w67thstreet is an incoherent homeless troll

I sense some goading going on.

That little grey "ignore this person" is very useful if you are disciplined enough not to read the comments anyway. This muppet has been on my "ignored" list for years.

Yup, completely full of shit. It became pretty apparent when he couldn't even keep track of what he said he bought and started pretending like he was now buying options. He probably bought a few shares of sprint a few years back.

And I'm sure there are people who envy Carlos Slim and Bill Gates, and those who envied Albert Einstein and Benjamin Franklin and Mother Teresa.

What are you going to do when W67 wins his Nobel Prize -- double down, or admit you're wrong?

Nobel in Chemistry?

ottawanyc, at least get your analysis on point. i believe he was writing calls against the underlying holding you financial illiterate.

Nobel in sexology.

Flmaozz.

After close when the stupidity was at its peak, w67 bgt a bunch of apple at $516. Looks like the $525 is the new $390.

In 14 months w67 $450 short puts expire worthless. That's $17k/ month for doing nada. But your nyc re. I know I know. Gonna make the re bullz $17,001.00/month. Thereby handily beating w67!

Hahhajanahaaaaaaa

Rangersfan, sorry I don't have your genius level of analysis. How is that young core of Rangers working out for you? As for my financial illiteracy, perhaps you could enlighten me on what a naked put is? Thanks in advance for the lesson and for again caring so much about me.

w67thstreet
about 4 months ago
Posts: 8862
Member since: Dec 2008
stop ignoring this person
report abuse
Nada. Got a quick question for you on apple. Am I crazy but does the jan 17, 2015 $200 puts look like free money?

If apple trades at $200/share it would mean it would have a 6% div yield and trade at cash value? $145 in cash plus 18 months of earnings, $60/share.

Even if it earns $20/yr at jan 2015, it would mean apple would trade at 2.5x earnings (minus cash)?

W67 is thinking hard about selling 2.5k shares of apple and going naked short jan $200 puts. I'll have to re-jigger my cash positions elsewhere to meet margin requirements but i hear there are morons buying more LIC condos, and that seems risky to w67. Hmmm. A chance to make a 100% return on $1mm in 18months.

Will apple hit $200/share I.e. 2.5x earnings or will LIC double in 18 months. Choices. Choices.

Btw. That Jan 15 $200 puts still trade at $.59. Still free money. Decide if nyc re with 4% 30yr jumbos to $4mm is a better bet than the $.59 jan 15 $200 apple puts.

HqhhahajaajaaaaaaaHhahahahahahahahahhHaha

This is why I like SE, we have a hockey brawl, a live orangutan with gas, stock picks with performance available for verification such as AAPL the underperformed vs Ottawanyc's outperforming Zillow, and the Nobel Prize thrown in for good measure.

hhahaahahahaaaaa.. Nothing w67 has seen has outperformed the short puts on apple when it traded at $390 to $530. Nothing... 99% return and more if leveraged.

Sprint went from $2.4 to $8 in 18 months...

w67 200 condos just got bid at 1000% return to me... but w67 likes sofa surfing for a living. Will take 5000% return... like fking crickets from the RE bullz from 2007 Bring it tards... tell me about your 500% return on 5% down.. .FLMAozzzzz

Thank you for pointing out the "ignore" link.
I have read my last idiotic blabbering of this mentally ill buffoon.

I just made 1 million billion trillion and one percent. And I don't even need to use the money to do an orangutan to human conversion so it is all pure profit.

You got paid bananas?

did you return your bananas?

Did you?

I don't really like bananas. Too much potassium for my taste.

ok, even better. he went short puts on a gap mover up. help any, otttawwwwaaaaaaa???

Hi rangersfan

oh my gosh... the loony bin just let out...

so the question is... did LIC RE beat short puts of apple jan 15' $200 strike at $5.5?

hint. They trade at $.59 even with apple down $13 today... .hahahahahaahhaaaaaaaaa

Quick, someone give me a tradeable nugget of financial knowledge that doesn't include NYC RE! Quick!

