Kan du inte ge oss höjdpunkterna? 
Jag klarar inte att följa många sådana människor känslomässigt, för jag vet inte hur jag ska förhålla mig till det. Om jag ska skratta, gråta, vara skadeglad, lära mig, försöka bidra eller argumentera så min strategi är att bara hålla mig borta… 
Kort(?) version. Följt med SBB ned i källaren (inkl återinvesterad utdelning). Tror till och med han sålde av Neobo och stoppade in det i SBB. Han viktade om i portföljen och sålde Tesla i deras maj-dipp vad det verkar.
Månadssparandet går till Opti 9 och Spiltan AF IB.
Ligger på sitt ISK, där jag antar att han är som mest aktiv, +5% i år. Vilket inte är dåligt men det är tillnyktrande. Han jobbar, vad jag förstått det som, inom finans och lägger ned all denna tid. Ändå så är index utom räckhåll.
Det som gör iaf mig ödmjuk är att det återigen visar att det som krävs på börsen är riktigt, dedikerat, hårt jobb. Något jag inte har tid eller lust med. Så jag är tacksam att kunna stoppa in allt i Lysa och göra något annat samtidigt som pengarna tjänar pengar åt mig.
Just keep buying går ju liksom inte applicera när affärsidén går helt åt h-e som i SBB.
Edit//
Upplever dock inte att han gör det där klassiska småspararmisstaget att man säljer av i fina bolag för att snitta ned sig i dåliga bolag. Så han misstar ju inte kursras för rabatt och rea.
Börsen är ett tufft hav att segla på. 
Tack för sammanfattning!
Är lite nyfiken vad en Chatgpt skulle skrivit om 100miljonersmannen?
Nekrobump då jag kom över följande artikel som är relevant för tråden från Ramit Sethi (som inte går att länka till):
Jan,
Some of you really believe that rich people have access to “secret” investments that get incredible returns.
Look! 81.7% of people believe that.
Well, I’m rich, and I have access to those investments, and unfortunately 81.7% of people are wrong.Read on to learn why rich people DON’T have access to some secret investment that consistently beats the market – and why they often choose WORSE investments.
Why rich people don’t have access to better investments, continued…
In most of life, the more money you have, the better things you can buy. For example, if I spend $200 on sushi, the fish is going to be fresher and better than $5 sushi from a gas station.
Pay more, get better food, better housing, better travel experiences. We all intuitively understand this.
But in personal finance—with rare exceptions—this is not true. Let me show you why.
There’s a whole industry set up to exploit rich investors who want better returns.
The rich find it impossible to believe their money can’t beat what ordinary investors get. So a massive industry has sprung up to deliver this fantasy via private equity, venture capital, and alternative investments.
There are 1% wealth management fees (remember, 1% means you’ll pay 28% of your returns to fees), 2-&-20 (meaning you pay 2% AND 20% of returns – lol), 10-year lockups where your money is illiquid, obfuscated fees (IRR is not your return), etc.
These investments look glamorous—and frequently underperform.
Here’s one example, where “Pershing Square kept approximately 72 percent of the fund’s gains for itself, leaving investors with the measly remains.”
The alternative investment game is fantastic for the people running it. Not so great for the actual investors, who can often get better returns in a Vanguard index fund. I wouldn’t expect the average Ma and Pa investor to understand these complexities—and indeed, there are some minor rules such as “accredited investor” rules—but what’s remarkable is that even highly sophisticated investors like pension funds often also underperform against a basic index fund.
What about hedge funds?
You’ve probably heard how the ultra-wealthy have access to these secret hedge funds, which outperform the market when it’s going up, but then they also outperform when the market is down. They’re magic!
Yeah, I watch Billions too.
The truth: most hedge funds underperform a simple S&P 500 fund. And despite underperforming for over a decade, extremely wealthy people keep pouring money in. How do they get away with it? My favorite is the hedge fund that went bust in 31 minutes.
In general, hedge funds are for suckers.
