I have $770,000 to invest in non crypto related, what do you suggest...

Buy REQ

22
I don't know shit about the stock market nor do I have time to learn about it right now..

?

The expense ratio is close to 0

Put 22% in T-bonds
28% in real estate
25% in stocks ( don't choose TLSA)
25% ETF's (e.g. VOO)

Death industry. Only about 20% of boomers have kicked the bucket. Hillenbrand (HI) only cost $35 per stock but is now nearly $50 and has had steady growth since 2008.

Attached: 20180727_095653.png (720x757, 68K)

*$35 per stock 1 year ago

Tell him to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, and buy YOURSELF the ETF following S&P500 (50%), RUSSELL 2K (2.5%), NASDAQ (7.5%), Treasuries (15%), and high-rated bonds (25%).

Thank me later commission bro.

If you're super patient, you could buy MNK. It's undervalued threefold at the least because of a very successful 18 month long bear raid. Bears are mostly gone. It could triple soon, it's valuations are so low it could easily attract B/O offers.

It's pipeline is solid, trades be book value, ect. Controversy was over the price of Acthar Gel but they are the only company in the world that make the shit and they charge exorbitant prices.

Even with a pessimistic valuation, it's worth 50-70$, Also company is searching for buyout, going private, and has an aggressive share buyback program.

Listen to your portfolio manager instead of the fucking idiots here, and choose option 1 for now

Isn’t that something like 3800 a year in fees?

don't you feel like there is going to be a collapse in the next 2 years?
dow jones and s&p 500 are at ath, its 10 years since the 2008 crash, usually a cycle lasts between 5-8 years and now we're already past that, I feel like it is coming very soon

why dont buy tezos and delegate/bake them, approx 5% yearly return and it will most likely flip back to 10$ anytime soon.

I studied finance in grad school. I will be short:
1. Passive investing 99.99% beats active investing in the long run. Hedge funds lose money more than passive ETFs, not counting commissions.

2. The business cycle does follow a yearly cycle, but timing the stock market is a game played by far more than can actually do it properly. The market follows a random walk. There is a reason Berekley's quant guys use literal quantum physics equations to follow the market: It's got a random element. Randomness is inherently BS to try capturing.

You're better off sitting on your hands at your young age, going macro, and never worrying again. Let crashes, etc. come as they may.

Also remember to keep cash on the sidelines for both personal expenses and for "fun money" if you really feel the urge. But lock down your passives.

keeping your comment in mind, thanks.

I think you're right, but I have no idea where to put my money to avoid it being taken out by a bank collapse etc. Any ideas aside from property?

VTSAX's expense ratio is 0.04%

Assuming investment capital of $770,000:

770,000 * 0.0004 = $308

OP please just go DYOR on this fund and you'll see it's probably one of your best bets if you don't know shit about stocks and have no time to active manage funds and just want to be a passive investor.

gold, retail, precious metals, VIX?
there are plenty of options, just google it

Buy whatever Jeff Bezos has.
I assume that means Amazon.
Five years from now he will own everything and appoint himself gay overlord of the planet.

I looked at it, plus I've heard of vanguard before
I just have a crippling feeling that the stock market will collapse very soon and I could wait for a 50% pull back before buying
all my friends are asking me about s&p 500 and dow jones, people who literally never had to do with money
this happened with crypto back in december as well, which is why I got 80% of my money out @ 17k
the traditional market is much slower so I assume it will be either in 2019 or 2020 but I'm certain it will happen
then its downtrend for 2 years with 50% pull back and back up again

I've had gold and silver for a decade and it's only gone down. It's so heavily manipulated I don't think even a crash could make it go up anymore.

Retail will crash during a recession so that seems like a bad option too. House prices will crash. Ugh. Hard choice.

Consider dollar cost averaging in. Maybe 5-10k a month, and zoom out and look at the 20-30-40+ year window here.

Listen, the total US stock market isn't Digibyte or Turtlecoin. If it tanks and never recovers, the ENTIRE WORLD IS FUCKED.

Don't try and time the market or beat it. 99.99% chance you will get burned.

This

Another thing to remember, and think about, when the hedge fund scheisters come banging at your door for more money:

When you hear those guys say "We outperformed the market 100%"? Or they did "xyz% better" last year?

It is legal in the U.S. - perhaps elsewhere, too - to use as your 'benchmark' a portfolio of whatever composition you choose. Commonly, this means the following:

Hedge: "We got 9% returns last year for clients. We outperformed the market 100% last year!"

>"Oh, wow. What is your asset mix?"

Hedge: "20% foreign stock, 70% domestic mid-large cap, 10% other." (Can be anything)

>"That's nice. Interesting. So international. Much wow."

But what they do is just invent a benchmark that makes them look good. That "we outperformed the market 100% last year" is a flagrant misrepresentation, where the Hedge guy just decided to say the "market" was a portfolio of 80% T+bonds and 20% stock, for instance.

