Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Ask your investment, budget, and other money related questions here
steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by steveo73 »

JL13 wrote:@steveo73
Assuming someone has read many books/articles and taken college courses about MPT, and that they understand the model, are they allowed to disagree with it?
Of course it's okay to disagree. I think the best approach is to come up with something that you are comfortable with. I wonder what you disagree with though.

Do you believe in a 100% stock allocation ? Do you believe in picking individual stocks ? I think that is fine or anything is fine assuming that you accept the pros and cons of using the approach that you choose.

theanimal
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by theanimal »

The Buffet article describes what is going on in this thread here perfectly:
One sidelight here:it is extraordinary to me that the idea of buying dollar bills for 40 cents takes immediately with people or it doesn't take at all. It's like an inoculation. If it doesn't grab a person right away, I find that you can talk to him for years and show him records, and it doesn't make any difference. They just don't seem able to grasp the concept, simple as it is. A fellow like Rick Guerin, who had no formal education in business, understands immediately the value approach to investing and he's applying it five minutes later. I've never seen anyone who became a gradual convert over a ten-year period to this approach. It doesn't seem to be a matter of I.Q. or academic training. It's instant recognition or nothing.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by steveo73 »

theanimal wrote:The Buffet article describes what is going on in this thread here perfectly:
One sidelight here:it is extraordinary to me that the idea of buying dollar bills for 40 cents takes immediately with people or it doesn't take at all. It's like an inoculation. If it doesn't grab a person right away, I find that you can talk to him for years and show him records, and it doesn't make any difference. They just don't seem able to grasp the concept, simple as it is. A fellow like Rick Guerin, who had no formal education in business, understands immediately the value approach to investing and he's applying it five minutes later. I've never seen anyone who became a gradual convert over a ten-year period to this approach. It doesn't seem to be a matter of I.Q. or academic training. It's instant recognition or nothing.
I don't think so at all or definitely not on my side. The real issue is can you do this ? Seriously - go outside and offer someone 40 cents for a dollar bill.

It's easier to state it than do it.

JL13
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 7:47 am

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by JL13 »

steveo73 wrote: Do you believe in a 100% stock allocation ? Do you believe in picking individual stocks ? I think that is fine or anything is fine assuming that you accept the pros and cons of using the approach that you choose.
Yes and yes. Look around where you live, most of the businesses there are individually owned or are franchises. The owners have a large portion of their net worth in that one business in that one geographic area. A family restaurant, a car dealership, a 4 unit condo, a strip mall. That's the opposite of diversification. These are not owned by and large by ETF's and institutional investors. There's something like $200 trillion in assets in the United States, and the total stock marked is only 10% of that.

The idea that you can just go and but "a piece of everything" in an index fund is a fallacy. You're only getting a piece of what is being sold to you. I'd rather look at the full $200T in assets and pick the ones that are offering a good value, than be happy with a blind $20T in assets.

almostthere
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:47 am

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by almostthere »

There is also great deal of confirmation bias and selective attention on both sides of the argument.

Since I have moved to the stick picking side of the fence, I note more anecdotal, academic, and experiential evidence for my beliefs that it is possible for some select individuals to outperform the market by either luck or skill for enough time to grow quite wealthy. Previously, due to selective attention, I could not even see that information even though it was in plain sight.

These statements are not to prove anyone wrong. I agree with almost everything that has been written by the asset allocation proponents, and I'd still recommend that path to a new investor interested in investing as hobby. They will figure out for themselves whether to take the plunge into stock picking. To anyone else, I'd recommend a financial advisor.

