Investing: Anyone subscribed to Private Wealth Advisory?

darbsllim

darbsllim

New member
Mar 28, 2008
692
15
0
London, Ontario
I've been a member of PWA for the last year, the guy who runs it is "Graham Summers" ... it's mostly likely a pen name, he posts some stuff on Zero Hedge.

Phoenix Capital Research | ZeroHedge

I actually missed a few big trades that he got everyone on, so I've actually LOST 40% investing with him because I just so happened to miss out on the big ones due to being busy and not reading the emails in time.

I might buy another year's subscription, the group as a whole is up about 15% on the year I think ... but you have to be very committed to buying every trade he says at the times he says.

Gains Pains & Capital

Anyone else on here subscribed to this guy's trades? His bi-weekly reports are very insightful, he sees behind the curtain of the global monetary system ... if you are into things like bitcoin, ron paul, libertarianism, gold & silver, etc - you will probably enjoy his stuff.

Maybe we could buy a group subscription for anyone interested in going in ... I'd buy in again if we get a group of 5 or 10 people together...we could subscribe to a generic gmail address which auto-forwards all emails to the group as they come in.
 


15% returns aren't very good for a private investing advisory.

If I was down 40%, you wouldn't see me renewing my membership.

I'd also learn to get trade alerts on my phone. Trading is serious business.
 
guerilla said:
15% returns aren't very good for a private investing advisory.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? I would say 15% is pretty amazing. However, that means shit-all if you have no idea what the previous return was over the long term.

Obvisously, they have a lot of wealth advisors that have done more than 100% one year, but over a 5 year span, it always boils down to industry average, which is around 10%. Any return on your money, that is above interest rates, is exceptional if it can be maintained for the long term.
 
Whether 15% is good or bad is depending on what risk you take.
if it's a conservative investment, it's not bad.
however losing 40% doesn't sound like conservative.
 
I won't say my guy and my business but two guys to check out are

Lawrence Roulston who runs Resource Opportunities and Eric Coffin who runs hard rock advisory.

Best in the business. Pure mining guys. Don't give a fuck about politics. Eye-popping returns over 10 years.

But like another poster said, trading is serious business. It's way more important to SELL when these guys tell you to sell, then when to buy. Most people lose in the market because when they are down 10% they keep holding on hoping for a bounceback.

If you think you are a trade because you check your portfolio once a month, maybe you should reconsider.
 
15% huh
Lending-Club-Quarterly-Performance.jpg
 
guerilla said:
You give me a dollar. I give you back a $1.15 in a year.

Amazing? LOL.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see you can use percentages. Sure, I can go and buy some crack for $1000, cut it, and make an extra $150 on it. And wow! I would have made a 15% return and fuck, I must be one good drug dealer.

However, I'm not claiming I cannot get a 15% return on a dollar. I'm claiming for anyone to make a 15% return on the money they have invested over the long term is a good return. In the short term, perhaps it isn't, but by industry standard, that is still above average.

As ameyer said, it is all dependent on the risk you want to take. I know from personal experience, your wealth adviser will ask how risky you want your portfolio, from that, they will decide where to allocate you money. However, the point being, you can be extremely risky and make a whooping 200%, but you can also get a -200% return. Like every adviser though, you want limited risk, high returns, so that you can acquire more clients. To do that, will probably get you a return of around 8-9%, hence, a 15% on your investment, is a good return. If you still, think I'm wrong, then I would assume, you hold absolutely no money in a bank account as you can obviously constantly make a higher return than you bank's interest plus inflation.
 
jfizzle said:
If you still, think I'm wrong, then I would assume, you hold absolutely no money in a bank account as you can obviously constantly make a higher return than you bank's interest plus inflation.
Click to expand...
It's interest minus inflation, but yes I think you're still wrong.

Or you're welcome to think 15% is a good return. No one got rich with 15% returns unless they were able to do it over a 30 or 40 year period.

Two thoughts for you.

1. Power law (Pareto's Principle)

2. That 15% return is before inflation and taxes.
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
Yeah, much better to leave that money sitting in a savings account with that whopping 0.5% annual return! Or you can just spend every dollar you bring in, and hope nothing bad happens to you in life. Either or...
Click to expand...
Why is it that you always assume the opposite of doing something is to do nothing?

In this case, you propose that the alternative to 15% returns is to get no return.

Why would you assume that? You do this in several discussions, and frankly, it reeks of intellectual laziness.

Obviously, the alternative to 15% returns might be 100% returns, or 1,000% returns.
 
Hello friend,

I think should just follow mcgrunin. He know how make $70,000 every day from trade stocks.

Good luck bro
 
15% is not terribly bad if it were passive and relatively secure. I mean you can get this all day long a variety of ways that are much more secure and passive than as a trader - say in mortgage notes etc. You can even find performing notes with comparable yields with good credit, collateral, and capacity supporting the file.