You may remember that in 2008, Warren Buffett bet that “an S&P 500 index fund would outperform a hand-picked portfolio of hedge funds over 10 years.” Predictably, the hedge fund lost. Not just lost a little, but lost in an absolute bloodbath. This was like the Superbowl for me.
What about venture capital?
Yes, the venture capital asset class also underperforms the market.
Hedge funds underperform. VC underperforms. PE underperforms.
Keep in mind, there are different reasons to own these funds, so it’s a little bit like me saying that a “Ferrari underperformed a minivan”—well, they both have different purposes. But we all know that you buy a Ferrari for fun and luxury. Most of the people who buy into sophisticated investments like VC/PE actually believe they’re going to get outsized returns. They don’t. So while different and theoretically uncorrelated, the vast majority of alternative investments…still lose compared to a simple index fund.
Now, if you really want to get into these funds and you’re wealthy, they’ll happily take your money and happily charge you insane fees. They’ll bamboozle you with fancy offices and beautiful reports filled with arcane terms and hockey-stick charts.
In the end, many people—and I’m talking about highly sophisticated investors—don’t even realize their returns are below what a guy working at Best Buy can get by investing 7% of his paycheck in an index fund.
Same with private equity.
Private equity frequently misleads even sophisticated investors with their IRR numbers (not clarifying that IRR isn’t what investors make). Preston McSwain has been outspoken about this.
“What about Sequoia? It beats the market. What about Renaissance?”
Yes, in certain cases, there are firms with extremely impressive results. They actually do beat the market, often for decades.
So what’s the catch?
First, it’s hard to identify the best players ahead of time (in VC, ~5% of funds = the total industry’s returns.)
Second, the best funds won’t take your money. Nope, not even if you can write them a $25,000,000 check. Being wealthy isn’t enough to get you in the door. They’re perennially “oversubscribed” (meaning they have more investors beating down their door than they want to let in, because size is the enemy of returns), so they won’t take your money. It’s like calling French Laundry and telling them you’ll pay $50,000 if they can slide you in for a reservation tonight. Thank you, but we don’t do that. Again, hard to believe. But it’s true.
Personal finance is one of the rare areas of life where someone earning $35,000 and someone earning $1 million have access to the same winning strategies. Pick a low-cost index fund, automate, and move on with life.
My favorite part of this is the reactions when I tell people about this.
The idea that the wealthy don’t have access to some super-secret investment that’s actually responsible for all their wealth is EXTREMELY hard for people to believe. I posted this and got extremely angry, borderline apoplectic responses.
Like this one:
Yes, Gigamesh, I am. You may believe that because something is hard to get into, it’s automatically better, but that’s not true – especially for investments, where Wall Street has invented dozens of different ways to charge investors hefty fees.Or this:
This is true, and totally irrelevant. Of course if you have more money, you can make more money. If Person A invests $1,000/month and Person B invests $100,000/month, Person B will have more. Nobody is arguing that.Or this rage-filled response:
Notice the rage here. Deep down, many of us believe that one of the reasons the ultra-rich are rich is that they have access to some secret network and investments. Well, I grew up middle class, I went to Stanford, and I have access to some of the investments I’ve mentioned here (VC, PE, etc) and I can tell you—along with the research I shared above —it’s not true.Now, this person does have some legitimate critiques of the ultra wealthy, who get massive tax advantages (why does Buffett pay a higher tax rate than his assistant?), as well as structural advantages based on race, housing, and many other factors.
If you’re born poor in America, the deck is stacked against you. Race matters. Family wealth matters. Education matters.
I’ve always said that you can simultaneously acknowledge the need for systemic reform and take personal responsibility for what we can control.
But I want us to focus on what’s real. Wealthy people have access to a LOT of advantages and they—we—should be fairly critiqued for it. This is why I constantly advocate for raising my taxes! I should pay more!
But wealthy people, as a rule, do not have access to better investments.
