[fktax]

(12-18-2018 08:52 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

I'm a firm believer in the "melt up" right now. I don't see a recession for a while, and love the contrarian aspect of it. So many preaching doom and gloom, and they're gonna miss out on a 10k + and more run ...

Agreed. When everyone's pulling out I'm ready to go all in. Pun intended.

Timing the market is great and all, but time in the market, more often than not wins.

[Australia Sucks]

The most important thing when buying socks is try to visualize what the company will be doing 5, 10, 15 and 20 years from now. That is far more important than what interest rates will do, what the stock market as a whole will do, if the company beats its earnings guidance next quarter, etc. Very few stock market participants have a truly long-term horizon. By having a very long-term horizon you are already half way there to outperforming the stock market.

[trickster]

^^ I’ve read some of your posts and I think you aren’t an idiot. But visualizing 15-20 years out when buying a stock is nonsense.

[Australia Sucks]

Trickster its not nonsense. That is what people like Warren Buffett (and Peter Lynch back in the day) and countless others do.

[Chetthebaker]

It certainly isn’t. The Apple and Berkshire Hathaway lots I’ve owned for 15-20 years are a testament to that.

[bgbusiness]

(04-27-2019 05:02 PM)trickster Wrote:  

^^ I’ve read some of your posts and I think you aren’t an idiot. But visualizing 15-20 years out when buying a stock is nonsense.

No it's not. That's what long-term value investing is all about.

[General Stalin]

What trickster means is that "visualizing" what a company will be worth in a decade+ from now is a fancy word for "guessing" - or really - "gambling." Besides having just a hunch or making a good guess, it's nigh impossible to predict the stock market, which is why the vast majority of folks who trade are not filthy rich from it. Not saying you shouldn't buy a new/risky stock and hang onto it. Like Chet said - if you had bought a few hundred dollars worth of Apple, or Amazon, or Microsoft back in the 90's look where you'd be now... just saying using that as the basis for your money making strategy is not at all realistic.

The magic answer to getting the most out of investment trading is diversifying, plain and simple. It's not exciting but it's the only tried and true way of historically making solid and consistent returns while staying resilient from dips, bubbles, recessions, etc.

[trickster]

You guys citing Buffet and advocating buy and hold for decades really have no grasp of the facts. Do yourselves a favor and read this.

“So what is St. Warren actually doing? Well, fortunately some college professors did the heavy lifting. They analyzed Berkshire Hathaway’s quarterly filings from 2006 all the way back to 1980, 2,140 quarter-stock observations. CXO Advisory had a nice summary of their work. In the words of the professors:

…we observe a median holding period of a year, with approximately 20% of stocks held for more than two years. At the other end of the spectrum, approximately 30% of stocks are sold within six months.”

https://seekingalpha.com/article/394891-...y-and-hold

As General Stalin aptly put in, your strategy of visualizing Company performance two decades from now is nothing more than gambling. You will be wrong nearly every single time if not 100 percent of the time.

[KnjazMihailo]

There is another big point that people are missing here. The whole point of the stock market and financial market in general is that through trading with abstract instruments, you earn money by tricking someone else, transferring it from them or whatever you want to call it. Basically, someone else has to lose money in order for you to win. This is why more than 90% of people who trade on the stock market lose money.

The stock/financial market is an "industry" (for lack of a better word) very similar to insurance and gambling. Its because all three of these things are based on monetary speculation of the future.

If anyone is ever going to touch the stock/financial (Yes, other financial instruments besides stocks exist) markets and gambling, WHAT THEY MUST KNOW is that in order to be able to make a living off this and for it to be worth it, they must have a strategy or methodology that allows them to win at least 51% of the time or more (The higher the percentage, the better). Without a method which allows you to do this, you're literally just gambling blindly which is something any rational person wouldn't advise, but if people have spare money to throw away, its not up to me to stop them.

Buying insurance is a somewhat different matter as you're paying for a service that secures your safety in some form for the future. Its not blindly gambling as its simply security against any form of future disaster that you actually don't hope to profit from. Its basically purchasing a speculative service, not trying to make any income.

[croquet]

(04-29-2019 01:43 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

There is another big point that people are missing here. The whole point of the stock market and financial market in general is that through trading with abstract instruments, you earn money by tricking someone else, transferring it from them or whatever you want to call it. Basically, someone else has to lose money in order for you to win. This is why more than 90% of people who trade on the stock market lose money.