Finally, stock picking is a lonely hobby b/c no one believes it possible anymore, and those who do understand financial theory think anyone who does it is simply ignorant. It takes a brave soul to admit to loving it. Thanks Jacob. Without your example, I'd still be scared to give it a try.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by jacob »

almostthere wrote: Finally, stock picking is a lonely hobby b/c no one believes it possible anymore, and those who do understand financial theory think anyone who does it is simply ignorant. It takes a brave soul to admit to loving it. Thanks Jacob. Without your example, I'd still be scared to give it a try.
In research, it's commonly observed that it takes about 20-40 years for cutting edge understanding to appear in non-fiction books suitable for a mass audience. This is also about the time it takes for the same information to appear in technical courses for undergraduates. For something to become general public knowledge (not just those who've read the nerdy non-fiction books but those who've talked to the people who have) takes 50 years or more.

For example, when I was an undergrad in physics (in the mid-late 1990s), the last thing we were taught was the kind of physics that had been discovered in the 1950s and 60s. Learning more would have taken more time than was possible for a few years in undergraduate and thus such classes were only available to grad students. In any case, you can now read popular non-fiction books about the standard model although we're yet to arrive at the point where most people in public understand what a meson is in the same way they understand what an electron is.

Modern Portfolio Theory was invented in 1952. A Random Walk Down Wall Street appeared twenty years later in 1973. Bogle came out with the first index fund a couple of years later. Starting around 2005, over half a century later, index investing finally reached a mass audience and became hugely popular. In many ways, the timeline for financial research in terms of public understanding parallels the timeline for the public's understanding of particle physics.

Now, for some strange reason and unlike particle physics, some, indeed many people appear to believe that financial research and innovation came to a complete stop in 1952. Indeed, after 1952, some people believe very strongly, as we can see in this thread, that the "Theory of Everything" regarding finance had been discovered and that nothing further could be learned This is curious because this behaviour is not observed in fields like physics, chemistry, or biology. Nobody thinks they know everything there is to know about physics because they read A Brief Of History of Time or they took a course in astronomy when they went to college, but somehow some people think they know everything there is to know about investing because they read the combined works of Malkiel, Ferri, Swedroe, and Bernstein and/or once took a freshman course in finance.

Indeed, although I'm sure some people will find it hard to believe or accept, financial research and innovation did in fact NOT come to a complete halt in 1952. It kept progressing just like any other field. For example, when it comes to risk management, starting from discovering the principle of diversification in 1952, the cutting edge in the 1970s was time series analysis, then co-integration in the 1980s, principal component analysis in the 1990s, algorithms in the 2000s and AI/big data in the 2010s and onwards. These are not all the methods that have been discovered since diversification. They are just some of the more dominant ones. A lot of this stuff is published (and free!) on ssrn.com. You can go and read about it. Or you can pick up an advanced grad level text, like e.g.Carol Alexander's series of books. I recommend them. The rabbit hole goes much deeper that simple diversification (aka "poor man's version of risk control") and it has done so for more than half a century by now! Ignorance is not really an excuse anymore.

Thus saying that "the market is unpredictable/random" (the 1952 understanding) is pretty much the biological equivalent of saying that "DNA doesn't exist" because Crick didn't discover DNA until 1957. Or that nothing important happened in medicine after the introduction of penicillin in the 1940s.

At best such statements lack nuance. At worst they are woefully and sometimes destructively ignorant.

Another weird belief when it comes to finance is that many people also strongly believe that amateurs are completely incapable of acquiring knowledge beyond popular non-fiction books or 101 college courses and thus they shouldn't ever bother to try. That's like saying that nobody is capable of learning how to program in any language more modern than BASIC (from 1964) at a professional level on their own insofar they don't have a graduate degree in software engineering.

I grant that not everybody can learn to program well enough on their own to make useful programs and also that it requires a certain talent to program well and that many people simply can't be taught no matter how hard you/they try. Consider how many programmers with a degree in computer science who can't program their way out of a wet paper bag! However, also consider the programmers who program exceedingly well despite lack of formal education. Apparently the ability to program takes a combination of talent and learning. Saying that a well-written program is simply a matter of "luck" is going waaaay to far.