This response made me laugh. The idea that being an “accredited investor” is some magical pass to get free money is hilarious. That’s like saying, “Uh yeah, I’m RICH…I have an AMEX Gold.”Accredited investors are not especially impressive. We’re talking about investments that are beyond the reach of the majority of accredited investors, and even those investments fail to beat the market on average.
Also, what happened to those “stupid easy gains?” Oh yeah, many pre-IPO companies completely tanked. It’s called risk management, SaasWiz (whose account is now private).
David worked under the legendary David Swensen at Yale, working alongside some of the world’s best investors with access to the best information and world-class managers. He agrees this is true! If you’re going to listen to anyone, ignore the guys with the icon of a shoebox and listen to David, who actually knows what he’s talking about.
Apropå det här med “exklusiva” och “kända” investeringar som erbjuds till rika människor och som många stod i kö för att komma in i och om man var inne i, gav en socialt kapital.
Några citat för dig som inte kan läsa artikeln (betalvägg)
And it was Robertson’s investment approach of “catching the next big wave, not riding the ripples” or maintaining a “contrarian bias,” according to the letter sent Oct. 3, 2022, that would inspire and shape Tiger Global’s very own investment philosophy for 22 years.
Coleman’s hedge fund filed a document with the Securities and Exchange Commission reporting it had shrunk from $86 billion to $51 billion in net assets under management from the beginning of the year. Tiger’s hedge fund, in particular, lost nearly 60% in 2022—making it one of the worst performing hedge funds of the year on Wall Street.
Robertson, who had accumulated a heaping $22 billion in assets at Tiger Management’s peak, was known for going against the grain. And during the peak of the dotcom boom, he famously shorted a series of high-flying tech stocks he believed were overvalued. Robertson’s premise was right. But it wouldn’t matter, because he wasn’t able to monetize it: After two years of clobbering losses, investors lost faith in him and withdrew funds en masse.
The Nasdaq index has soared 35% year to date. Tiger’s hedge fund, meanwhile, is still lagging, up about 18% through July.
Nick Magiulli på Twitter häromdagen:
If you think you need a bunch of exotic investments to get wealthy, you are wrong.
High net worth households (those with >$3M in assets) had less than 7% of their net worth outside of stocks, bonds, and cash.
If they don’t need complex investments, why would you?
Källa: Bank of America, 2017
Since 2021, 35 of 83 tactical allocation funds have outperformed the simple US 60/40 allocation (excluding funds that died along the way). The better a TAA fund did in 2022, the worse it’s tended to do YTD, and vice versa.
– Källa: Jeffrey Ptak på Twitter, 12 sep 2023
samt
Over the trailing five years ended 7/31/23, the average dollar invested in thematic ETFs lost 2.4% per year while the average thematic ETF gained 4.9%. To put that in context, the average dollar invested in Vanguard Tot. Stock Mkt Inv Fund gained more than 14% p.a. over that span.
In case you’re wondering, the results didn’t change materially when I removed ARKK from the figures. Under that scenario, the average dollar invested in thematic ETFs lost 0.5% per year vs. a 5.6% gain for the average ETF, for a gap or more than 6% per year. Lousy results.
– Källa: Jeffrey Ptak på Twitter, 12 sep 2023
Uppdatering för framtiden utifrån artikeln:
Samt:
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2019/09/12/how-private-equity-destroys-investors-wealth
My 2019 article for Advisor Perspectives summarized the research on the performance of private equity. Unfortunately, it was not encouraging—in general, private equity had underperformed similarly risky public equities even without considering their use of leverage and adjusting for their lack of liquidity. But the authors of the 2005 study “Private Equity Performance: Returns, Persistence, and Capital Flows,” offered some hope. They concluded that private equity partnerships were learning—older, more experienced funds tended to have better performance—and there was some performance persistence. Thus, they recommended that investors choose a firm with a long track record of superior performance.