15% return with your experienced 40% loss/risk - that's no bueno.
 
For anyone who knows about investing a consistent 15% is great. It might sound low to those not familiar with typical investing returns.
 
guerilla said:
Why is it that you always assume the opposite of doing something is to do nothing?

In this case, you propose that the alternative to 15% returns is to get no return.

Why would you assume that? You do this in several discussions, and frankly, it reeks of intellectual laziness.

Obviously, the alternative to 15% returns might be 100% returns, or 1,000% returns.
Click to expand...

Oh christ. I backtracked, and deleted my previous post with hopes of not getting into a debate. My one and only response to this thread:

If you're working 60 - 80 hours a week, and are even half-assed remotely successful, you're going to have extra money laying around that you don't need, and you're not going to have time to figure out what to do with. And you'd be a total moron to instantly invest 100% of available cashflow back into your business.

Saving for a rainy day is a good thing, and putting it into low-risk investments is a good idea. If you want to throw every dollar you earn away into hopes of 1000% returns, go for it, but not for me.

And I'm outta the thread.
 
WickedJoe said:
For anyone who knows about investing a consistent 15% is great. It might sound low to those not familiar with typical investing returns.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you define investing. If you narrowly define it as stock market investing, then maybe.

If you see investing as a much broader application of capital, then 15% isn't "amazing" for many professional investors.
 
WickedJoe said:
For anyone who knows about investing a consistent 15% is great. It might sound low to those not familiar with typical investing returns.
Click to expand...

Yes over time it is commonly accepted as a good return and with the so-called risk free rate of return so incredibly low right now, it should be considered very good.

Yet the older I get the more I wonder why it is so impressive given the risk exposure and time involvement (OP needing to pay attention to every alert and trade) that is obvious given the OP.

Risk and Personal Time should be factored in.
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
If you're working 60 - 80 hours a week, and are even half-assed remotely successful, you're going to have extra money laying around that you don't need, and you're not going to have time to figure out what to do with. And you'd be a total moron to instantly invest 100% of available cashflow back into your business.
Click to expand...
No, you wouldn't be a moron if you have a good business.

Again, you're applying the, "if you're not doing 15% you must be doing nothing" theory, which again is obviously false.

Kiopa_Matt said:
Saving for a rainy day is a good thing, and putting it into low-risk investments is a good idea.
Click to expand...
The OP isn't talking about low risk investments.

Kiopa_Matt said:
If you want to throw every dollar you earn away into hopes of 1000% returns, go for it, but not for me.
Click to expand...
So we have to throw away our money or accept 15%.

Do you see how sloppy it is to think in false dichotomies?
 
guerilla said:
Depends on how you define investing. If you narrowly define it as stock market investing, then maybe.

If you see investing as a much broader application of capital, then 15% doesn't move the needle for most professional investors.
Click to expand...

No it's really more about risk/reward tastes. Historically the DJIA or S&P500 give between 9-11% interest per year. Beating that average is considered great and many hedge funds don't even do it consistently over time. Over long periods of time DJIA is considered low/moderate risk.

Now of course you can try to get much more but your risk factor increases many fold. You can try investing in anything under the sun. The best thing to ever invest in is yourself by investing in your business.. because that's often the most profitable returns on your money.. but this discussion is about passive forms of reliable interest I'm assuming.

Speculation (like I do with oil prices) is basically gambling and there's no reason to have a big discussion on that.. gambling can go in any direction. Many people's long term investment strategy does not involve gambling.
 
guerilla said:
It's interest minus inflation, but yes I think you're still wrong.

Or you're welcome to think 15% is a good return. No one got rich with 15% returns unless they were able to do it over a 30 or 40 year period.

Two thoughts for you.

1. Power law (Pareto's Principle)

2. That 15% return is before inflation and taxes.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot to add, "rate" at the end of inflation as I was talking about real interest rates, not nominal. Once again, you have taken what I said out of context to try and prove your invalid argument valid. I never once said, anyone got rich with 15%. I said, that if you are looking at wealth preservation or wealth management with limited risk, then a 15% return is a good return over the long term.

As much as I hate to do this, but you remember that bank statement guy, with the 13 million in his bank account. As an example, someone like that does not want to go run around investing that money into franchises or physical goods. Sure, he may look into real estate, but the truth is, when you have that sort of money, you don't need to spend it all and so you look for something that preserves your wealth and grows with limited risk. At this point, you can either assume your bank is reliable and grow your wealth at the interest rate, or you can go ahead and have someone do "managing" of your wealth. For someone to manage your wealth and make 15% is great, if they can do it consistently. That is all I'm saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back