[thrav]

Their investment in Tesla alone would be more than enough evidence, if they got in near their IPO.

Throw in an investment in Apple when everyone started switching to Mac circa 2006 (I told everyone who would listen to buy it, but I was a college freshman, so no one listened, but it was so obvious), and you got a stew going.

It didn’t take anything fancy to crush the market if you started 20 years ago and were dialed into tech.

[baobabKoodaa]

> Their investment in Tesla alone would be more than enough evidence, if they got in near their IPO.

No it wouldn't. Sample size of one is not proof of consistently beating anything. If I showed you a winning lottery ticket, would you consider that as "more than enough evidence" of me consistently beating the lottery?

[lotsofpulp]

Pretty impressive to have foreseen, as a college freshman in 2006, the proliferation of broadband mobile internet and the development of mobile devices capable of taking high quality photos and video, mapping services, video calls, health tracking, and other functions that would obviate and consolidate multiple industries.

[vel0city]

I was a teenager in 2006 and still understood mobile devices with fast internet connectivity with photos, videos, mapping services, and video calls were going to be a big thing soon, as to a tech nerd like me it was already partially a reality. By that time I already had Google Maps on my phone, was uploading photos to web services through MMS gateways, was browsing the web with Opera Mini, had my email on my device, and streaming internet radio to Bluetooth wireless headphones. It seemed obvious to me that these devices would get faster over time and that the cameras would get better, as I had already seen the progress from the earlier 320x240 cameras to >1MP cameras on phones, mobile data speeds increasing from GPRS speeds to 3G, and WiFi both becoming more common and jumping from 11Mbps to 54Mbps within just a few years. I had seen the greyscale and slow Palm IIx device my dad used to carry turn into the color Blackberry with constant network connectivity happen within a few years, it seemed obvious these devices' functionality would continue to rapidly grow and move into all kinds of markets.

In 2006 I don't know that I would have thought Apple would have dominated the market as much as it has, but the iPhone hadn't been announced yet nor would it have 3G for another year after that. In 2007 I got my first phone with a front-facing VGA camera which could do video calls over 3G networks, before the iPhone had native apps or 3G.

[lotsofpulp]

> In 2006 I don't know that I would have thought Apple would have dominated the market as much as it has,

But that is the most important point. The rest is trivial, but knowing which organization will be able to capitalize on it is the only relevant fact if you are trying to optimize for a return.

In 2006, the mobile network owners seemed in prime position to use their monopoly to squeeze everyone else, as well as Blackberry completely dominating the ecosystem.

In 2006, I do not know what kind of evidence a person would have had to KNOW apple, alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook would be where they are relative to ATT/Verizon/T-Mobile/Blackberry.

[vel0city]

I agree, the challenge is seeing that it would be Apple that saw the gains moreso than 3Com, Nokia, LG, and others. There were tons of companies which were obvious plays at the time, several of which no longer exist.

[3pt14159]

I also didn't mention buying Bitcoin, which I did on credit.

People don't like hearing that the market can be beat because they don't like feeling inadequate. But it can be beat if you understand industries and physics and consumer sentiment. Bonus if you can read financials, but even some basic market indicators are good enough.

[lotsofpulp]

I wonder why people who tell me this do not have a driver, private jet, and a chef, even after telling it to me for over a decade. In the biggest bull market in history.

In fact, they all still go to work for someone else.

[rurp]

This is spot on. Everyone who is confident and correct in their ability to consistently beat the market for decades is obscenely wealthy. The math is really straightforward. Even a paltry initial investment will compound massively over the years if it has a high ROI.

Some people do have this ability and in fact have become very wealthy, but there are many orders of magnitude more people who think they have an edge but have just had a lucky run.

[baobabKoodaa]

> People don't like hearing that the market can be beat because they don't like feeling inadequate.

I didn't dispute the fact that the market can be beaten. There's overwhelming evidence for that (e.g. Renaissance, Berkshire). I didn't even dispute your claim that you have beaten the market. I merely asked for some evidence to back up that claim. The fact that you responded without providing any evidence makes me think you actually haven't beaten the market consistently. Perhaps you have had one or two good bets that provided spectacular returns.