67: how many completely wrong predictions can one person make about interest-rate levels and prices of New York City real estate?

huntersburg: lol.

500 psf was predicted over and over by 67. Why hasn't it happened ?

Mayans.

w67thstreet, you're also clairvoyant! The loony bin let out nearly an hour AFTER you said so.

Ranger fan: first, good game tonight. Second, your prerogative to believe that w67 has made 5000% returns over the last year! but it is mine to think that he is more likely a frat boy living in his moms basement in Long Island (thus obsession with LIC, which always confused him) who aspires to live in Murray hill. Lastly, appreciate your affection for my posts so invite you to follow me on twitter @ottawanyc

The LIC obsession is strange. What is the population of LIC anyway? How many of that group are owners - I thought most of the last 10 years of housing was rental anyway? Maybe 2 or 3 regular posters from SE live there it seems.

Wow, dealboy is the one who needs multiple meds and serious incarceration. Yikes. And they think I'm crazy???

Who cares who W67 is as a person. If anyone took his advise, did their own due diligence, and bought S and AAPL when he recommended you'd be laughing all the way to the bank.

Gotta love all the haterz here. I've got no problem with Long Island, but I love it when people living on Long Island try to dis others living on Long Island. W67th lives on an island alright, just not Long Island.

If someone bought Apple on his recommendation, they would have been better buying Facebook, Ford, Zillow, Yahoo, Pandora, Netflix, Starbucks, or many others that have outperformed Apple since the date that w67 picked.

how many times have you pointed out this particularly useless piece of information?

> W67th lives on an island alright, just not Long Island.

Wow, me too.

> If someone bought Apple on his recommendation, they would have been better buying Facebook, Ford, Zillow, Yahoo, Pandora, Netflix, Starbucks, or many others that have outperformed Apple since the date that w67 picked

What's your point? If I invested $100000 in something and now I have $250000 I'm not lamenting the fact that I don't have $300000. There are always better stocks to be had but I have more money now than I did a year ago.

Sure it is. And Apple isn't the be all and end all. In fact, w67 said he sold Ford to buy Apple. So he underperformed himself.

ottawa, look i have been around these boards long enough to see through the pretenders with their fantastic predictions turning to crap. or, the others (you know who you are) that go around thumping their chests AFTER their so-called calls went up. problem is, most of them can't point to a record of what they predicted beforehand.

setting aside any personal issues you may have with w67th (who cares), he has been spot on with a number of his predictions. some were not that great but at least he has the ballz to come out and recommend things shortly after his trades and he has made some very good calls. others around here, not so much. go rangers.

Did see a couple weeks ago when w67 said he sold AAPL in the $480s?

I struggle to even understand why single stocks are a reference point on this board any more than putting my savings on the roulette table at AC. They are simply not a comparable asset class to real estate. If someone chooses to have an investment strategy with far, far higher volatility than RE then they deserve the rewards if their bets pay off but they have to acknowledge that their next bet may not be so fortunate.

Whislt, I'm sure that w67th is the exception to the rule and has the ability to beat the index over the long-run, I'm not sure of my status as an investing genius, so will continue to diversify my investments across multiple assets classes including, but not limited to, real estate.

>I struggle to even understand why single stocks are a reference point on this board

They aren't.
And if you are going to pick single stocks, then we can fairly look at competitive stocks and determine competitive performance, such as with Facebook or Yahoo or Best Buy or Netflix or Pandora or Starbucks or Ford or Zillow or others that have outperformed AAPL since the buy-in date that w67 chose.

