How do you know if you're ready for full-time investing in the financial markets?

[noirua]

What are the signs to look out for to know one is ready? Perhaps even more important, what are the signs to look out for to know one NOT is ready? I would like to hear from those who have been there, done that and most probably wiser.

The wisest time to invest is when you have a property, fully paid for, worth $2 million and a few more apartments, also fully paid for, worth $800k each, to rent. A pension pot worth $2 million and $2 million savings, leaving $1 million to invest in stock markets. You may be quite old at that point and leave it all to your sons and daughters, or a charity of course.
Maybe that's your eventual aim one day anyway.

Anything different has to be some form of gamble and investing just happens to be that way. So you wont ever be ready really until you are mature enough to accept losses. Remembering of course that a paper loss is a real loss and a profit is not a profit until it's banked.

You can have an imaginary portfolio of shares over one year. You could even have a number of different portfolios and see how you go on that. Unfortunately it is very easy to cheat as real investing is that final click on the mouse and that's that.

If you start investing and are uncertain, and you cant afford to lose all the money, stick to the ASX100.

 

[luutzu]

Lets take the mining industry for an example, it generates millions of dollars in value for Australia every day, in the form of royalties, wages, taxes on wages, dividends etc etc.

Now, is this large amount of value created solely through the labour of the employees?

Unless the mine workers are scratching at the earth with their bare hands, and walking a hand full of ore to a chinese steel mill, then no its not just labour.

Investors have had to put up the funds (which they could have used to go to Disneyland), to buy the billions of dollars of mining equipment and rail and port infrastructure, to make it possible for the labour to do their job effectively, without the investment, there wouldn't be a mine to work at.

Now the next thing people say is, "But if you are just buying an existing share, you aren't doing anything".

Well would the initial start up investor have invested if he wasn't confident there was a market to sell his shares to later on? No

Also, when you own shares in an operating company, they company is continually reinvesting earnings back into the business, share holders allow this to happen, they could all vote at the annual general meeting to make no further investments, and just have BHP pay out 100% of all future cashflow and run the mines till they are depleted and then go home.

But where did that first dollar came from?

From labour.

If not from labour, then it was given - by the rich uncle and aunty you were nice to; or from the king whom you helped knock a few heads for (labour).

Say you have $100Billion or Trillion... without labour, those capital will just sit there.

But if a person have two hands, a good work ethic and zero dollar... they will earn then accumulate capital, then use both their labour and capital to employ more labour.

 

[Value Collector]

without labour, those capital will just sit there.

.

Yes, that's why I said this,>>> " in our society for the economy to function you need labour and capital,"

(unless of course 99%+ Automation takes over, and then it would be just a capital game mainly)

But if a person have two hands, a good work ethic and zero dollar... they will earn then accumulate capital, then use both their labour and capital to employ more labour

That's the same thing, at first they use their labour combined with another investors capital to generate earnings.

Then later they take on the role of both investor and labour, they haven't gotten rid of the need for capital investors, they have just taken on a dual role, and should hopefully be compensated financially for both if they are successful.

---------------------

 

[Value Collector]

The wisest time to invest is when you have a property, fully paid for, worth $2 million and a few more apartments, also fully paid for, worth $800k each, to rent. A pension pot worth $2 million and $2 million savings, leaving $1 million to invest in stock markets. You may be quite old at that point and leave it all to your sons and daughters, or a charity of course.
Maybe that's your eventual aim one day anyway.

.

This is a very silly thing to say, because those things you have mentioned are investments in them selves.

It's like saying you shouldn't start racing cars until you have won at least two or three rally championships.

Anything different has to be some form of gamble and investing just happens to be that way.

Investing doesn't have to be a gamble at all, if it is, you are probably doing it wrong.

 

[Value Collector]

.

- Social pressure
?

You shouldn't be ashamed to be an investor, its a great profession, and can be very enjoyable for the type of person who enjoys learning new things and doing research, as long as you have emotional stability and can think clearly through out the various ups and downs, you will find it a very rewarding job, both financially and mentally, look at Warrren Buffett, 80+ and still tap dancing to work.

