Yes, the top funds consistently outperform the market. No, the top funds are not the same year-to-year. Predicting which funds will out-perform is the hard (aka impossible) part.
Don't be fooled by randomness and survivorship bias. Those aren't the same funds each year. Thousands of funds trying to beat the market at a seemingly-random game? A small few will get lucky.
So am I understanding correctly that "market research" means selling data mining insights to advertisers? Do you expect this to be a significant portion of revenue?
(I don't have a problem with this- I'm just curious.)
I like his disdain for targeted ads, in spite of the fact that this could probably be profitable for his company.
I think the fact that he's made an internet company out of extending picture messaging is amazing. As much many of us HN readers would like to scoff and say, "I could build that in a weekend," we really couldn't. He's not done anything technically difficult, per se, but the way that he's amassed users is absolutely crazy, and he's doing something right.
I have my doubts about where it can go. I think him not selling was a huge mistake and I think he'll lose a lot of money from it, but I think he's a savvy business man.
>I like his disdain for targeted ads, in spite of the fact that this could probably be profitable for his company.
I don't agree with the idea that all a company has to do is tack on ads and they'll be wildly profitable. I think that ship has sailed; the more ads we're bombarded with, the less effect each individual ad has on us. There are diminishing returns to ad optimization. We can only buy so much stuff.
There will be some interesting times in the near future surrounding this ad-driven ecosystem.
Some people (e.g. Bill Gross) think there's a bond bubble too. As bond prices and interest rates are inversely correlated, and it's hard for rates to go anywhere but up at the moment, imho they're probably right. I don't think anyone has a good handle on what asset classes are particularly safe (or, equivalently, will yield reasonable returns over the near-intermediate term) at the moment. My best guess is that P/E ratios are still fairly sane-ish, so my investments are in stocks atm. YMMV, I am not an investment adviser, etc.
A bubble? No. A bubble is more than just "asset prices are higher than they should be".
Take stocks or real estate. The price goes up. People see the price going up. They buy, because they want to buy something where the price is going up so that they will make money. That buying increases demand without increasing supply, so the price goes up some more. That's a bubble - where the price goes up because people are buying because the price is going up (and so they think it's going to keep going up). It's a positive feedback loop.
But bonds... nobody's buying bonds because they think the price is going to go up. They're buying bonds because they think bonds are safe. But, in fact, bonds aren't very safe. The next direction interest rates will move is up; when they do, bond prices will fall. The longer term the bonds, the more the price will fall.
Note well: I am not an economist. I am not an investment advisor. This is my understanding of how things work, but it is not financial advice.
"Rates don't have anywhere to go but up" is an argument I've seen used often but it doesn't hold water. First, the 10yr is at 2.25% right now, and nominal yields have hit negative in other countries, so we could go there. Or, rates could just churn for a decade. Both of these are completely plausible scenarios.
I would note that reactionary investment allocation is generally relatively extremely expensive (due to transaction costs) for retail investors, and Fed statements aren't exactly under the radar.
Long, markets-wide, diversified positions tend to work out best for retail investors. Switching from heavy positions in one asset class to heavy positions in another tends to benefit investment firms, without reliably lowering investor risk. It's hard to guess where the market is going, and the transaction costs of frequent position changes, even at institutional investor rates, can quickly outstrip gains of a correct guess.
IMO your balance should reflect your progress toward investing goals, not trying to outguess the market.
You know better than anyone about your own goals and progress, so you can make reliable decisions based on that information.
No one knows what the market is going to do next, and even if we assume a range of predictive accuracy, you're probably low in that range unless you spend a tremendous amount of time getting and analyzing economic data. So, you can't make reliable decisions based on that information.
No, bonds are the last place you want to be right now. That potentially sharp rise in longterm rates is highly dangerous for the bond market. If rates go up, bond prices go down. I'd stay in safe stocks or cash
Traditional economic logic says that bond prices have an inverse relationship with interest rates. That means if you buy bonds now, and interest rates shoot up, the underlying price/value of that bond will plummet. This is especially bad if you have callable bonds, because the bond holder can call them at any time, forcing you to essentially receive the value of the bond at the time of the call - even if the price/value has plummeted due to increasing interest rates.
Be cautious investing in bonds, and if you do, you might consider holding them to maturity if interest rates go up and prices/value goes down (and hope they don't get called).
I personally think it's a scary time - interest rates going up will have an effect on prices of bonds, stocks, and more. So while you earn more interest if you own fixed income assets, the value of those assets decreases and you can get stuck.
That said... IMHO, the raising of interest rates... I think really needs to start happening before the artificially low rates creates a different kind of animal altogether.
Overall, is it that being closer to the product feels better? And did you really shake all the "weird feelings"/impostor syndrome about charging a high rate?
I'm in my early 20s but I had major back pain for about 6 months. I thought it was caused by my limited flexibility and trying to lift too much weight at the gym without maintaining proper form. My lazy posture didn't help the healing process, of course.
These are easy actions that I think helped me:
-Using a standing desk is probably ideal, but sitting with good alignment is better than bad. I put reams of paper under my monitor to raise it up and I really like this chair (often on sale for under $100): http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/604924/WorkPro-1000-Se...
This chair is rated at 8+ hrs/day, and locks to support a range of spinal angles such as this "optimal slouch": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6187080.stm
-Be careful with compound weightlifting like squats, kettlebells, deadlifts etc. Using bad form (curved back) will increase the force on the edges of your spinal disks by a factor of 2-3. Trying to lift too much weight compounds this. Both lead to injury.
-Make flexibility a priority over cardio or strength. Do back/hamstring stretches a few times a day until you reach a good level of mobility. I've had the "upward facing dog" yoga pose recommended among others. The therapist I saw also recommended doing "neural glide stretching" where you push for a few seconds, release slightly, then repeat.
Give poor people a reward/goal within reach and then see how they do.
I know working on long projects can be very draining because weeks can pass by and I'm still very far away from the goal of project completion.
Poor people's lives are like that. They have to jump through more hoops and exert much more discipline for their life to get better.