You are not entirely wrong here, but completely out of context with regards to the above conversion. Trading is 0 sum, investing may not be.

(04-29-2019 01:43 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

The stock/financial market is an "industry" (for lack of a better word) very similar to insurance and gambling. Its because all three of these things are based on monetary speculation of the future.

Right because the trillions of dollars in the stock market have no economic impact and are pure gambling. LOL

(04-29-2019 01:43 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

If anyone is ever going to touch the stock/financial (Yes, other financial instruments besides stocks exist) markets and gambling, WHAT THEY MUST KNOW is that in order to be able to make a living off this and for it to be worth it, they must have a strategy or methodology that allows them to win at least 51% of the time or more (The higher the percentage, the better). Without a method which allows you to do this, you're literally just gambling blindly which is something any rational person wouldn't advise, but if people have spare money to throw away, its not up to me to stop them.

No cupcake, you need remedial high school math. Probability != expectancy. You are so far out of your league.

(04-29-2019 01:43 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

Buying insurance is a somewhat different matter as you're paying for a service that secures your safety in some form for the future. Its not blindly gambling as its simply security against any form of future disaster that you actually don't hope to profit from. Its basically purchasing a speculative service, not trying to make any income.

You have a really interesting perspective on insurance.

[KnjazMihailo]

(04-29-2019 02:16 AM)croquet Wrote:  

(04-29-2019 01:43 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

There is another big point that people are missing here. The whole point of the stock market and financial market in general is that through trading with abstract instruments, you earn money by tricking someone else, transferring it from them or whatever you want to call it. Basically, someone else has to lose money in order for you to win. This is why more than 90% of people who trade on the stock market lose money.

You are not entirely wrong here, but completely out of context with regards to the above conversion. Trading is 0 sum, investing may not be.

(04-29-2019 01:43 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

The stock/financial market is an "industry" (for lack of a better word) very similar to insurance and gambling. Its because all three of these things are based on monetary speculation of the future.

Right because the trillions of dollars in the stock market have no economic impact and are pure gambling. LOL

(04-29-2019 01:43 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

If anyone is ever going to touch the stock/financial (Yes, other financial instruments besides stocks exist) markets and gambling, WHAT THEY MUST KNOW is that in order to be able to make a living off this and for it to be worth it, they must have a strategy or methodology that allows them to win at least 51% of the time or more (The higher the percentage, the better). Without a method which allows you to do this, you're literally just gambling blindly which is something any rational person wouldn't advise, but if people have spare money to throw away, its not up to me to stop them.

No cupcake, you need remedial high school math. Probability != expectancy. You are so far out of your league.

(04-29-2019 01:43 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

Buying insurance is a somewhat different matter as you're paying for a service that secures your safety in some form for the future. Its not blindly gambling as its simply security against any form of future disaster that you actually don't hope to profit from. Its basically purchasing a speculative service, not trying to make any income.

You have a really interesting perspective on insurance.

The trillions of dollars in the stock market have no economic impact besides effectively being a massive harvesting operation for a small rich elite who owns the place. As for the whole it "finances companies n shieeeeet" argument, the stock market is nothing more than one of many possible platforms for investing into a company. Since it seems like you're seriously stuck with the generic academic theory that the stock market exists for people to "invest" instead of trade, chances are that you're a boomer who's still stuck with pre-ww2 USA conceptions of the stock market. For everyone else who trades, it literally functions as a massive casino where the overwhelming majority of people simply lose money.

Your focus on high school maths is autistic. Where did i even mention that probability and expectancy are exactly the same thing?

Its obvious that probability and expectancy are not fully connected. What you're completely missing is the point that you can not EXPECT to be earning any money if less than 50% of your trades are successful. As for what you should EXPECT to earn when more than 50% of your trades are successful, is another matter. The point is that its practically impossible to make a living from trading on the stock market until you have a certain and guaranteed method to succeed with more than at least 50% of your trades. What's so inaccurate there?

As for the fact that you are literally mentally disturbed to the point that you have to chase me throughout different threads in a pathetic effort to "prove" that you're right, "since you totally won last time", is something literally not even worth commenting on.