@Oxymoronic: Amen. I analogize it to the best pro basketball player taunting other professional athletes that if they were real athletes, they'd play basketball b/c that is where salaries are the highest. Such nonsense; it is a completely different game and just because the average pro-athlete in baseball does not make as much money as the average pro basketball player does not mean that the professional baseball player is not an athlete. I have never understood what w67th is doing on this board. I also think that all those on here who profess to understand half the crap that w67th says are like the SEC employee who got promoted ostensibly b/c she was smart enough to understand Bernie Madoff's strategy, though she was, shockingly, unable to explain it to anyone else. Things did not go so well for all those who blindly followed Madoff, claiming that anyone who who questioned him simply didn't get it. In any event, I have no doubt that w67th spends a fair amount of time laughing at his own followers because he knows those individuals are the biggest lemmings of all. Go Team w67th! FLMAOZZ. Again, what nonsense - the "ignore" button is magic. With all that said, however, the w67th persona does add some color to the discussions, and I do not have him on ignore.

@FC: Agreed.

Baseball vs. basketball?! Oh no dear. That's not the correct analysis.

It's when a baseball player picks up a basketball and tries to hit it with a bat. Thatz what borkers and unintended RE bubble beneficiaries are doing by continuing to pump RE.

And the game w67 is playing, is life. A huge portion of which is elongating the length of time one is on this blue marble. Since I can't increase my lifespan (beyond squatting 585lbs and running daily), w67 would like to decrease the amount of burger flipping and increase leisure activities that he enjoys. Sailing, fishing, traveling etc).

W67 has found that $$$$ leads to free time (see above goals for w67). Now you can delude yourself into making 'working' pleasureable. The truism of life is even porn stars like sex better when they aren't being paid for it.

Obtw apple is up $10. From the reviews, looks like iPad air and MacBook Pro 13inch is gonna be the must have electronics this winter. Chinese holidays are Jan so expect a huge bump up in 2nd qtr.

Next few years cycle will be larger iPhones, better cameras. Transition to thump print scanner for all apple products. Better cameras. Apple TV, better sync across all products. Better iWork's to compete against Msft. RE-launch of apple maps (I'd be worried in the long term for google). Micro payment system. -shrug- sprint was bettererer at $2.4. Apple was much mostest bettererer at $390. And those jan 15' $200 apple puts.. Just flmaozz.

>The truism of life is even porn stars like sex better when they aren't being paid for it.

Yes, that is the truism of life.

Might also explain why "thousands of people touched your wife."

Wow. Someone I knew a long time ago used that line.....

I guess when you got nutin, it's easiest to go where you think it would hurt a person the most.

I'm bored.

Got a quick question for u. Field hamster. If your husband, oh who am I kidding. If you cat asked you to blow him while watching cat porn, would it be more or less 'icky' than if you found out your cat was Carlos danger?

Don't think too much. It's your 'immediate' response that really matters in the example above.

No you doofus. Not which cat is asking you to blow him.

I have to be careful with my response. Lately inoitall has been making material decisions based on what I say in response to w67, apparently against his otherwise free will. I wouldn't want him to become a cat porn star based on my goading of w67.

He feels pretty and witty and bright!

Cat love. Hey field hamster. If you lean to two female cats getting it on, my bad. It's all good.

Who am I to judge you and your 4 cats when you take a length of spectra, a gallon on lube, four snap shackles and two boat hooks into your bedroom at nite?

Oxymoronic>> Whislt, I'm sure that w67th is the exception to the rule and has the ability to beat the index over the long-run, I'm not sure of my status as an investing genius, so will continue to diversify my investments across multiple assets classes including, but not limited to, real estate.

Buffett>> Diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes little sense if you know what you are doing.

Oxymoronic>> If someone chooses to have an investment strategy with far, far higher volatility than RE then they deserve the rewards if their bets pay off but they have to acknowledge that their next bet may not be so fortunate.