In terms of numbers, about 10% of investors are able to consistently outperform the market (as judged by broker reviews of retail accounts, industry norms, etc.). This is the case at BOTH the retail level and the professional level. Indeed the numbers are similar at both levels. Why? Because mostly pros and retailers focus on completely different aspects of the investment game. While understanding transfers somewhat between the two levels, the actual skills rarely do. This means that in a lot of cases, retailers are actually NOT competing directly with professionals. A metaphor might be the difference between sailing on a small yacht (the retail investors) and being a crew member on a large tall ship (the professional investor). They're both on the same water/ocean, but the skill set is quite different in the two cases. None of the skills I used and taught to the juniors when I worked in industry transfers back to my retail level investment strategy.

What we have online in terms of financial debate is the proverbial Mt Stupid, where the peak of Mt Stupid is dominated by what I would call a fairly un-nuanced and somewhat misinformed version of MPT and EMH combined with a strong belief that they know everything there is to know about finance. The plot curve is actually somewhat wrong when it comes to finance. The curve after the valley behind Mt Stupid actually stays under the peak of the mountain but goes much farther out to the right. In other words, most online debate (especially in the pf space) regarding investing is predominantly ignorant and quite so compared to the totality of what there is to know given how the peak is now 64 years behind the times.
Image
What we have here is not a debate where both sides have good points or are about equally right. We are also not debating something that hasn't been settled yet. What we have are two sides where one side is simply wronger than the other side. To paraphrase Isaac Asimov: "If you believe that the Earth is flat, you're wrong. If you believe that the Earth is round, you are also wrong (the Earth is slightly compressed at the poles). However, if you believe both of these are equally wrong, you're wronger than wrong." Or to quote Big Bang Theory: "It’s a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it’s very wrong to say it’s a suspension bridge." ... on a similar note: It's a little wrong to say that the market is random, it's very wrong to say that it's impossible to beat it.

So what's the take-away here?

* Anyone who insists on MPT/EMH dogma hasn't kept up with financial research since the early 1950s. They are simply ignorant; indeed some of them are too ignorant to realize how ignorant they are (the Dunning-Kruger effect). Note, that these types mostly concentrate in the personal finance investment space. You don't find them as much on seeking alpha or wilmott forums.

* Since 1952 financial academics and practitioners have come up with newer and better ways to understand the market. "The intelligent layman" is capable of learning these insights just like he/she is capable of learning other things like programming, tax-planning, cooking, ...

* About 90% of investors fail to beat the market because it doesn't depend only on learning but also on talent. The odds are therefore against you but there's a big difference between "impossible odds" and "1:10 odds".

So with that in mind, I hope this makes for a somewhat more rational and deliberate decision as to whether financial understanding is worth pursuing for a given individual. Should one do it? Well, that question requires three more questions?

1) Are you interested in learning the skills? It's pretty hard to learn anything if one isn't interested in learning it. There's simply a lot to learn for starters and it's an ongoing process that requires some maintenance once learned. If the markets aren't exciting to you, there's no need to bother. Go invest in index funds.

2) Do you have the talents? That's a really hard question to answer. So far the question can only be answered in the negative. That's what I tried to do with the cigar post above. If there's a difference between the dogmatic voices on in the personal finance space on internet forums (unfortunately, including this one) and successful investors, it's that the latter habitually question themselves as to whether they really have the correct understanding, both in terms of fundamental theory but also wrt current market developments. All these guys have what could be called a "learning-mind", always happy to latch onto anything that might increase or question their understanding. Conversely, dogmatic types, who are the anti-thesis of the learning-mind and not only think they know everything but specifically that it's impossible to learn anything new, should not bother. Instead go invest in index funds.

3) Are you capable of coming up with novel ideas? A good indicator that you're not is if you tend to lean heavily on argument by authority and wanting references for everything. This is not going to work. Investing is forward looking, not backward looking, because unlike the rest of the business world, investing is one of the few areas where most of the advantage goes to the first mover instead of the one who comes in, copies the idea, and executes it better. In other words, if you had to be completely honest with yourself, do you have some aspect of yourself that sets you apart from most other people (maybe it's an ability to concentrate really well, maybe it's the ability to see patterns in complex situations, ... )? If not, you probably shouldn't bother either. Instead go invest in index funds.