---------------------

Here is a little something to lift you mood, this song is one of the things that got me thinking about investment from a young age,

 

[luutzu]

Yes, that's why I said this,>>> " in our society for the economy to function you need labour and capital,"

(unless of course 99%+ Automation takes over, and then it would be just a capital game mainly)



That's the same thing, at first they use their labour combined with another investors capital to generate earnings.

Then later they take on the role of both investor and labour, they haven't gotten rid of the need for capital investors, they have just taken on a dual role, and should hopefully be compensated financially for both if they are successful.

---------------------

Yea. True. BUT...

Isn't Capital just a way to store Labour? Storing production, you were saying yah?

So it's all Labour if we trace the Capital back to its origin.

So while it's true that Labour need capital, and capital need labour to get things done... capital is just a mean (through money) to store and pass along the fruit of previous labour.

In the example of labourer doing work paid for with capital... the payment in capital is just a more convenient way to store, then exchange previous labour. So the labourer could, if they want and need, be paid in goods or in gold or silver, or just a paper note backed by real assets etc.


Capitalist and investor tend to get away from that origin because they, we?, got the capital so removed from real productive means we think they're separate and different. But as Value Investor, what Graham and Dodd would tell us, is that money/capital as represented in the share or in the numbers in a bank account... all that capital have to reflect the underlying fundamental value - the productive capacity of the organisation to move and use labour for productive means.

It's the distancing of capital from labour that we see the playing with financial games, like trading what is really worthless shares or accounting gimmicks and financial engineering etc.... to make "profit" and value.

but the real value of capital must align to its labour and productivity - not financial engineering.

Deep yea?

 

[luutzu]

You shouldn't be ashamed to be an investor, its a great profession, and can be very enjoyable for the type of person who enjoys learning new things and doing research, as long as you have emotional stability and can think clearly through out the various ups and downs, you will find it a very rewarding job, both financially and mentally, look at Warrren Buffett, 80+ and still tap dancing to work.

---------------------

Here is a little something to lift you mood, this song is one of the things that got me thinking about investment from a young age,

Buffett is quite a boring guy. Smart and all. But boring.

I actually thought Graham to be far more superior.

But good point about the investor making investment in companies by way of them reinvesting the company's profit. It does make a lot of sense and I never really see it that way. I always thought investors are just there to pick up the fruits of other people's labour... but nope.

So yea, something to tell the missus and kids when they ask what value I brought to earn what we earn. Sure beat previous answer of "I try to me as moral as I can. But for sure what I do don't kill any body."

 

[luutzu]

The wisest time to invest is when you have a property, fully paid for, worth $2 million and a few more apartments, also fully paid for, worth $800k each, to rent. A pension pot worth $2 million and $2 million savings, leaving $1 million to invest in stock markets. You may be quite old at that point and leave it all to your sons and daughters, or a charity of course.
Maybe that's your eventual aim one day anyway.

Anything different has to be some form of gamble and investing just happens to be that way. So you wont ever be ready really until you are mature enough to accept losses. Remembering of course that a paper loss is a real loss and a profit is not a profit until it's banked.

You can have an imaginary portfolio of shares over one year. You could even have a number of different portfolios and see how you go on that. Unfortunately it is very easy to cheat as real investing is that final click on the mouse and that's that.

If you start investing and are uncertain, and you cant afford to lose all the money, stick to the ASX100.

yeaaa... no.

If a person have all those assets then invest in stocks. Stocks ain't their main source of investment - maybe just another way to diversify.

Heck, most of us try to invest in stocks so we can afford those other real assets in retirement - not the other way around.


I think that if an investor take stock investment as a part-ownership in the business, stock investing is the safest and most profitable investment vehicle that had ever existed. It is particularly awesome for someone with maybe a few grand from their savings account.

No other asset class come close to the kind of opportunities presented by stocks. Just like anything, you can't earn enough soon enough with only a few grand... but who could in any other asset class anyway.

 

[Value Collector]

but the real value of capital must align to its labour and productivity - not financial engineering.

Deep yea?

Financial engineering certainly has its purpose,

I mean take a hippy tilling the field in his 2 acre block he calls an organic farm, he might work many hours and put in lots of "labour", but is not very productive by modern standards.