Annualized volatility over the past 5 years, since I showed up here:

S&P 500: 16%
AAPL: 27%
NYC RE paid w/ cash: 6%
NYC RE paid w/ 33% down: 18%
NYC RE paid w/ 20% down: 30%

Total returns over past 5 years since I showed up (assuming 2% positive carry for on-cash RE and average mortgage rate of 4% on 5-year ARMs magically refi'ed for free):

S&P 500: 120%
AAPL: 480%
NYC RE paid w/ cash: 13%
NYC RE paid w/ 33% down: 0%
NYC RE paid w/ 20% down: -15%

I didn't put it all in AAPL back then, but did go all-in and then some at the broad level. Probably makes me an "investing genius" because I did not blow my wad on discounted-5%-off-bubble RE. Most likely though, I was just goaded by Buffett: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17buffett.html.

>> I analogize it to the best pro basketball player taunting other professional athletes that if they were real athletes, they'd play basketball b/c that is where salaries are the highest.

Your analogy is off. There were some pro athletes playing hoops on the big-boy court having nice games. A bunch of high school punks come in talking all sorts of smack. The pros happy to have a nice game, give some pointers, teach the younglings. Punks won't have it, keep talking the smack, start throwing elbows.

Inevitably, pros school the punks. Now a pro is a pro, not a saint, so after the ass-whupping he dishes some smack back too.

Diversification is king. Being loaded up on Facebook calls not the way to go. I am off to the park to beat up some teenagers.

If you can find a place to buy that costs far less than to rent with little to nothing down and it is well within your budget and you have enough liquid to manage if something goes terribly wrong, maybe. But looking at hundreds of units can sometimes make you walk into an apartment and say, wait, this is fucking cheap. Make sure you find out why (in one case truly crazy seller couldn't make any money because she needed assisted living, she damned us to hell but the PMI approval process was worse). My more recent purchase seems to have been a timing fluke. And a strange one.

Nada. Told ya apple jan 15' $200 puts were free money.

Get ready for the blast off to $700 in 3 qtrs. so easy this investing stuff. Funny RE bullz still haven't figured out why they can't play golf. Hint: basketballs won't fit in the hole.

Cat's in the cream jar, Ooh, ooh, ooh
Cat's in the cream jar, Ooh, ooh, ooh
Cat's in the cream jar, Ooh, ooh, ooh
Skip to the Loo, my Darvon

Inoitall does a lot to decent w67, if only his own track record was sufficient.

Defend. But perhaps in context of w67, having someone decent you might be something necessary as well.

inoitall> I didn't put it all in AAPL back then

Not sure about w67thstreet until you had no other choice based on me?

inoitall
about 4 hours ago
Posts: 4993
Member since: Oct 2008
ignore this person
report abuse

Buffett>> Diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes little sense if you know what you are doing.

Can you provide a source to that quotation? Will it be one supporting his stake in Coke? Or railroads? Or insurance? Or financial services? Which single investment among Buffet's diversified holdings will you use as evidence that he does not diversify?

Why no recommendations on SE about single brilliant stocks to pick? Why do all the suggestions come from w67, not inoitall?

Actually, I was debating your wife But all in context of the others who touched her, I'm not so sure I want that

>> Why no recommendations on SE about single brilliant stocks to pick

I dunno, maybe because you're not paying attention. Google up AAPL (up 30%), GLW (up 45%), and INTC (up 20%) as my 2013 picks. Go on, now.

w67th, my years on SE has taught me one thing: NYC RE never loses.

Go with the index? But you suck at picking stocks. Give your stock picks? You didn't really buy it. Show the post where you declare that you bought? Oh, it couldn't have been for real money. Say that it was? Get lectured on the inappropriateness of putting it all on one stock because they think the volatility is nowhere near 5x-levered RE, get lectured on diversification. How about the index then?

*shrug*

You know what, I'm gonna join Team RE too.

Rents ain't going nowhere. Recently saw a jaw-dropping place, "hot" neighborhood, etc. with a high but cheap-for-what-you're-getting rent. Decided not to bid because we aren't tired of our current place just yet. Felt kinda bad. It's been on the market for a year now. Apparently, there are only so many people who are able to pay that rent who don't already own. *Shrug* Now if a place like that sits for a year, what's the chance of some lesser place doubling its rent by the end of the decade? Are incomes doubling?