Now, if you're still with us, it doesn't mean that you're definitely one of the 10% who consistently beats the market. However, it is more likely that you're not definitely part of the 90%. The rational way to proceed is then to start learning theory and practice. Start small and scale up according to demonstrated success. If you start failing, scale down again. This is the professional way to go about it. The biggest lesson to understand is the importance of matching your personal confidence to your personal understanding (i.e. a perfect Dunning-Kruger match if you will). Any mismatch between the two and the market will either take your money, gladly, or you will not make as much as you could have done. This is a very difficult lesson to learn.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by BRUTE »

this reminds brute of debates about healthy diets.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by jacob »

Healthy diets, exercise, religion, ethics, ERE, ... pretty much any complex subject where consequences aren't immediate and 100% consistent.

This is also why it's unproductive to treat investing (and those other topics) using the "debate"-format or absolutist terms like "nobody", "best", "impossible", etc.

SimpleLife
Posts: 771
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by SimpleLife »

Although it appears the conversation has steered to stock picking and portfolio balances, it does appear there are a few others who are either FI as of a few years ago or mostly FI if they rearrange their lifestyle (move to a LCOLA, downsize, etc.) but keep working because of buffer and the fact that their current job is OK.

I'm glad I'm not alone. For me it's not only about buffer but also milking the cow while there is milk to be had. I'm trying to make it to 40 but who knows, in the next 5.5 years I may very well change my mind. If work starts to suck, I'll just change jobs. With 2-4 years being my average job tenure before I'm extremely fed up, I imagine one or two jobs beyond this is all it would take. Heck I'm considering milking my current job until they lay me off. Salary and benefits including WFH are phenomenal, and my workload is really light right now, just the BS sucks, but I figure why give it up willingly, take the UE and live off cash flow until I find another gig. I wouldn't even need to make top IT dollars, just 90-110K would be enough to save a ton and be able to let my assets compound. I've already become a subscriber to the sailboat and RV traveler channels on youtube, and watch them every Monday morning dreaming about travel and adventure.

But still, depending on my health, I may pull the plug sooner. I just want to make sure I don't have to come back to work once pulling the plug and that I don't run out of money. It may be difficult to get back in. I'm finishing up my MBA to give me more options as well. Plus by the time I'm ready to pull the plug emotionally it will be a good time to cash out my real estate and not be tied down, live off dividends and travel in an RV or boat, have fun, fish, drink, be merry. Plus by 40 I only expect to need my money to last 40 years, 50 TOPS. Not that much more than the 30 year span the 4% SWR is based on. Just good to see I'm not the only one that feels working a little longer for buffer is a good idea, especially if working conditions are OK. Even if they are not, one can find working conditions that are acceptable and change jobs again when they cease to be OK.

Tyler9000
Posts: 1758
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:45 pm

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by Tyler9000 »

SimpleLife wrote: But still, depending on my health, I may pull the plug sooner. I just want to make sure I don't have to come back to work once pulling the plug and that I don't run out of money. It may be difficult to get back in.
IMHO, your 30's and 40's are the ideal time to get back in if you choose. You have enough experience to be demonstrably valuable, but are not so old to have ageism start to creep in. Maintaining opportunities at that age is more about bridge preservation than job continuity.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by BRUTE »

ageism in IT can set in pretty early, maybe depending a bit on the area/exact industry.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by steveo73 »

JL13 wrote:
steveo73 wrote: Do you believe in a 100% stock allocation ? Do you believe in picking individual stocks ? I think that is fine or anything is fine assuming that you accept the pros and cons of using the approach that you choose.
Yes and yes. Look around where you live, most of the businesses there are individually owned or are franchises. The owners have a large portion of their net worth in that one business in that one geographic area. A family restaurant, a car dealership, a 4 unit condo, a strip mall. That's the opposite of diversification. These are not owned by and large by ETF's and institutional investors. There's something like $200 trillion in assets in the United States, and the total stock marked is only 10% of that.

