|
|
|
|
|
|
by troydavis
2970 days ago
|
|
|
The only right answer is “As a retail investor, I’m not picking individual stocks.” Accept that I don’t have, you don’t have, and with a very few exceptions, an individual for whom this isn’t an all-consuming more-than-full-time occupation basically will never have, proprietary knowledge (an “edge”) that’s not already priced in. Spend an hour reading Matt Levine, then subscribe and read his new posts for a few months. Start with this one: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-09/retail-vo... While reasonable people can debate index funds vs. actively-managed funds, essentially all thoughtful market participants have realized that the days when hobbyist investors could add alpha have passed. If you’re asking for good sites to investigate ETFs, Yahoo Finance is, miraculously, still great. |
|
|
Although I generally agree with the notion that retail/hobby investors likely won't be able to "strike gold" with some novel investing algorithm or philosophy, I don't believe that should discourage said investors from picking stocks. I think it comes down more to the mindset of the investor...
It would be wrong for the hobby investor to rely on their stock picks as a main source of revenue (or as the focus of their retirement portfolios) without making it a 60+ hour full-time job. However if you have some funds that you can "afford to lose" and are interested in learning more about how markets, industries, and companies work, I think investing in individual stocks is one of the more interesting ways to learn. To me I see investing in individual stocks as a sort of forcing function for me to test different hypotheses on how companies and industries will grow and change, while also staying up to date on what is happening in the world :)
If an individual has the luxury of having some funds they can safely put in the stock market, and have an interest in experimenting/playing around in the market, then I would definitely think that its at least worth trying out.