Now RE goes up, more investors, more fancy places looking for the same set of tenants. That fancy place in hot neighborhood that was renting in a week for 25% more a few years back now sits for a year. Works for me, I don't mind paying out from my income / stock gains / etc.

But the real icing on the cake is that the RE bullz will get even more stuck than they are now. Prices double, upgrade apt will be 2x further out of reach than it is now.

Gotta love it when a set of consumers a rooting for paying higher prices on their consumption.

Go Team RE!

A lot of long paragraphs for someone who makes financial decisions based on what I say.

@w67th and@ nada: Now that you've clarified analogy, and I see your point, I am really confused. Why on earth would pros give high school punks the time of day? I am sure I am not the only lawyer on here who reads the legal nonsense that crops up here and there with an eye roll and nothing more. Some of it is beyond hilarious, but if someone is spewing nonsense with authority on an anonymous Internet chat forum, why on earth would you try to talk sense to them? For my part, I am just a spectator in this whole thing (and I do root for prices of things I consume to go up - my worst fear these days is that US goes way of Japan - not a big deal for me b/c I am relatively secure, but I do worry about nieces and nephews) and truly don't understand 99% of the back and forth between the two sides. With all that said, however, I do enjoy both of your posts; I admit I don't understand the bulk of them, but the ones that I do get have opened my eyes to the financial management aspects of real estate. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, I miss my total ignorance b/c I am going to eat the french fries anyway, even though I know they are terrible for me.

@nada. Investing 100% in AAPL over the past 5 years was a great decision with the benefit of hindsight. Please don't try to tell me that it was a less risky (at outset) than RE (even if moderately levered). I'm not even following which volatility index you are even quoting. Price change is not a measure of volatility. As I said before I don't have the confidence to think that I can pick stocks and outperform the market over the long run.

I choose to diversify my assets globally and across asset classes. My equity investments are currently outperforming the market over the past 5 years. However, my investments typically also have a lower volatilty than the market measured by the overall standard deviation in the prices of those assets.

>less risky (at outset) than RE (even if moderately levered).

This is another joke. Trying to look at residential real estate from the POV of the stock market. 5 to 1 leverage - does that magnify your potential losses over the life of the ownership? Sure, but you can't day trade your home. You can't sell derivatives on your home

This thread suggested w67 is an incoherent homeless troll. I personally doubt the homeless part. Incoherent ... there it goes again.

>> Why on earth would pros give high school punks the time of day? I am sure I am not the only lawyer on here who reads the legal nonsense that crops up here and there with an eye roll and nothing more.

The lawyer's domain is in the reading & drafting documents, going to the courtroom, etc. Your life is spent as a continuation in the same little circle you used to intellectualize with in comparative literature (i.e., mental self-gratification). You go up against other lawyers and the such every day. It's not like you are going to go up against some lay person in the courtroom. And your grubby little hands are always looking for that billable hour, who cares about the big picture and breaking it down for a lay person.

An investor's domain is the market. Despite notions to the contrary, the markets are not controlled by some cabal of cognescenti. It is controlled by the masses of lay people, by the whims of the herd, by the pull of the rational and irrational. If you're a rational person, you have a hard time believing in the irrationality of the lay person. You engage in some such conversation, you not only accept its existence, but you also get a free view inside the head of the irrational. So when people are behaving nutty -- stocks in 2009 with average P/E below 10, AAPL at $390 in 2013 w/ $150 cash + $40/yr earnings, etc. -- you have an easier time saying "You know what, maybe, just maybe, I am not missing something and people are behaving nutty, so I should pull the trigger." Ditto in the other direction, ditto w/ any other irrationality you can find.

Oxymoronic>> Please don't try to tell me that it was a less risky (at outset) than RE (even if moderately levered). I'm not even following which volatility index you are even quoting. Price change is not a measure of volatility.