I'm not even going to bother saying anything more than this, because getting into arguments with patronizing autists like yourself is not worth it. Its especially not worth getting banned from the forum or wasting precious time in my life on, considering i've already been warned for laying down the truth to you in a different thread.

[croquet]

(04-29-2019 03:05 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

The trillions of dollars in the stock market have no economic impact besides effectively being a massive harvesting operation for a small rich elite who owns the place. As for the whole it "finances companies n shieeeeet" argument, the stock market is nothing more than one of many possible platforms for investing into a company. Since it seems like you're seriously stuck with the generic academic theory that the stock market exists for people to "invest" instead of trade, chances are that you're a boomer who's still stuck with pre-ww2 USA conceptions of the stock market. For everyone else who trades, it literally functions as a massive casino where the overwhelming majority of people simply lose money.

I didn't think someone could be so deluded but here we are with your nonsensical ramblings. Right. Let's just hand wave off the global economy. Name how many ways the average joe can get ownership of a business that isn't stock. Careful it might require research and IQ points!

Explain to an autistic boomer what's a pre ww2 conception of the stock market?

(04-29-2019 03:05 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

Your focus on high school maths is autistic. Where did i even mention that probability and expectancy are exactly the same thing?

Its obvious that probability and expectancy are not fully connected. What you're completely missing is the point that you can not EXPECT to be earning any money if less than 50% of your trades are successful. As for what you should EXPECT to earn when more than 50% of your trades are successful, is another matter. The point is that its practically impossible to make a living from trading on the stock market until you have a certain and guaranteed method to succeed with more than at least 50% of your trades. What's so inaccurate there?

Ok cupcake. Here's some high school maths for you. Apparently you couldn't graduate high school.

A stock is at $10, you estimate it's worth $16 and figure it shouldn't go less than $8.
You are risking $2 to make $6. Over a series of trades, you only need to win 33% of the time to break even.

Consider the reverse scenario: Stock at $10, target at $12 and cut losses and $6. You are risking $4 to make $2. Over a series of trades, you need a 66% win percentage to break even.

It is not the win percentage that matters, but how much you win per trade. Of course I don't expect a high school kid with an IQ of 75 like yourself to comprehend that.

Come back when you actually know something about the world and grow hair on your balls. I think a golden retriever is actually smarter than you.

(04-29-2019 03:05 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

As for the fact that you are literally mentally disturbed to the point that you have to chase me throughout different threads in a pathetic effort to "prove" that you're right, "since you totally won last time", is something literally not even worth commenting on.

I'm not even going to bother saying anything more than this, because getting into arguments with patronizing autists like yourself is not worth it. Its especially not worth getting banned from the forum or wasting precious time in my life on, considering i've already been warned for laying down the truth to you in a different thread.

Are you still butthurt about the ass raping I gave you in the python developer thread? AND you are concerned about getting banned from an anonymous internet forum! LOL. So much estrogen in your post! Do you identify as female? When do you start HRT and transition?

Your writing is so emotional and reeks of feminine qualities. Have your parents been slapped for raising such a failure?

Edit: this is the post that gets me banned, and proves my point exactly.

[CaptainChardonnay]

FUCK THE STOCK MARKET!

[CaptainChardonnay]

(04-29-2019 12:51 PM)croquet Wrote:  

(04-29-2019 03:05 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

The trillions of dollars in the stock market have no economic impact besides effectively being a massive harvesting operation for a small rich elite who owns the place. As for the whole it "finances companies n shieeeeet" argument, the stock market is nothing more than one of many possible platforms for investing into a company. Since it seems like you're seriously stuck with the generic academic theory that the stock market exists for people to "invest" instead of trade, chances are that you're a boomer who's still stuck with pre-ww2 USA conceptions of the stock market. For everyone else who trades, it literally functions as a massive casino where the overwhelming majority of people simply lose money.

I didn't think someone could be so deluded but here we are with your nonsensical ramblings. Right. Let's just hand wave off the global economy. Name how many ways the average joe can get ownership of a business that isn't stock. Careful it might require research and IQ points!

Explain to an autistic boomer what's a pre ww2 conception of the stock market?

(04-29-2019 03:05 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

Your focus on high school maths is autistic. Where did i even mention that probability and expectancy are exactly the same thing?