The idea that you can just go and but "a piece of everything" in an index fund is a fallacy. You're only getting a piece of what is being sold to you. I'd rather look at the full $200T in assets and pick the ones that are offering a good value, than be happy with a blind $20T in assets.
This is a completely different approach though. This is about picking small businesses that aren't listed on the stock market. I can see that this could be a good idea but the implementation would be difficult. If that is how you choose to invest though I definitely think it could work. I personally couldn't be bothered because I'm a lazy investor. I'm happy getting the average. I also think that in the long run I'll do well enough and probably better than most people who try to beat the average.

Just so that everyone doesn't get too worked up - I'll define average as something like a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio using index funds.

JL13
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 7:47 am

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by JL13 »

@Steveo73

I wholly support your decision and I'm confident you'll do well.I recommend something similar to my friends and family.

eudaimonia
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:51 pm

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by eudaimonia »

@jacob: So many good points in here that this really ought to be a blog post or perhaps the start of a new book :D

Your point that 10% of investors (both pro and retail) are able to consistently outperform the market is often overshadowed by the Mt. Stupid crowd saying things like "you've only been beating the bench mark for 9 years, how do you know you won't blow up in year 10?" It's unfortunate but a statement like that reflects such a deep level of ignorance that it is almost cult like. It's not that such out-performance couldn't necessarily result in a blowout - its that this person doesn't even know how to ask the right questions such as: what is your CAGR, how many instances does this include, how much market exposure do you have and for how long, what is the liquidity of your positions, what is your counter-party risk, etc? Knowing all of these facts would inform you with a pretty high margin of confidence whether this person has alpha or not. Simply saying that they may blow up is like saying that a company that has been run successfully for 9 years will go out of business next year without any assessment of the facts (like checking their 10-K).

An example of how far this absurdity is taken is reflected when my business partner who successfully ran an HFT firm as an outsider (had been a computer programmer before that) is told that he couldn't possibly have any edge in the market place due to EMH. I try not to laugh since I've seen his statements for a 5 year period that included exactly 2 losing days (the losing days were equivalent to 2 typical winning days). His two person firm printed cash like an ATM for 8 years before losing it's edge due to rapid advances in the technology. When you are making 2-4% per day compounded for 8 years it isn't relevant to compare yourself to the benchmark - but try telling that to the Mt. Stupid crowd.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by BRUTE »

eudaimonia wrote:..
brute approves of eudaimonia's name

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by steveo73 »

eudaimonia wrote:Your point that 10% of investors (both pro and retail) are able to consistently outperform the market is often overshadowed by the Mt. Stupid crowd saying things like "you've only been beating the bench mark for 9 years, how do you know you won't blow up in year 10?" It's unfortunate but a statement like that reflects such a deep level of ignorance that it is almost cult like.
Or it represents reality. The funny thing here is that my main concern with some of the ideas that were posted within this thread was what I perceive as ignorance.

Here are a couple of interesting points not related to the topic but in general when it comes to knowledge:-

1. Does Jacob's little graph even really represent reality ?
2. Where does everyone who has offered an opinion within this thread sit on that graph if it exists ?
3. Where is the proof ?
4. Why can't different people have the same knowledge and come to different conclusions ?
5. Why can't different people have the same depth of knowledge within a subject but a different breadth ?
6. Is the breadth of knowledge more important or the depth of knowledge ?

These questions can't be answered simplistically. I believe that just believing someone without utilising your own reasoning or logic and not thinking does this ring true to me is fraught with danger.

