OK /biz/, I have a cool $10 sitting in my PayPal account and I just downloaded the Robinhood app. What do I invest in?
>inb4 $10 isn't enough
Buy some condoms and go rape a girl to lose your virginity then run in traffic
>>1145525
>condoms
>rpe
0/10 bad investment.
Whatyou can get for 10 bucks is some chapstick and a gallon of gas that will enable you to gt paid for sucking dicks on menxmen. You can also find kneepads if you are patient enough.
penny stocks
You can buy a fraction of one blue chip share.
>>1145523
Who invests using Robin Hood?
Investors don't give a fuck about commissions, only traders.
>>1145722
>implying trading stock and letting money make you money isnt an investment
>>1145729
>Implying the vast majority of traders make any money let alone consistently beat the market
>>1145729
>trading stock
Trading stock is "trading", not investing.
Maybe you should learn the difference.
>>1145523
Invest in $FREE now.
Should go back up a little soon.
$DUST and $AMD are good too if you have more money. $AMD is a good investment under $2 and $DUST under $3.5
>>1145771
>it's a meme despite all the empirical evidence for it!
>A-all those professional investors who don't beat the market are just s-stupid... T-thats all
t. Martin Shkreli "investing student"
>>1145776
I hope you realize that emperical evidence is extremely easy to poke holes in.
>>1145830
Poke some holes in it then, Mr investor.
So far all the data seems to suggest your kind makes little to no money.
>>1145834
>implying 90% of investors are finance grads with money in the market for a full year
GLRI
You can buy a whole bunch of it with $10.
>>1145830
So go make your millions, what is stopping you genius?
>>1145840
You're misrepresenting my argument.
Even "finance grads" and professional investors don't tend to best the market on average.
Whatever tho, you're smarter than all those hedge funds and mutual fund managers.
>>1145771
>yhe term isnt defined by the investment
Never said it was.
It's defined by the time frame, which is why, again, investors (who move stuff around very little, if at all) don't give a fuck about commissions, or Robin Hood.
>>1145871
This.
$2-3 lower fees per trade when you're making 12 - 24 trades per year is nothing at all.
Only for retarded robinhood memers who plan to get rich off their $150 savings.
>>1145877
Robinhood isn't a bad thing, it just makes you guys that were investors before it became "mainstream" (for lack of a better word) angry that your little investor club is being breached.
Fortunately for you, most people are fucking stupid, so they'll try out commission free investing and fail then never come back.
>>1145888
>before it became "mainstream"
my sides.
Please. If it's mainstream, can you give me an idea of the companies that are using it?
How about investment banks?
Hedge funds?
Traders?
I guess they're all just missing out.
>>1145888
Why would we be upset that our "club" is breached? If such a thing were even possible.
The smart ones on /biz/(those who haven't left yet at least) have ALWAYS been about longterm investing and the principle of dollar cost averaging.
We don't pay attention to outside noise. We just buy the s&p every single month with as regular of an amount as possible.
Sure we like to post about penny stocks and memes but we never, ever buy them. Just troll gullible idiots who come to biz with the goal of get rich quick schemes.
Invest in some bananas, rice, and beans that will put into your stomach and will allow you to feel nourished for the next 24 hours.
>>1145919
AMD isn't a bad stock under $2.
Not sure why you guys are so butthurt that there is money to be made without investing in $100 stocks.
I'd invest in AMD before I'd go long on Chipotle.
>>1145902
you're an idiot.
mainstream doesn't mean that it's used by industry rather that it's known by a larger section of people. Maybe you'll understand this example
>pepe was a fun meme before it went maistream
>reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee normies stealing my memes
and let me just reiterate again, you fucking retard
>>1145944
>it's known by a larger section of people
It sure is.
Broke-asses who think they'll turn dog shit in to gold with a gambling app on their phone.
Keep knocking 'em dead, Pepe.
>>1145919
I want to weigh in here a bit. I've been watching option traders recently who would definitely challenge you on that. For the record I've not got the knowledge or the skill to trade and invest like them yet but I'm learning lots. I still do invest just like you're saying right now while I build up the knowledge.
They would challenge that ideology thoroughly though. If you simply follow the S&P then you can have years where you make only 6-8%, you can have years only going sideways and earning nothing and you can have years earning nothing or when years actually get wiped out completely. It will probably come back in the future sure, but that's a lot of wasted time.
If you actively trade in the market you can make money whether the market goes up, down or sideways. Trade small, trade often, and you can use option strategies that while they do limit your upside potential, they increase your probability of success. They've done it consistently for 30+ years as professional floor traders and retail investors. And they're openly demonstrating it and showing the maths behind it.
All I'm doing here is saying don't limit yourself to just 1 way of doing things, always be open to new ideas
>>1146011
Sure, *SOME* can. It's not out the question entirely.
But the question is HOW MANY, and is the time investment worth it.
The bottom line is that dollar cost averaging into the s&p requires no skill and no time investment, and yet it STILL beats nearly all commodity/forex/daytrader/cryptocuckss.
>>1146011
>>1146024
I find that it's all about the time/capital one can throw at it.
It's ridiculous that, for statistical purposes, those who have large amounts of capital and no other occupation are lumped in with the guy who trades for an hour before he goes to work.
For most people (those with other jobs and a lack of capital), actively moving things is a bad play, and are better off with an index strategy. But I have no doubt that those with the time and resources can beat the indices, the percentage, however, is debatable.
>>1146024
Well judging by the money they're making I'd definitely say the time investment is worth it. I mean, it's totally worth it.
It's just like buying and selling anything else. Flipping cars, selling anything, starting businesses is damn risky as well, you can spend a decades putting hundreds of hours a week, slaving over it and then watch it all fall into a black hole at the end, and hundreds of people do do exactly that on a regular basis.
Spending the time to learn to manage your own finances and investments with huge potential gain is definitely something we should all be doing rather than simply trusting some other "expert" to do it for us or just leaving it to the whim of a passive market.
>>1146030
That's the point though.
You can't go wrong with indexing, and more likely you'll do very well compared to alternatives.
Whereas only the top few percent narrowly beat the market anyway. Is it really worth the risk and effort for 3-5% higher gains at best(unless you're a literal pro of pros)???
And even so, taking this extreme scenario: What good is 3% of your <$100k?
Instead of spending hundreds of hours you could've just spent that time working normally to make more, and more reliably to boot.
>>1146041
Yeah, the point is most people are not set up to actively trade, and your logic applies to them.
However, for those who are wealthy enough to not have a 9-5 and large amounts of capital to draw on, trading can be (CAN be) more profitable than indexing.
It's just that this is a small percentage of people we're talking about, and those requesting advice on these boards are probably not a part of it.