Its obvious that probability and expectancy are not fully connected. What you're completely missing is the point that you can not EXPECT to be earning any money if less than 50% of your trades are successful. As for what you should EXPECT to earn when more than 50% of your trades are successful, is another matter. The point is that its practically impossible to make a living from trading on the stock market until you have a certain and guaranteed method to succeed with more than at least 50% of your trades. What's so inaccurate there?

Ok cupcake. Here's some high school maths for you. Apparently you couldn't graduate high school.

A stock is at $10, you estimate it's worth $16 and figure it shouldn't go less than $8.
You are risking $2 to make $6. Over a series of trades, you only need to win 33% of the time to break even.

Consider the reverse scenario: Stock at $10, target at $12 and cut losses and $6. You are risking $4 to make $2. Over a series of trades, you need a 66% win percentage to break even.

It is not the win percentage that matters, but how much you win per trade. Of course I don't expect a high school kid with an IQ of 75 like yourself to comprehend that.

Come back when you actually know something about the world and grow hair on your balls. I think a golden retriever is actually smarter than you.

(04-29-2019 03:05 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

As for the fact that you are literally mentally disturbed to the point that you have to chase me throughout different threads in a pathetic effort to "prove" that you're right, "since you totally won last time", is something literally not even worth commenting on.

I'm not even going to bother saying anything more than this, because getting into arguments with patronizing autists like yourself is not worth it. Its especially not worth getting banned from the forum or wasting precious time in my life on, considering i've already been warned for laying down the truth to you in a different thread.

Are you still butthurt about the ass raping I gave you in the python developer thread? AND you are concerned about getting banned from an anonymous internet forum! LOL. So much estrogen in your post! Do you identify as female? When do you start HRT and transition?

Your writing is so emotional and reeks of feminine qualities. Have your parents been slapped for raising such a failure?

Edit: this is the post that gets me banned, and proves my point exactly.

[KnjazMihailo]

(04-29-2019 12:51 PM)croquet Wrote:  

(04-29-2019 03:05 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

The trillions of dollars in the stock market have no economic impact besides effectively being a massive harvesting operation for a small rich elite who owns the place. As for the whole it "finances companies n shieeeeet" argument, the stock market is nothing more than one of many possible platforms for investing into a company. Since it seems like you're seriously stuck with the generic academic theory that the stock market exists for people to "invest" instead of trade, chances are that you're a boomer who's still stuck with pre-ww2 USA conceptions of the stock market. For everyone else who trades, it literally functions as a massive casino where the overwhelming majority of people simply lose money.

I didn't think someone could be so deluded but here we are with your nonsensical ramblings. Right. Let's just hand wave off the global economy. Name how many ways the average joe can get ownership of a business that isn't stock. Careful it might require research and IQ points!

Explain to an autistic boomer what's a pre ww2 conception of the stock market?

(04-29-2019 03:05 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

Your focus on high school maths is autistic. Where did i even mention that probability and expectancy are exactly the same thing?

Its obvious that probability and expectancy are not fully connected. What you're completely missing is the point that you can not EXPECT to be earning any money if less than 50% of your trades are successful. As for what you should EXPECT to earn when more than 50% of your trades are successful, is another matter. The point is that its practically impossible to make a living from trading on the stock market until you have a certain and guaranteed method to succeed with more than at least 50% of your trades. What's so inaccurate there?

Ok cupcake. Here's some high school maths for you. Apparently you couldn't graduate high school.

A stock is at $10, you estimate it's worth $16 and figure it shouldn't go less than $8.
You are risking $2 to make $6. Over a series of trades, you only need to win 33% of the time to break even.

Consider the reverse scenario: Stock at $10, target at $12 and cut losses and $6. You are risking $4 to make $2. Over a series of trades, you need a 66% win percentage to break even.

It is not the win percentage that matters, but how much you win per trade. Of course I don't expect a high school kid with an IQ of 75 like yourself to comprehend that.

Come back when you actually know something about the world and grow hair on your balls. I think a golden retriever is actually smarter than you.

(04-29-2019 03:05 AM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  

As for the fact that you are literally mentally disturbed to the point that you have to chase me throughout different threads in a pathetic effort to "prove" that you're right, "since you totally won last time", is something literally not even worth commenting on.

