Obviously there are levels of 'good investor' existing out there. Even the professional superfund portfolio managers get 'tricked' from time to time and invest funds unwisely. What do you think makes the best set of characteristics for someone to be successful in investing? Intelligence? Fools and their money are soon parted! But did Einstein make it big on Wall St? Does intellect gives you better insight into the functioning of share, money, commodity, real estate and other markets? Does this insight mean more success? Patience? Is it all in the timing? Does everything come to those who wait? Dilligence? Does knowledge = power? Does the person who does the most work and research have the most success? Wealth? Does having a lot of money give you an edge? Influence? Is networking and keeping an ear to the ground a reliable way to maximise your returns? Is there a 'boys club' out there that looks after its own? What other characteristics do you think are relevant?
+1 The way I see it, there is a whole industry geared towards removing my money from me. If they wanted my money, they could do my job, easy enough. But they want my money without the requirement to put the hours in. So they have to come up with a way to get me to do my job and then hand over my money to them. So they put on a big show, and invite me to join in. They are not doing me a favour, they know that if they straight up rob me it would be in bad form and the Police would have to be seen to do something about it. So they set up a rigged game, it could be a game of 'Find the Lady' at a fairground, or it could be Wall Street, both exist to part people with their money, both have a set of rules to make them look fair, but the people running the con are happy to interpret the rules in their own way, safe in the knowledge that if they do it cleverly, e.g. take small amounts of money off a lot of people, rather than a lot of money from an individual, that they will most likely get away with it. And if it does go horribly wrong, the fairground moves on and a couple of 'rouges' get scapegoated. But why would anyone want to play a game that they weren't in on? Because the current system never lets you get ahead, if you could earn enough money to live comfortably on and save enough money for your retirement then there would be no need to invest money and there would be no way to entice you to give your money away. There has to be a way to ensure that you can never just get by. So the government takes some of your money away from you, not too much that you would revolt, and not all in one go either, a bit here, a bit there, income tax, rates, GST. They tell you that you will get it back or that it is being spent on you, but you will never see it again. The can't take it all though, too obvious. They make out they are giving it to the poor, this is very clever, now you hate the poor for taking your money but in reality, only a tiny amount goes to them, just enough to buy their vote at the next election. The rest of the money goes to the politicians, perks of the job. The money you have left might get you by for the time being and might even give you enough to save for your old age, if the price of food and non-opt-out-services didn't go up all the time. You might be able to grow your own food, water and sunlight are free, but not if you don't have any land. So you have a bit of money, not enough to get by, which sets you up for the second team to have a go. They tell you stories of how you will eat cat food and live in a bus shelter if you do not plan for the future. Some people get a second or third job, others decide that they might be able to get the extra income without working harder. They are not lazy, just weary. They have images of Wall Street execs in their Porsches and figure that if the trades can play the stocks and shares, then one of them might be prepared to put a bet on for you, for a fee. So they take your fee and tell you that they are now working for you, and they take your money and tell you that your money is now working for you. Then they tell you that an unforeseen crash has taken all your money and there is nothing left. A couple of traders who weren't in on the game might throw themselves off a ledge, but the others are back to work as usual, no crime has been committed. One scam I heard of recently, your broker buys you shares, just before the dividend is due your broker sells the shares to his friend. The dividends are paid to your friend, who then sells the shares back to your broker. Your broker charges you for both transactions and his friend keeps the dividends. You are none the wiser unless you are keeping an eye on every share in your portfolio, and if you were, why would you pay for a broker? So once you have no savings you can't buy things like you used to but there is always credit. It used to be called debt but that has negative connotations. Once you take on debt, nothing you have belongs to you any more, you no longer work for your own betterment, you now work for the bank. When you die, your family doesn't get to inherit any wealth, so they will never get ahead either. Government, Finance, Banks. You think they work for you, but you are wrong, you work for them. And I am pretty sure the Insurance Companies are in there as well but it is well past home time and I am not writing this rubbish on my own time.
Non of the above matter as much as unemotional detachment. Btw, superfund managers don't get 'tricked' or invest unwisely, they don't even make decisions. All their investments are governed by mandates. It is the members who invest unwisely.
wrcmad, when you say governed by mandate, are you talking about the fact that these days individuals get to select their mix of buckets (high growth, cash, Australian shares etc) that their super contributions get allocated to? In the past, there was not nearly as much choice and more reliance on the fund managers. There was an uproar around the GFC time where Australian fund managers were selling Australian shares so they could buy EU shares in an effort to prop up the prices and help to preserve their fund performance. When it became clear the depth of trouble happening in Europe it was too late and billions of dollars were lost. Note that even then there was the ability in many funds to choose the mixed of investment strategies. Australian Super contacted all of its members at the time recommending they move more funds into the high growth and other international options. This of course was terrible advice.
A happy wife... A) so you can continue with your interest/obsession, B) so you can keep any wealth without the divorce taking half.
narh... didn't initially see it... but willrocks beat me to the punchline with his "Insider Information" post God Bless him. It was the 1st thing that jumped to mind this morning when I read Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway had bought $500M of Aust. Insurance Group AIG. Why would he be interested in some tiny little pissant insurance company of all things.... well out of the action centres?
I believe that a good investor has a plan for why they are investing...retirement...university fees for your kids...whatever. Once you have a plan you can apply a strategy of how best to meet it. A characteristic which i believe acts against any investor is greed. This approach has served me well over time.
no billionaire is born by chance, but a bullionaire is all happened due to chance up this forum :lol: insider connections and front running and some money. its just a matter of either I or U. that is the only difference.