There are several key takeaways for investors. First, the claims of superior risk-adjusted performance by the PE industry are exaggerated. Given their lack of liquidity, opaqueness, and greater use of leverage, it seems logical that investors should demand something like a 3-4% IRR premium. Yet, there is no evidence that the industry overall has been able to deliver that. Second, the failure to appropriately mark-to-market investments during public market drawdowns leads investors to underestimate the risk of these investments, as the volatility is significantly understated. Third, investors should expect that much of their capital might be outstanding even well beyond a decade—and that should undoubtedly require a risk premium.
The late David Swensen, a legendary chief investment officer of Yale’s endowment fund, offered this caution on private-equity investing, as noted in my book, The Quest for Alpha: “Understanding the difficulty of identifying superior hedge fund, venture capital, and leveraged buyout investments leads to the conclusion that hurdles for casual investors stand insurmountably high. Even many well-equipped investors fail to clear the hurdles necessary to achieve consistent success in producing market-beating, active management results. When operating in arenas that depend fundamentally on active management for success, ill-informed manager selection poses grave risks to portfolio assets.”
Those who ignore Swensen’s warning still need to understand that, due to the extreme volatility and skewness of returns, it is important to diversify the risks of private equity. This is best achieved by investing indirectly through a private equity fund rather than through direct investments in individual companies. Because most such funds typically limit their investments to a relatively small number, it is also prudent to diversify by investing in more than one fund. And finally, top-notch funds are likely to be closed to most individual investors. They get all the capital they need from the Yales of the world. Forewarned is forearmed.
Hooke then cited the example of the KKR Fund XII ($13 billion, 2016 vintage), which in December 2022 indicated a 19% IRR that even though just five months later, its largest investment (Envision Healthcare, $3.5 billion in equity) filed for bankruptcy.
Mkt Intressant tråd….på tal om ovan citat (om utbildning, bakgrund mm) så kommer jag ihåg min (ganska stekiga) klasskompis som i sin tidiga gymnasie-ålder hade fått ihop det med en ny flickvän (som enligt ryktet var mycket trevlig). Flickvännen kom dock från en helt annan typ av familj där sparande och börsen nog aldrig hade diskuterats. Visualisera nu nedan scenario för det som hände sedan:
Den nya flickvännen blev inbjuden på middag hos min klasskompis familj för att de skulle bekanta sig med varandra. Det var alltså första gången de träffades. Pappan jobbade inom finansvärlden och det blev såklart lite börsnack vid middagsbordet. Efter ett tag så ville såklart den nya flickvännen visa sig intresserad och ställde frågan vad en aktie var för något och hur det funkade egentligen. Varpå pappan artigt och pedagogiskt förklarade att ”en aktie är en andel i ett företag som man kan köpa och sälja. För att tjäna några pengar måste man då sälja den för mer än vad man köpte den för. Jag tar ett exempel: låt oss säga att du köper ett HubbaBubba (kan ha varit ett Jenka också) för 1 kr. Sedan behåller du det ett tag och säljer det sedan för 2 kr. Då har du alltså tjänat en krona på affären.” Flickvännen: ”Aha, jag förstår. Men det där skulle jag aldrig lägga någon energi på. Då har man ju bara tjänat ett HubbaBubba”. Historien förtäljer icke om det blev ett långvarigt förhållande.
PS. Inga genus-påhopp tack. Det var bara en anekdotisk berättelse i en mer skämtsam anda från tidigt 90-tal. Eventuellt förgyller det tillvaron för någon ensam själ som precis öppnat sin första fredagsöl. Eller precis dekanterat en flarra Barolo av finare årgång. 
DS.
Korslänkning till en artikel på ämnet av Nick Magiulli som sätter en fantastisk titel på denna tråden: " Investing for Me, But Not for Thee".
”Unfortunately, the only thing that Tony Robbins showed me is that the holy grail of investing isn’t in the investments, it’s in selling them.”
This! 
Efter att ha läst den recensionen blir jag också fundersam när det gäller Tony Robbins övriga karriär. Hur mycket av det han har gjort kommer från ett genuint intresse att hjälpa andra bli framgångsrika? 