Then take his cousin, who might take 3 investors capital and buys 200 acres, he all loans money from a bank to buy another 800 acres, and uses a lease to buy farm equipment, he plants 1000 acres of corn and sells it on a futures market locking in a price, and then insures the crops against disaster etc.

He will be very productive if all goes well, much more than the organic hippy.

 

[Value Collector]

Buffett is quite a boring guy. Smart and all. But boring.

I guess we all find different things interesting, I would find mowing lawns boring, I think I would much rather drink a coke and do my research than work a jims mowing round, but each to their own.

 

[luutzu]

I guess we all find different things interesting, I would find mowing lawns boring, I think I would much rather drink a coke and do my research than work a jims mowing round, but each to their own.

I didn't say investing is boring.

Beside, maybe, working on an assembly line where you weld or click some pieces together, day in day out... most jobs are interesting. Not always as financially rewarding, sure.

 

[luutzu]

Financial engineering certainly has its purpose,

I mean take a hippy tilling the field in his 2 acre block he calls an organic farm, he might work many hours and put in lots of "labour", but is not very productive by modern standards.

Then take his cousin, who might take 3 investors capital and buys 200 acres, he all loans money from a bank to buy another 800 acres, and uses a lease to buy farm equipment, he plants 1000 acres of corn and sells it on a futures market locking in a price, and then insures the crops against disaster etc.

He will be very productive if all goes well, much more than the organic hippy.

What you described there isn't what I meant by financial engineering.

FE is more like buying back shares to the EPS (and the CEO's bonuses) looks better; or redefining what are generally considered an expense to be an asset. Or those financial products that really doesn't do or contribute much real value.

Futures and options; even those asset-backed securities they were flogging off... those do serve some value.

---

People don't need to be that productive to make what they do of real value.

What if the more enterprising farmer with big machines, fossil-based fertilisers are being more productive but also more destructive to the land and the environment?

Used too much pesticides and fertilisers... being more economical and not taking care of waste/pollutant disposals etc.

So more money would have been made, but at what cost to the other stakeholders? What if they grow tobacco instead of soy or wheat? What if he use his influence and get the gov't to subsidise his business or buy his product at higher than market price?

It will get quite complicated when we want to look at productivity and profit in a broader sense than just the bottom line.

And that does not include the sense of satisfaction from things other than cash.

 

[Value Collector]

FE is more like buying back shares to the EPS (and the CEO's bonuses) looks better;.

Share buy backs are a legitimate use of excess capital, especially at mature companies where they are generating cash faster than they find ways to deploy it wisely.

Buy backs are really just like paying a business partner to walk away from the business leaving his share of the company in your hands.

or redefining what are generally considered an expense to be an asset

.

I would call that fraud, (unless of cause the expense is actually creating an asset, eg exploration expenses that are actually proving up resources costs associate with growing a pen full of salmon etc)

It will get quite complicated when we want to look at productivity and profit in a broader sense than just the bottom line.

remember we are just discussing the value of labour, and whether it is the sole source of value.

Obviously, the increased capital intensive economy we now have produces a lot more goods and services than the prior labour intensive one, it may even get to the point where almost no labour is needed, at that point would you still argue that money is a claim on labour? or that labour is the only genuine moral source of earning income?

Any one that believes that labour is the sole source of moral earnings and that the harder you work the better you serve the economy, should spend 1 day harvesting wheat with a sickle and 1 day with a combine harvester, then see which provides the most value.

which would you rather? one is labour intensive and one is capital intensive,

 

[luutzu]

Share buy backs are a legitimate use of excess capital, especially at mature companies where they are generating cash faster than they find ways to deploy it wisely.

Buy backs are really just like paying a business partner to walk away from the business leaving his share of the company in your hands.

.

I would call that fraud, (unless of cause the expense is actually creating an asset, eg exploration expenses that are actually proving up resources costs associate with growing a pen full of salmon etc)





remember we are just discussing the value of labour, and whether it is the sole source of value.

Obviously, the increased capital intensive economy we now have produces a lot more goods and services than the prior labour intensive one, it may even get to the point where almost no labour is needed, at that point would you still argue that money is a claim on labour? or that labour is the only genuine moral source of earning income?