I'm not even going to bother saying anything more than this, because getting into arguments with patronizing autists like yourself is not worth it. Its especially not worth getting banned from the forum or wasting precious time in my life on, considering i've already been warned for laying down the truth to you in a different thread.

Are you still butthurt about the ass raping I gave you in the python developer thread? AND you are concerned about getting banned from an anonymous internet forum! LOL. So much estrogen in your post! Do you identify as female? When do you start HRT and transition?

Your writing is so emotional and reeks of feminine qualities. Have your parents been slapped for raising such a failure?

Edit: this is the post that gets me banned, and proves my point exactly.

The simplest summary of your response possible.


Cute response though, but a futile attempt at trying to frame your potential banning as a win.

Enjoy what's coming your way.

[croquet]

(04-29-2019 09:19 PM)KnjazMihailo Wrote:  


The simplest summary of your response possible.


Cute response though, but a futile attempt at trying to frame your potential banning as a win.

Enjoy what's coming your way.

You just can't get me out of your mind can you? Ah I get it, you are on a "game" forum to cover up for maybe an attraction to men.

I know you have zero responses when you start throwing up memes.

If you ask nicely Roosh will let you smell his used underwear.

[General Stalin]

You both are being fucking gay. Take it to PM's jesus christ.

[TopPanda]

Back on topic, and I've been stacking up investments like crazy.

People on forums keep arguing about the merits of the stock market. I just show them that I've been quietly stacking and last month I made more money from my investments than from my day job.

I'm currently TEFL'ing in China. It's May day holiday and the consumer drones are out spending money. There was a wobble around Christmas but I believe that the Chinese consumer is feeling confident again.

Right now I'm mostly investing in bonds and in Asia. Oh, and in Asian bonds .

I used to prefer stuff that paid out big dividends but now I think I should be looking for a bit more growth.

My tobacco stocks are down hard but are offset by a strong performance in the few tech funds I own. I prefer robots to AI as a longer term play.

I've just sold my UK rental property and when I get that money I'll invest mainly in safer bonds. I'll use the monthly income to buy individual stocks.

What are you guys investing in?

[flad]

Investing nowadays is hard. You may win but at some point very likely also suffer larger losses.

the usual problems are the following:
- HFT & Market Maker spread => you never pay or receive a fair mid-price. the big players take their share
- Shift of influence to the price from Underlyings (company's numbers) to monetary and geopolitical decisions
you may have done a proper analysis of a company including chart technic etc. but then politics decide to destroy their product.
QE has blown up the markets

- real hedging is expensive. Many people feel secure when having stop-loss limits. Hint: they don't work when the price crashes overnight...
so to properly hedge you need to use products that are usually badly priced (Equity options, rolling futures)
- time required to do it seriously. There are a lot of aspects to take into account. If you don't it is simply gambling. => if it is not fun to you, think about how much you earn per hour in another occupation and compare to the hours necessary to invest

overall it's a historic situation:
- massive monetary expansion for the last 10 years
- relatively low interest rates
- all time highs or close to in most markets
- real economy not doing too well
- the currencies loose more and more purchase power

conclusion:
in my opinion all depends what the decisions of FED, ECB and China will be.
If they restart QE and lower the rates we will see the bubble further expanding but the decline of the currencies will accelerate.
If they remain as of now: ?
If they reduce QE, raise rates (very likely not happening): they want a very very big crash and do it

Stock picking in areas such as tobacco, hemp, sustainable energy is gambling. They are fully dependent on Gov decisions.
If you buy bonds at this rate level you need to compare to alternatives. The credit spreads are not really how. And don't forget, you are also investing in the currency itself.

[Australia Sucks]

Flad I will address your points:
-The HFT and market maker spread issue is a problem for traders but its largely irrelevant for investors. If you buy and hold a stock for 10 years you are talking about a rounding error type amount here.
-Monetary and geopolitical decisions are important but the still pale in comparison to the importance of analysis of individual companies. If you doubt this fact just pull up a 5 year share price chart of 5 companies selected at random and you will see their will be a huge divergence in stock price performance. Yes political and regulatory risk are real but they form part of the risk analysis you need to factor in when assessing an individual company. Each company has a different level of political/regulatory risk.

