Hacker News Reader

Comment by volida | Hacker News Reader

- I agree you don't have any advantage. On the other hand the meltdown has already happened, so the prices have been corrected already.

- On the other hand, using the stock-market by investing for the long-term is the biggest crap someone can sell you. There are better ways to invest for the long term, assuming you have more money.

- $2000 may be a lot to you, but it's not a lot of money. So assuming you are a fast learner, want high returns and you have the risk gene, I would recommend learn forex instead. You will learn a lot more in 6 months than what you will learn investing for the stock-market. You will probably lost at least 50% of your capital but you can't learn if you don't burn real money.

View on HN

(I mean all of this in terms of making an extra few percent - not making 2k into 200 million)

I think you have the advantage of timing. Being a casual investor you can leave $ as cash until an opportunity arises. You don't need to invest in this current landslide until the smoke clears, big firms and anyone who has already lost money is already committed (few will cut their losses).

You also have the luxury of just needing to choose one or two good companies. Drop the $2000 in Microsoft in the early days and you would be a rich man. Take that lesson to today, and maybe you think RIMM is oversold and will be the dominant mobile player for the next 10 years. You put your chips there, and not spread out over 5 mobile stocks.

I realize those two things are very difficult to do (timing and selection), but I do think certain individuals can do it better than the rest of the market.

My biggest point though: Don't waste ANY time in the market until you have enough money so that the difference between 3% returns and 5% is meaningful. 2K + the market == a waste of your time, as others have suggested invest that into yourself.

>- I agree you don't have any advantage. On the other hand the meltdown has already happened, so the prices have been corrected already.

A couple of summers ago someone could just have easily said: "on the other hand, house prices have ballooned, so the massive undervaluations in the housing market have been corrected already"

You are arbitrarily calling a bottom without any justification other than an efficient market hypothesis, which, given recent volatility, is hard to put forward.

I am not in position to compare the two. But, the housing market was growing globally and so fast that the it was obvious it is artificial.

However, if you said that, yeah that's the answer you actually got.

"arbitrarily calling a bottom without any justification other than an efficient market hypothesis"

the deal is that you should not make predictions on what the outcome you need to be. Rather, correct you predictions and adjust your investments.

As I remember, there was only one major player who realised it. I think this is the definition of non-obvious.

If it was so obvious that is was artificial, then you would have taken the bet.

The meltdown has already happened? How do you know?

Like an earthquake you can't predict them, but you can get safety measures.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com