Any one that believes that labour is the sole source of moral earnings and that the harder you work the better you serve the economy, should spend 1 day harvesting wheat with a sickle and 1 day with a combine harvester, then see which provides the most value.

Share buybacks can be legitimate. It's never black and white. But there are many cases where management are incentivised and abuse such options for short term gains rather than long term shareholder value.

I mean, why would the soon to retire CEO make big and risky investment with payback in years after his retirement when he could just buy back shares and immediately align shareholder interests with his retirement plan.

Accounting standards do leave a lot of room for management to interpret and use their own judgment. Which it ought to in my opinion. Just that if the mgt is creative enough, a cost can be an investment; depreciation are quickly or slowly recognised etc.

----

I didn't argue that hard labour is more noble while capital allocation is not. What am I? A commie?

What I'm saying is that all capital are ultimately the result of labour. And labour here don't just mean the hand and physical human labour... but the brainy and brawny labour and all that results from human creativity and inventiveness.

Capital is merely a convenient way of storing all that. Store in ways of saving it for later use; convenient in that it's easily transferable.

So there's no difference between money and capital - if you think about it.

That is, an investor with capital/cash are putting in labour in the form of having the cash unleashing its hiring/purchasing power to bring in both machineries and human labour etc; The guy with the bright ideas but no cash bring in his own muscles to the party.

So it's not labour being pure and good... both capital and labour are the one and the same.

This is why some rich people would tell you they don't really care much for money. I mean, as long they can get what they want, who cares for money. If others are perfectly willing to trade their resources for printed sheets of paper or painted gold rocks, money is meaningless - it'd be whatever means technology can make it - as long as the market agree and accept it.

 

[Value Collector]

What I'm saying is that all capital are ultimately the result of labour. And labour here don't just mean the hand and physical human labour... but the brainy and brawny labour and all that results from human creativity and inventiveness.

.

I don't think you gain anything in terms of increasing understanding by trying to blur the lines and join the two words together.

In my understanding and the way I feel the words are used, is labour is work (whether that be physical or mental) and capital is either money or assets.

Money and assets is different to work, it doesn't matter that you may have got the money from work, once you have earned it, and banked it, it becomes capital, it isn't the same thing as "Work" which is an action, not an object.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you still consider capital the equivalent of labour in a society where 100% of products and services were made by robots and automated machines, and every one in society was just some form of investor owning different portions and varying amounts of the economy?

I think you could get rid of labour entirely and still have the concept of capital, without it being linked to labour/work, Investors and capital owners would still exist, but workers wouldn't, So could you really say money is a claim on labour? I don't think so, that's why I said its a claim on production.

No body cares how much human labour goes into products when they buy them, they care about how much produce/production they are getting, and at what quality.

 

[luutzu]

I don't think you gain anything in terms of increasing understanding by trying to blur the lines and join the two words together.

In my understanding and the way I feel the words are used, is labour is work (whether that be physical or mental) and capital is either money or assets.

Money and assets is different to work, it doesn't matter that you may have got the money from work, once you have earned it, and banked it, it becomes capital, it isn't the same thing as "Work" which is an action, not an object.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you still consider capital the equivalent of labour in a society where 100% of products and services were made by robots and automated machines, and every one in society was just some form of investor owning different portions and varying amounts of the economy?

I think you could get rid of labour entirely and still have the concept of capital, without it being linked to labour/work, Investors and capital owners would still exist, but workers wouldn't, So could you really say money is a claim on labour? I don't think so, that's why I said its a claim on production.

No body cares how much human labour goes into products when they buy them, they care about how much produce/production they are getting, and at what quality.

To me it's more than just academic.

If it's just capital and that's the bottom line... then an investor could just trade in useless stuff like paintings or paper shares... anything as long as it's buy low and sell high.

But if you ground capital to what it really is - the fruit of human labour and innovation packed in a plastic note.. .then it's no longer just money, but sweat and tears... and a reminder that investing is not the moving of cash around, but of putting it to productive use - for that is how you the investor make more money in a dependable way.