Look, you're the one who said stocks are "an investment strategy with far, far higher volatility than RE". I gave you some numbers, you seem not to like them and have doubts that they are accurate. Fine, so let's not worry how I got them.

How about you tell me what you think the volatility of stocks vs. levered RE is that makes you say "far, far higher"? If you get to a different answer than mine, tell me how you got there and I'll tell you how I got mine.

Hey - my hands aren't grubby!
I am still with oxymoronic, hb and ottawa on this one. Diversification seems rational to me, and I hardly think that oxymoronic's statements about volatility of stocks vs real estate can be compared to holocaust denial. With that said, I reiterate that I always enjoy Nada's view b/c I have met him and believe his mind is firing on more cylinders than my own. Re w67th, let's just say I love the title of this thread . . . :-)

>How about you tell me what you think the volatility of stocks vs. levered RE is that makes you say "far, far higher"? If you get to a different answer than mine, tell me how you got there and I'll tell you how I got mine.

Possibly he looked at volatility in context of average duration.

>So when people are behaving nutty -- stocks in 2009 with average P/E below 10, AAPL at $390 in 2013 w/ $150 cash + $40/yr earnings, etc.

And yet the final decision to buy Apple at $390 was made because of what I said

If asset A and asset B have the same risk and are (say) 50% correlated, then diversification isn't necessarily good. If you think A is going up 10% and B is going up 10%, you should definitely buy both. But if you think A is going up 10% and B is going up 5%, buying both for the sake of diversification is a poor decision. If you think it's 10% / 0%, then you should be shorting B.

If you put equal amounts of money in, say, the stock index and 3x-levered NYC RE as of 5 years ago, your choices for "how good was that decision" are bad either case. If you thought they were going on different trajectories, then you shouldn't have bought both blindly for the sake of diversification. If you thought they would go up equal-ish amounts, the outcome has been so different that it should lead you to conclude that your prediction of equal-ish was piss-poor rather than it being bad luck.

Lesson for inonada today: While diversification is good and most people have picked of on the mantra, many will apply it blindly without questioning its appropriateness on a case-by-case basis.

Thanks!

Lesson for today: those coming to streeteasy looking for a home should day trade and selectively sell stocks short.
Second lesson: diversification is bad because the individual real estate buyer or observer should be a better stock picker and future predictor than the market including institutional investors, mutual funds and hedge funds.
Third lesson: w67 sold Ford to buy shares of Apple on April. He should have doubled on Ford and shorted Apple according to inoitall because that strategy would have outperformed based on Apple's relative underperformance to Ford (as well as underperformance relative to many other stocks I listed above).

@nada

I can't easily find a good estimate of the standard deviation on NY Real Estate. However, as a very simpistic measure, the average stock on the NYSE has a high/low spread each and every year of 40%. Over the past 20 years, the SE condo index suggests the average high low spread is around 8% with a worse case scenario of 22% (and that was on the upside not down). Even if you only have 33% in deposit, the volatilty at outset is 24% on RE or roughly 60% of the volatility of your average stock.

Separately, I agree that diversification is useless if the assets are 100% correlated. Half my assets in AAPL and the other half in AAPL is a perfect example of 100% correlation. However, even if I put half my assets in Samsung and the other half in AAPL, I would be introducing a good hedge against one of these firms making a big misstep in the next product cycle or falling foul of an essentially unpredictable devastating patent issue/legal/product safety recall etc....

Of course, I go a lot further. I consciously look for diversifcaiton across a range of instruments in an attempt to reduce both correlation and to assist in creating a portfolio that will both beat the market in the long-run but also demonstrate lower volatility over the long-run. I have investments in absolute return hedge funds, frontier equity markets, overseas corporate real estate projects, different commodity classes, various classes of fixed income, ETFs and actively managed equity portfolios. I am aveaging 10% a year over the past 10 years not ignoring 2008. I will take that. My standard deviation is much lower than the S&P. In good months, I'm up 3%. In bad months, I'm down 1% but essentially gross out an aveage 1% a month to the positive.

