원문 보기
watch a few videos. Arnold sent me a video we can watch if you want: "How to Make Millions," Thuringian stock market crash, by acquaintances of HTC manager Christoph von Thurn, Putin Berlin, so from 18 million to 14 billion. However, I should add that I would never compare such figures because that suggests he multiplied the money a thousandfold, almost 4000 times, because that's not the case.
The money flowed in, so it was an inflow of new money. Therefore, I ca n't just look at returns, and that's why I'm always cautious. Of course, Innfloh is a very positive thing, but that doesn't say anything about the quality of a fund manager. My children's lounge jersey from "The World on This Date"—that 's quite telling.
29 percent return per year—that's like this one in Tarnow Return by Stan Lee, Marvin Jopling, the S&P 500 stock market index, a make, which of course You always have to look at different time periods, so from '77 to '90 is already a good span of 13 years. You have to look at different time periods, but of course, I mean, his performance is well known, so that he outperformed the market.
Every two years, the market is on average. In 2010, I personally find it quite important that you consider some of these. I can really only recommend that Davis read books because he's uncertain. You always say things like, "Yeah, Holtkamp, model, Weinhold, and so on," but when there's a crash, suddenly there's nervousness in the market.
You simply have to have experienced it yourself, because history definitely makes sense. But after experiencing a really bad crash, I think you're cured of the fear. Yes, yes, you can start wherever you want. Yes, I think Andreas Beck makes his from 25 percent or so, but it doesn't really matter. The question is also from where.
I think from the last Holtkamp, by the way, and I think his is quite good. Strangely, briefly reading aloud, "The Captain" by Gerd Kommer belongs to the book. The fact that the fund performed exceptionally well is true, but the average investor did n't earn as much as the fund itself because of the high volume of inflows and outflows and associated costs.
This is always the case when you see charts like these that have shown upward trends over years, or even decades. This applies to virtually everything; very few people actually stick with it. You have to have known about the fund early on and then you have to have stayed invested. You can calculate the turnover rate by looking at the liquidity, i.e., what is traded daily in this ETF.
This shows you how long it takes for the fund to be fully traded on the stock exchange, meaning for the entire volume to be renewed. This does n't mean, of course, that it's the same investors, that every investor has exited at some point and every investor has been replaced. There are, of course, some who trade, which sounds much more frequent, but this shows that there are many who simply were n't invested for the long term.
Yes, you have to consider the cost averaging effect, meaning that people most likely used savings plans, and of course, the issue of costs. Of course, this also needs to be deducted because the blogger was more expensive before. Sure, I mean, very good, very good performance. He has nothing to do with Peter Lynch or any other fund manager, but overall, it doesn't mean that every investor who invested in it came out with a profit, at least not with a profit.
That's also before the good and wise words, that's what he says. Yes, you can't predict a crash. I've talked about this so often, and I think you know that too. But you simply can't predict a crash, and with every crash, you'll always have some know-it-alls who say, "See, I told you so." But the thing is, they've already said it 75 times, and the last 74 times, which was already wrong, would have been a special video dedicated to crash prophets, showing how often they predicted that the stock market was the stalker and would crash.
But then it would really take hold next year, and then it would n't be enough, but really in the next two years, so it didn't work out either, and it only goes up. And listening to such things... It's very, very harmful because it involves the opportunity cost of not investing, which means foregoing returns in rising markets.
So that's the whole idea behind market timing—the idea of foregoing market timing because you ca n't predict a crash. You can try to say, "Okay, this stock is undervalued right now," and I believe in that. Okay, fundamental analysis and stock picking have something to them, but market timing on markets, and not on individual stocks, I simply don't believe in market timing, especially not in crash timing.
Yes, so we won't get away with it. People say, "Yes, that was predictable," but I would only believe the people who have bet massive amounts of money on it, like the guys in the big short, who really waited for this crash, who said, "This crash is coming, and I'm betting my entire fortune on it, even taking on debt." That's credible.
But just ranting and raving and claiming the system is broken and there are so many zombie companies, etc., is simply panic-mongering based on your own stock market newsletter coaching or whatever. To sell, don't let it drive me crazy. You can go bankrupt even if you have no debts. That's difficult, hard.
So, there are two types: over- indebtedness, so negative, or insolvency. Insolvency, you know those typical questions that are often posted here in the chat, like, "Opinion on this, opinion on that, opinion on everything." What if my opinion is actually positive, and I say yes to the good company and buy it, and then suddenly the price drops?
Then he would have to ask for my opinion again. That's why it's so important to have done your own analyses. That's why I say I don't have time for stock analyses, but if you do it, it's fun, it's a very, very cool thing. It's super fun. You have to do it well and in detail, and to know if the knowledge that she has invested is good, regardless of the performance of the stock price, potentially blocking the stock price.
So, does he have concerns about volatility in the financial markets? For traders, of course, volatility is good. I'm just wondering, as a large fund manager with 18 billion under management, volatility is very disruptive in that respect. The constant management is like that; people withdraw their money from your portfolio.
You have to sell shares quickly to counter the downward trend, and if suddenly everyone is your fan, you have to buy and invest. Basically, it's clear that if you're an active investor, you benefit from volatility. Volatility is ultimately a measure of risk, and we as long-term passive investors also benefit from it because the return is compensation for the risk we bear.
And the risk, in the form of volatility, for example, ultimately benefits us. Back then, there were n't any active funds, and investing in actively managed funds was the only way to diversify and not have someone else manage it. I hope you like this reaction format. Every week we watch videos about finance together with the community.
You can find some highlights from other videos here or here. And if you... If you do n't want to miss future highlights from our streams, then you should definitely subscribe to Überfluss. Thanks for watching and see you in the next video!
Comments 0