------------

I actually agree with your definition of capital being with production. Just that production is the result of labour [yea, labour and capital, but capital is stored labour so it's all labour]. Riddle me that.


I think people do measure capital/money in terms of labour - mainly their own labour as oppose to other people's.

So if a person earn $500 an hour... a $100 tie or a $1,000 suit doesn't sound at all expensive. Different story to a guy that earn $500 a week.

And that's why, I think, we see people who earns too much too easily, or who inherit their wealth but didn't inherit any sense... they would buy crazily priced stuff and thought nothing of it [money is just money and they got plenty of it doing nothing].

But for people who see money as tied to labour, even if they're the third richest person in the world, they won't be spending it like it's nothing.

 

[Value Collector]

But if you ground capital to what it really is - the fruit of human labour and innovation packed in a plastic note..
------------

.

Unless its the fruit of a robot or machine.

That's my point, you can take human labour out of the question or reduce it to almost nothing, and the capital still exists, its value isn't related to human labour, there is no fixed exchange rate between labour and dollars.

Just that production is the result of labour

The amount of production is increasing becoming less and less related to the amount of human labour.

Every where in the production and supply chain human labour is being reduced.

1 farmer produces 1000 times more than he did 100 years ago,
1 truck driver transports probably 1000 times more "tonne miles" than he did 100 years ago
same for just about every industry there is, and I don't think its going to stop any time soon.

any way, again I think we might be down to splitting hairs, and I have reading to do.

 

[Smurf1976]

If I go to work tomorrow to keep the lights on (literally keep the lights on in my case ) then I'm doing something of value to society via my physical labour and thinking.

If I buy shares in XYZ and hold them then I'm deploying capital into something that creates value via producing whatever the company produces.

But if I sit at home day trading shares in XYZ all day then arguably I haven't really added to society. I've put my time and effort into something that whilst it has made me a profit, hasn't changed anything else. XYZ would still be running their actual business with or without me buying and selling their shares every few minutes.

Something that many technical people, and by that I mean not just engineers and the like but anyone technical eg medicine, laments is that we've come to a point where the shuffling of money is now a highly attractive career option for the brightest minds. Whatever money you might make designing, inventing, discovering or simply building things comes nowhere close to what a few are making simply looking at a screen shuffling money around. As a society we'd arguably be better off if the best minds were lured into something else that actually moves us forward.

If every truck driver in Australia walks off the job tomorrow then we've got a massive crisis straight away. Within a fairly short period of time the same applies if every doctor, tradesman or teacher walks off the job and stays out. But if day traders all decide to not bother trading any more then I don't think the rest of society will realise that anything changed unless they hear it on the news. The ASX will still be there, there will still be a market for everything there's a market for today, it's just that there won't be anyone shuffling money back and forth hoping to grab some for themselves.

I'm not opposed to trading by the way, I do some medium term trading as well as longer term holding of stocks, but I've no doubt that simply moving money back and forth hasn't actually produced anything of real value to anyone but me.

There was far less money shuffling in the days before computers were used to do it. That didn't stop us doing everything from inventing cars and building highways through to putting a man on the moon. And we still had markets for stocks, commodities and currencies too.

As for the original question, I'd say that someone is ready to do it full time when:

1. They have a proven profitable system and have actually been running it for a decent length of time.

2. They have adequate capital deployed to produce, with a realistic rate of return, enough money to sustain the lifestyle they want.

3. They are no longer interested in working in whatever they do now and are happy with the idea that trading / investing will become their actual job.

 

[CanOz]

If I go to work tomorrow to keep the lights on (literally keep the lights on in my case ) then I'm doing something of value to society via my physical labour and thinking.

If I buy shares in XYZ and hold them then I'm deploying capital into something that creates value via producing whatever the company produces.

But if I sit at home day trading shares in XYZ all day then arguably I haven't really added to society. I've put my time and effort into something that whilst it has made me a profit, hasn't changed anything else. XYZ would still be running their actual business with or without me buying and selling their shares every few minutes.

Something that many technical people, and by that I mean not just engineers and the like but anyone technical eg medicine, laments is that we've come to a point where the shuffling of money is now a highly attractive career option for the brightest minds. Whatever money you might make designing, inventing, discovering or simply building things comes nowhere close to what a few are making simply looking at a screen shuffling money around. As a society we'd arguably be better off if the best minds were lured into something else that actually moves us forward.

