lose situation BUT THAT IS WHAT IT IS! You are either beating the market each year (a win) or losing to the market (a loss). It is a win or a loss. It doesn't matter how much you beat the market and it doesn't matter if you lost to the market by 0.000000001%. All that matters is that you did not beat the market. It IS win/lose situation. Absolutes.
literally, you are describing a coin toss situation.
Aye carumba.
Flagpole doesn't even understand what he is arguing. He said it is not a win/lose situation BUT THAT IS WHAT IT IS! You are either beating the market each year (a win) or losing to the market (a loss). It is a win or a loss. It doesn't matter how much you beat the market and it doesn't matter if you lost to the market by 0.000000001%. All that matters is that you did not beat the market. It IS win/lose situation. Absolutes.
well sorta but especially the way he puts it - that it is just chance whether he is a smidge above or a smidge below the dow.
Flagpole doesn't even understand what he is arguing. He said it is not a win/lose situation BUT THAT IS WHAT IT IS! You are either beating the market each year (a win) or losing to the market (a loss). It is a win or a loss. It doesn't matter how much you beat the market and it doesn't matter if you lost to the market by 0.000000001%. All that matters is that you did not beat the market. It IS win/lose situation. Absolutes.
well sorta but especially the way he puts it - that it is just chance whether he is a smidge above or a smidge below the dow.
The thing is that to beat the Dow (market) when the Dow is doing well requires a portfolio that is aggressive. That same aggressive portfolio typically does poorly in down markets. You really can't have it both ways.
Nah. Not true. Obviously not true, because I have done it 32 of 33 years. And NO, there isn't a massive difference. It's a line. You are either above it or below it. It is not a Win/Lose situation which is why some of you have your panties in a bunch over this.
Again, if The Dow was at X% each year and I told you I was .999% below every year, you'd have no trouble believing that, but to be just above it on average of those above years (and one really bad year) is too much for you. That's an emotional response.
literally, you are describing a coin toss situation.
Aye carumba.
Nope. With a coin toss, there is no attempt to try to rig the game beforehand. There is nothing equivalent to putting in extra money when the market is really down.
literally, you are describing a coin toss situation.
Aye carumba.
Nope. With a coin toss, there is no attempt to try to rig the game beforehand. There is nothing equivalent to putting in extra money when the market is really down.