Search results

The only thing that will make it go down is legalizing prostitution and changing the stigma around it. It will lead to significant increase in supply.

Why U.S. has nuclear weapons? How often they have used it? Same with guns: a few use at the beginning will make future wannabe criminals think twice.

Do not twist the words. Noone is advocating for the death penalty. But if the only way to stop a crime is to shoot, people have the right to shoot.

If BLM wants to do something good for black community, it should help police to catch black criminals. This will protect law-abiding black people and will change the attitude toward blacks. The systematic racism exists because it is consistent with crime data statistics. The only way to change...

Yes, but USD or CAD will lose their purchasing power (it is called inflation). When assets (if you want to call Bitcoin an asset) loses its USD value, it loses its purchasing power on top of its USD value.

As I said, higher return for the same amount of risk or lower risk for the same expected return. Simple diversification using the stocks with the same expected return will lead to lower risk with the same return. Now leverage you portfolio a bit to increase a risk back to the original level, and...

I would say: if invest optimally, lower risk = lower return. However, taking on higher risk without diversification does not necessary lead to higher return.

Diversification results in higher expected return for a given amount of risk. Diversification + leverage also allows you achieve the lowest risk for any desired expected return. And the answer to OPs question: YES only if you plan to spend the money right away. NO in any other situation. The...

You can do it on the margin too or pay a bit more MER and buy leveraged fund. This way you will have higher risk and return, but still diversify all your systematic risk. Any "small" investor personal "investigation: of the company means absolutely nothing as there are much more capable players...

Because if past excess returns would be able to predict future returns (either positive or negative auto-correlation), the demand for the stocks would have adjusted immediately in anticipation of such future returns and, thus, that "future" returns would never happen. Like in your example, if it...

I keep tab of my book value, so, I know exactly what my total capital gains are, but I have no idea what my annual return is. And I do not care because it is irrelevant. I pay $7.99 per trade (this is why I buy in chunks of at least $10K) and I invest in VCN.TO with 0.05% MER, so, I would not...

I have no idea. On the shares I owned 5 years ago I made 50% from 5 years ago till today (I buy the same index fund). Some of them, naturally, I bough much earlier. I bough more during the last 5 years. I have no idea how much I made. I invest when I have extra $10K regardless of what stock...

S&P 500 went up 50% since 5 years ago (even accounting for the current losses). 5% real return (i.e., above inflation) is a very good return even if there is +/- 15% around the trend each year. If you want higher return - you are a gambler, not investor.

Unfortunately, your last sentence shows that you are not a "long-term holding dividend investor" but the "market timing trader". Otherwise you will be buying not when market goes down by another 20% (in itself, it means absolutely nothing for future returns) but when you'll have money to invest...

Yes I do.

Just the opposite - it will provide incentives to pass all students. In fact, it is exactly what is going on now: Universities are paid based on the number of students, so, failing rate is ridiculously low (and the quality of education too).

I think, if parents have money, it is fare if their children are not getting need-based fellowship: they do not need it. If parents are able but not willing to pay for their children, why taxpayer should?

For the same reason you do not stare in people's windows at night if their light is up and the drapes are not completely closed. It is just not polite.

Yes, 2+3 is what is needed. And U.S is doing it: top U.S. school offer need-based scholarships (e.g., if your family earn less than $100K, your Harvard education is free, you can even get a stipend for food and board), but only top students can get there. Mid-range Universities compete for good...

single digit is $9, not $9,000.