When w67 went to the bank to deposit his Apple returns , did the bank ask about the risk of the Apple trade vs the risk of buying Facebook which more than doubled Apple's return in the period chose by w67?

Wow the cat lover driver who's got her seat pointed backwards is giving Senna driving points.

Go team Troll!

So W67, your investment philosophy would be to hold everything in cash and then load up when once in life opportunities present themselves, of which there have been many since the crash (both in the market and in RE).

So if someone came to you today and said I want to invest $100,000 what would you tell them? Hold in cash and wait for a once in a lifetime opportunity that might never come?

A correct analogy is that my cash position is paying me 3% and has appreciated by 36% in 6 months versus your cash position.

If you wanna go llama farm to alpaca farm, then bring it.

After 7 months w67 changes the story about the circumstances under which he bought Apple.

Of course the lie, whether that lie was on April or today - doesn't change the face that Apple underperformed a nice list of companies, including Ford.

Well that wasn't the question W67. If these two once in a lifetime opportunities are gone - as you indicate - what would you tell someone to do today? Find a nice healthy dividend that pays 3%?

Ford has some cool new cars and I like the seasonal pumpkin latte at Starbucks, 2 companies that have outperformed Apple since the date of w67's choosing.

W67: I guess with the better/same/worse comment you have it all covered. I wish AAPL was performing as well as you say. Seems stuck until we see a tv.

BTW, didn't you sell your AAPL and instead get mostly S?

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/35818-w67-i-need-your-advice

I go back to my gambling analogy. I put everything I have on on 1 to 8 becuase for some reason I know more than the market, because it's a once in a lifetime obvious opportunity for guaranteed returns. I claim I win. I have a 300% ROI. Whenever anyone suggests that RE or any other investing philosophy is better I retort that my claimed 300% return is far superior. When anyone suggests it may have been risky or lucky, I claim that it was a once in a lifetime risk free trade measured through the fine lens of hindsight.

oxymoronic, your last comment is closer to your handle minus the oxy part....if you think these calls are just part of the random walk theory, then thats what makes the market. let me oversimplify it for you, smart investors (over time) typically will rip the heads off stupid ones. guess where you fit?

and so we can come full circle, i beckon stevie once again.....will u plz answer my question of months ago....are bitcoins money????

@CarlosDangersfan - if you really believe that w67th or any other talking head on this board has the inate ability to beat the market over the long run, I believe that is moronic. Unless W67th is Warren Buffet in disguise, I think he's just some poor partially informed investor like the rest of us. He may believe he has magical investing abilities but he hasn't. I do my best to be informed but given I am close to some IB Equity Analysts, I also realize that these guys are Harvard educated, have access to all the data that money can buy, have access to firm's CFOs and Execs yet most of the time they can't beat the market either. I haven't got the time to read through 10-Qs, to really understand a firm's balance sheet etc...etc.. Unless you really have knowledge that the market doesn't, you're deluding yourself into thinking a trade on a single stock is anything other than a partially informed bet. Long is the line of equity portfolio managers who've beaten the market for 3, 5 and 10 years who then fallen off a cliff and failed to beat the market over 15....

Oxymoronic and rangersfan. Finger each other.

Now lick each other's fingers.

Mmmm. Mmmmm. Mmmmm. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Cat sex fever!!!

Fking troll retards.

Oxymoronic>> I can't easily find a good estimate of the standard deviation on NY Real Estate. However, as a very simpistic measure, the average stock on the NYSE has a high/low spread each and every year of 40%. Over the past 20 years, the SE condo index suggests the average high low spread is around 8% with a worse case scenario of 22% (and that was on the upside not down). Even if you only have 33% in deposit, the volatilty at outset is 24% on RE or roughly 60% of the volatility of your average stock.

OK, let's go with your simplistic measure.