If every truck driver in Australia walks off the job tomorrow then we've got a massive crisis straight away. Within a fairly short period of time the same applies if every doctor, tradesman or teacher walks off the job and stays out. But if day traders all decide to not bother trading any more then I don't think the rest of society will realise that anything changed unless they hear it on the news. The ASX will still be there, there will still be a market for everything there's a market for today, it's just that there won't be anyone shuffling money back and forth hoping to grab some for themselves.

I'm not opposed to trading by the way, I do some medium term trading as well as longer term holding of stocks, but I've no doubt that simply moving money back and forth hasn't actually produced anything of real value to anyone but me.

There was far less money shuffling in the days before computers were used to do it. That didn't stop us doing everything from inventing cars and building highways through to putting a man on the moon. And we still had markets for stocks, commodities and currencies too.

As for the original question, I'd say that someone is ready to do it full time when:

1. They have a proven profitable system and have actually been running it for a decent length of time.

2. They have adequate capital deployed to produce, with a realistic rate of return, enough money to sustain the lifestyle they want.

3. They are no longer interested in working in whatever they do now and are happy with the idea that trading / investing will become their actual job.

Smurf, thats a little narrow minded isn't it?

Ok, i'm no day trader of equities, but lets use that example:

1.) a trader provides liquidity that allows the other traders and investors to get filled on their exits from their lucrative Buffet like holdings. Sure i might only be trading 100k shares at a clip, but its still volume when you throw in a few hundred of us.

2/) to day trade equities i need a data feed, a platform, research, an internet connection, a PC, and on and on...that provides jobs.

3.) The broker i clear with employs staff to check and process trades, check report runs, maintain hardware and software.

So you see there is a whole industry dependant on punters as well as investors. I didn't even mention all the education and newsletters...

Many of which, truckers included will be totally redundant in 50 years.

 

[luutzu]

If I go to work tomorrow to keep the lights on (literally keep the lights on in my case ) then I'm doing something of value to society via my physical labour and thinking.

If I buy shares in XYZ and hold them then I'm deploying capital into something that creates value via producing whatever the company produces.

But if I sit at home day trading shares in XYZ all day then arguably I haven't really added to society. I've put my time and effort into something that whilst it has made me a profit, hasn't changed anything else. XYZ would still be running their actual business with or without me buying and selling their shares every few minutes.

Something that many technical people, and by that I mean not just engineers and the like but anyone technical eg medicine, laments is that we've come to a point where the shuffling of money is now a highly attractive career option for the brightest minds. Whatever money you might make designing, inventing, discovering or simply building things comes nowhere close to what a few are making simply looking at a screen shuffling money around. As a society we'd arguably be better off if the best minds were lured into something else that actually moves us forward.

If every truck driver in Australia walks off the job tomorrow then we've got a massive crisis straight away. Within a fairly short period of time the same applies if every doctor, tradesman or teacher walks off the job and stays out. But if day traders all decide to not bother trading any more then I don't think the rest of society will realise that anything changed unless they hear it on the news. The ASX will still be there, there will still be a market for everything there's a market for today, it's just that there won't be anyone shuffling money back and forth hoping to grab some for themselves.

I'm not opposed to trading by the way, I do some medium term trading as well as longer term holding of stocks, but I've no doubt that simply moving money back and forth hasn't actually produced anything of real value to anyone but me.

There was far less money shuffling in the days before computers were used to do it. That didn't stop us doing everything from inventing cars and building highways through to putting a man on the moon. And we still had markets for stocks, commodities and currencies too.

As for the original question, I'd say that someone is ready to do it full time when:

1. They have a proven profitable system and have actually been running it for a decent length of time.

2. They have adequate capital deployed to produce, with a realistic rate of return, enough money to sustain the lifestyle they want.

3. They are no longer interested in working in whatever they do now and are happy with the idea that trading / investing will become their actual job.

Good points.

But money shuffling Fund Managers and Stockbrokers were never really the best and brightest. So society doesn't really lose anything