-If you have the right strategy you do not need to use hedging instruments and can simply hold through any downswings until your investments recover (assuming they were soundly chosen).
-Yes time is needed but that is the case with mos things that are worthwhile in life. The good thing about investing is that it is highly scalable. To invest $100,000 or $1,000,000 in the stock market, depending on your strategy could require the same amount of time. Therefore as your capital base grows the return on the time you invested into researching/managing your investments grows exponentially

-Yes the current investing climate is not the most favorable but if you pick the right stocks you can still do well regardless. There are thousands of listed companies in the world. In 10 years time there will likely be hundreds of companies that have risen 5 or 10 fold in price (or even more) from todays levels. As always stock picking is the key to making large stock market profits.

[arafat scarf]

I recently read a book called The Permanent Portfolio: Harry Browne's Long-Term Investment Strategy by Craig Rowland and JM Lawson.

The Permanent Portfolio advocates the following allocation:

25% Total Stock Market Index
25% Long-Term Treasury Bonds
25% Gold
25% Cash/Cash Equivalents

The theory behind this portfolio is that future economic conditions are uncertain and that each asset in the allocation above has good performance characteristics in one of 4 possible economic climates: prosperity, recession, inflationary, deflationary.

In prosperity, company earnings are strong and you want to own stocks.

In recession, you want to own long-term bonds, since investors become more conservative and purchase 'secure' fixed income instruments. Interest rates fall thereby increasing the capital value of the bonds.

In an inflationary economy, investors are looking for a store of value and you want to own gold.

In a deflationary economy, cash is strong, and the other prices of the other assets are depressed. You will want to have cash to allocate for buying other assets at lower values.

All in all, in any given economic environment, the losses in one category are offset by the gains in another, allowing for consistent returns and low volatility.

On the whole, I'd say it measures more favorably to a traditional 3-fund portfolio (60% U.S. stocks, 30% international stocks, and 10% total bond market). From 1987 - 2017, the 3-fund has trounced the Permanent Portfolio, while from 2001 - 2017, Permanent Portfolio has significantly outgained the 3-fund. In my mind, where the Permanent Portfolio really proves superior is it's lower volatility.

https://www.wallstreetphysician.com/harr...portfolio/



The Permanent Portfolio volatility has been remarkably lower, and I find it worth highlighting that it really showed resilience in the crash years of 2001 and 2009. In those years, the Permanent Portfolio had returns of +0.6% and -0.7% respectively, while the 3-fund portfolio would have netted fairly huge losses of -11.8% and -34.9%. Also worth noting is that from 2001 - 2017, that the Permanent Portfolio's max loss was -2.9% and the max loss for the 3-fund was the aforementioned -34.9%. Finally, from 2001 - 2017, the Permanent Portfolio had 3 loss years while the 3-fund had 5 loss years.

Seeing that we are in the midst of the longest secular bull run in history, this portfolio strategy looks very appealing. There is a lot to be said for a sensible strategy that has proven itself to offer stable and steady growth over a long period of time with limited downswing. I will be doing some more reading, but I'm likely to switch to this strategy or a similar variant.

[qwertyuiop]

I'm up like 53% in the last 3-4 months in one of my accounts. Pretty good. It's still a bull market, no point to yell about a crash until it starts.

[tremont]

If you want to know how to invest but don't know where to start:

1. Stop reading bullshit tips on the internet.

99.999% of people (including this forum and most wall street professionals) are full of shit when it comes to investing. Want to know who is offering decent financial advice? Count how many times they say "I don't know". Anyone who is super confident in their market acumen is trying to sell you something.

Most hedge funds under perform the S&P 500. They are staffed with phd's and their marketing machine is able to attract billions from the world's wealthy and educated elite, despite the poor track record. If they can get away with that, what do you think about that idiot you follow online or paid for newsletter?


2. Get this book: http://www.nickmurray.com/bkwealth.htm
3. Follow the book, buy a set of index funds, stop following the bullshit news, contribute monthly, and wait for your money to grow overtime. Never ever sell unless you really need the money. Do not try to time the market.

Now, once the majority of your capital is index funds maybe you really think you can do better? Go ahead and try with a small portion, but don't risk your net worth doing something stupid.

If you have to ask how to invest on a place like this, then you aren't ready to graduate beyond index funds.