Do the math:
Treasuries + Bonds return anywhere from 2-5% reliably. We'll say 3.5%.

Stocks return an average of 8% each year, and in recent years perform around 12-18%.

So if the hedge fund dealing mostly in stocks reaps 9%, but compares to a portfolio mix mostly in bonds at 3.5%, they can easily invent the wondrous figure of 100+% advantage over the 'market'.

This is just one way they screw people over.

100% in an index fund tracking the S&P 400.
Could almost retire desu

I studied finance too

The market does not really follow a "random walk". And to recommend him to go all in on the stock market through a fucking Vanguard fund (probably not even available to him, shit deal regarding taxes for non-us investors) when you have all time highs in all indexes, one of the longest bull markets in recent history and CAPE ratios of over 30 is pretty fucking stupid. At the very least, go slowly in the market over a few years. You don't want to be the guy buying bitcoin in December do you?

Actually I apologize, you did not suggest Vanguard I must have gotten the IDs mixed up

If you "studied finance" and never learned of stochastic modeling, I don't know what to tell you.

I'm not the one who told him to go all in on a Vanguard fund either. You're barking the wrong tree.

>I have $770,000 to invest in non crypto related, what do you suggest? (I'm looking for low risk since I'm also balls deep in crypto)

Half to ITEQ, Israel Technology EFT I'm not even meming, half to BOTZ

Buy rental properties and cash flow.. borrow the money if possible

Curios what cryptos you hold OP?

80% ETH
10% BTC
rest is like MANA, ARDR, XRP

This isn't really true.

It is true for very large fund managers. Blackstone can never beat the market because they can only buy up to 5% of a given company due to their size. They essentially become tied into every company on the S&P500 and become the market, only with employees to pay.

Small hedge funds consistently beat the market. Any asshole with half a brain can beat the market using a Russell 2000 index and cost averaging correctly.

To ignore major market shifts like raging bull markets or dramatic bear markets is idiotic. The least you can do is control how much you are periodically investing.

Telling some asshole to put his life savings into QQQ or SPY right this very moment is a piece of shit or an idiot, because it's 1000% sure the market will retrace.

All in facebook. It will recocer faster then light.

The market can be modeled using random walk processes, but that doesn't mean it follows a random walk process. Random walk models were the reason behind 2008 market crash. The assumption that the return would stay normally distributed, and liquidity not taken into account

"This study finds empirical evidence that passive controlling ownership has a positive impact on companies’ one-year total shareholder return. Being passively controlled was found to increase a firm’s one-year TSR by 6.94 percent compared to not being controlled. No significant relationships between controlling ownership and ESG score were found." digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors/321/

"Surprisingly, these tests imply index fund skill exists, is persistent, and is in similar proportion as in active funds. We use the distribution of passive fund performance to gauge the incremental ability of active managers. Outperformance by top active funds is lower when benchmarked to the index fund distribution and disappears when we account for residual risk. Stochastic dominance tests suggest no risk-averse investor should choose a random active fund over a random index fund."
cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-financial-and-quantitative-analysis/article/passive-versus-active-fund-performance-do-index-funds-have-skill/F025DBD6823F2948F6119050E95DA457

"...active management may be even more challenging than previously believed, and the stakes for finding the best active managers may be larger than previously assumed."
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asmb.2271

"The results show that there is no clear correlation between funds management fee and return in relation to the risk that is taken. In addition, the essay conclude that it is not worth paying a higher management fee for an actively managed fund."
diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1215687&dswid=8528

"The results show that active funds did not statistically outperform passive funds during the sample period, and the superior performance of some active funds was... by luck. Our results are consistent with those of earlier research on US..."
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajfs.12180

I could go on.

Actually, I will, because I want to add more relevant to the U.S.

"We document the deterioration in performance realized by investors when controlling for biases in reported fund returns and a constraint on the number of hedge funds selected. Several predictors are generally able to identify hedge funds that outperform a passive benchmark over the full sample. None of the predictors, however, can select funds that add value following the market bottom of March 2009."
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3034283

"...in each decade since 1880, time series momentum has delivered positive average returns with low correlations to traditional asset classes. Further, time-series momentum has performed well in 8 out of 10 of the largest crisis periods over the century, defined as the largest drawdowns for a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio. Lastly, time series momentum has performed well across different macro environments, including recessions and booms, war and peacetime, high- and low-interest rate regimes, and high- and low-inflation periods."
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2993026

"Moreover, when we compare SDF-based measures to the traditional linear regression approach (Jensen's alpha), our measures identify a significantly smaller fraction of funds in the cross-section of HFs with statistically significant positive performances."
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2307022

One thing to take into consideration when comparing passive and active funds is that many of the so called active funds are in fact really passive while charging higher fees(so ofc they will underperform)

I'm not sure how much this is happening in the US, but quite a lot in some european countries

Honestly OP, put 10k into LINK, my digits will confirm.