Single stock high/low spread 40%, or 5x the 8% you measured on the SE index. I said that a single stock (AAPL) had about the volatility as NYC RE (27% vs. 30%).

Using your measure on S&P 500 for the past 20 years, I get 27%: about 3x your measure of 8% on the SE index.

So by your measure and by my measure, volatility of single stocks is comparable to 5x-levered RE and volatility of stock indices is comparable to 3x-levered RE.

I don't see how "far, far higher volatility" is applicable. Even if you compare single stock to 3x-levered RE, single stock has 60%-higher volatility. Hardly what I would call "far, far higher" given that the spectrum of investments typically range across more than 10x-differing volatilities. It's like saying "5x-levered RE has far, far higher volatility than 3x-levered RE". Not really, it just has 1.6x times as much. Now if you made that statement across unlevered RE vs. 5x-levered RE, sure.

Any case, it's perfectly fair to say that you need to account for risk. But if you have 1.6x higher volatility and much higher return, you can still account for the volatility and make a statement.

Volatility < > Risk.

Oxymoronic, I think your story: "I have no clue when something might be undervalued / overvalued. I have no such clue within a market, and I have no such clue across time. Stocks looked just as attractive to me in January 2000 as they did in March 2009. Whatever the market was saying in 2000, with P/E at 40 and earnings yield at 2.5% against a 30-year yield at 6.5%, was just as knowledgeable as 2009, with P/E at 10 and earnings yield at 10% against a 30-year yield at 3.0%. It all looks equally attractive all the time, and if it isn't, who am I to know?"

If your expectation for all markets is equally up (adjusted for risk) at all times no matter what, then equal diversification is the right answer. I refer you to:

Buffett>> Diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes little sense if you know what you are doing.

@nada

I actually very actively monitor macro trends like you allude to. I was certainly not long financials in 2008/2009 etc... I was overweight Emerging Markets until this year etc.. etc...

My comments have been consistent in saying that nobody on this board has sufficient insight to pick individual stocks over the long term and beat the market. There are thousands of professional money managers who are paid to and fail to deliver on this pretty basic goal. They aren't stupid or ignorant per se. If you somehow think you have the special secret sauce that millions are looking for, I would either start a hedge fund or start licensing your techniques!

For me, some basic fundamentals led me to go all-in on stocks 5 years ago while eschewing NYC RE. I did so despite understanding that over very long periods (i.e., many decades) both provide similar risk-adjusted returns and would therefore generally benefit from diversification. These same fundamentals led me to buy AAPL after it hit $390 four months ago, thinking it'd outperform the market. (FTR, my view is no longer as strong given how it has outperformed.)

So I'm not sure which you are saying about Inonada's fundamental analysis (let's call it IFA):

- IFA has no ability to outperform diversification whatsoever
- IFA can outperform diversification across asset classes, but not in individual stocks

Random aside. I've always found atheists who rant against the blind faith of the religious to be funny. They take a fact (there is no proof of that God exists) and proclaim the irrationality of the faithful (I absolutely believe God exists). Meanwhile, they ignore the symmetric irrationality of their own position: "While there is no proof that God does not exist, I absolutely believe that God does not exist".

If your belief is there is absolutely no possibility that IFA has any merit (because "nobody on this board has sufficient insight"), then no amount of evidence can budge you from your position that "it was just luck". If you say that, a priori, there is some small possibility that IFA has merit (however small), we can make an assessment on luck vs. skill.

Ditto for w67IHTA: "w67thstreet's incoherent homeless troll analysis"

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/34852-somewhereelse-smarterbetter-investor-than-inonada

Ottawanyc

1 day ago

Posts: 745

Member since: Aug 2011

ignore this person

report abuse

W67: I guess with the better/same/worse comment you have it all covered. I wish AAPL was performing as well as you say. Seems stuck until we see a tv.

BTW, didn't you sell your AAPL and instead get mostly S?

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/35818-w67-i-need-your-advice