Jacob isn't necessarily right. He has an opinion and he is entitled to that opinion. He doesn't know the facts or understand reality in it's entirety. He cannot predict the future. Having a degree of humility in my opinion is often the best way to grasp complex issues.

cmonkey
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:56 am

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by cmonkey »

jacob wrote:1) Are you interested in learning the skills? It's pretty hard to learn anything if one isn't interested in learning it. There's simply a lot to learn for starters and it's an ongoing process that requires some maintenance once learned. If the markets aren't exciting to you, there's no need to bother. Go invest in index funds.
Absolutely. Having been in this investing game for a bit over a year now I really enjoy it, and see it as a lifelong thing but I'd like to get a much better picture of the forest, if you will

I have seen numerous books mentioned in your blog/forum posts, but if you could pick one starting point for someone who hasn't even progressed to Mt Stupid yet, which would it be? I like reading through these threads and would love to start contributing eventually.

theanimal
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:05 pm
Location: AK
Contact:

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by theanimal »

@Cmonkey- These are worth checking out:http://earlyretirementextreme.com/start ... sting.html

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by jacob »

@eudaimonia - The more I think about that particular book project, the more I think it needs to focus on metacognition first and foremost. I really think the focus on and thus the presence/strength of greater levels of metacognition is the biggest difference between investors/traders as a group and the general population. It was certainly something I noticed when I worked. In particular, that beyond a certain base level of knowledge(*) performance seemed to correlate much stronger with metacognition than cognition itself :o . The general/public attitude to metacognition reminds me of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns

which at the time was ridiculed by the press even it was pretty damn insightful (even if incomplete) because the press/public simply didn't "get it".

I wrote some comments back then ...
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/the-o ... world.html

Roughly speaking, one might say that the lack of metacognition in a person removes one of the axes. If the capacity for metacognition is removed entirely, such a person would only be able to distinguish between "knowns" and "unknowns" to the degree and exactly as far as they personally know.

I suspect that Mt Stupid (or in academic terms, Dreyfus level 2, alternatively, where the spread between confidence and knowledge is highest on the famous Dunning Kruger plot) is also sticky because it takes a certain level of metacognition to move to level 3 whereas levels 1 and 2 do not require it. This stickiness might account for there being an actual mountain rather than a just a slowly rising hill all the way up. Mt Stupid is essentially a pile-up on the learning curve.

@cmonkey - Either one of these to just establish some fundamentals ... http://www.amazon.com/Investment-Analys ... 03025809X/ or http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071123059 ... the list above ~ level 1 CFA. Note, this is old stuff, but it's important to understand the "language" in order to start "composing". I strongly suggest not just to memorize it or do the exercises or think that you're learning some proscribed/approved method. You're not. You should question everything as you go along. E.g. why do people care about P/E ratios and not some other ratio? Why are ratios used in the first place as opposed to e.g. quadratic equations?(*)

(*) Questions like the very last one was some of my favourite interview questions for new candidates because they showed if they were willing to think/capable of questioning what they thought they knew.

cmonkey
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:56 am

Re: Anyone else FI now but still working for a bit longer?

Post by cmonkey »

jacob wrote: 1) Those who know that they can beat the market.
2) Those who know that they can't beat the market.
3) Those who don't know yet that they can beat the market.
4) Those who don't know yet that they can't beat the market.
@jacob, Thanks for those and the advice. I read through this whole thread just now and the spread between 1 and 2 is quite palpable given the discussion. I think I'd consider myself group 3...for now. :roll:

Thinking about this further it seems the most important differentiator between group 1 and the rest (but mostly group 2) is just being open to new ideas and then doing the legwork. It almost seems as simple as just having a burning interest in knowing more than those around you by just trying to stay ahead of that 50 year general information learning curve.

One of the things I have difficulty with is transitioning into more scientific/mathematical language. I started reading through the 2013 Economic Sciences Nobel paper and on page 4 I'm already seeing Image.

Ehhhhh???? This is where I start losing track of the topic. Not that I don't want to follow, I just can't. Coming from an IT background, its difficult to make forays into this space.

Post Reply