Becoming Rich!

[Saiwania]

No. Shark Tank provides an excellent way of learning how to present your ideas to potential investors. If you're using it for anything else, you might end up being burned.

The people on there nonetheless have to explain their plan for generating wealth with the capital they're asking for. At best, it gives an overly simplified idea of what might be a stupid pitch and what might be a good one. The actual outcome however- leans toward failure. It is never mentioned on the show, only the successes for ratings. The winner to date, is apparently that kitchen sponge product inventor.

[Shofercia]

If you're using it for anything other than entertainment you might end up being burned.

Eh, possibly, but you can get a lot of good presentation tips. Not just from the the presenters, but also by watching the reactions and questions asked by the Sharks.

No. Shark Tank provides an excellent way of learning how to present your ideas to potential investors. If you're using it for anything else, you might end up being burned.

The people on there nonetheless have to explain their plan for generating wealth with the capital they're asking for. At best, it gives an overly simplified idea of what might be a stupid pitch and what might be a good one. The actual outcome however- leans toward failure. It is never mentioned on the show, only the successes for ratings. The winner to date, is apparently that kitchen sponge product inventor.

And therein lies the problem. The plan would be overly simplified. The market research would not be in depth, because there isn't time for that. Instead of a marketing plan, they hear about the results of the marketing plan, i.e. "what's your margin, what's the sales, how many did you sell, etc."

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm sorry, but this is a discussion forum, not "Let's talk about whatever the fuck Saiwania wants" forum, so I recommend you keep that tone to yourself, since the topic of the thread is "how to become rich", I think it is well within subject to talk about startups.

If you don't like it, you can always add me on your foe list.

It was only a mistake in tone. Nothing against you or others with similar ideas. I don't believe in using the friend or foe list, I eschew it because that is simply how I roll on here. I just think that in general, it is such bad advice to enough of an extent that I might've projected a little. But taking a step back, I need to let it be.

I don't want other people to financially get burned, but their choice to partake in that is indeed theirs. I know there are more than a few people out there who got wiped out by a business gone south.

Speaking of startups, does a show like Shark Tank ever give you ideas to help with your startup ideas?

It probably is easy to get funding via Patreon if you can persuade people, but I can't help but think that it is a scam to some extent. To my knowledge, that website has no mechanism for getting people's money back if the person who received the money doesn't follow through on the project and just bails and pockets the amount donated. It isn't right.

No worries. I understand if it might seem like a bad idea, but then if you think about it, anything that carries risk also carries the possibility of getting burned financially. In my opinion, a business has a better safety net than the stock market. I know you disagree, and I have no problems with that, each of us evaluate risk differently. My dad has also had businesses go south, but he knew when to pull out before he ended up with nothing. Knowing when to cash out and not persist on a losing venture is also a good trait if you're going into anything that requires a significant amount of risk, be it the stock market or a business.

As for Shark Tank, personally? No, I have never used Shark Tank for a business idea. Nor would I. Other people might, but I don't believe in sharing my business idea to the entire world.

The reason why is because someone else will make a more successful version than I can, and they will become rich off of it. The problem with sharing a business idea is that EVERYONE then knows and can do it way before you're ready.

Funny story, this is how my dad lost a million dollar idea to another guy, because he told his idea to someone else.

If you work in lawn sprinkler systems, and you take out a head from the ground, you will see one of these or a piece of these on some of them. We call them "cutoffs" or "cutoff risers" because it has sections where you can cut it and make it as short or as long as you need to rise the head. Well, my dad came up with the idea, but another guy patented and manufactured it. Now the guy's a millionaire just by giving other companies permission to manufacture his product, or licensing it. And you would think "well who the fuck needs a cutoff?" and, indeed, at first glance is like "who the fuck needs this shit?", but that's the thing, you never know what might be useful to people unless you do research into an industry, even if it is as simple as a cutoff. And it doesn't have to be a commercially broad product. Really specialized products that do one thing and do them well that helps a professional save time or do something they couldn't before can also make lots of money.

Which is when I learned never to share a potential business idea I am researching into or are seriously pondering on with people outside of family and close friends.

Sites like kickstarter and Patreon are only as good as you're willing to keep your promise to your backers. I don't participate in crowdfunding too much because I don't have a concrete idea to sell to people in regards of a product. I can do services just fine, but not products. At least, not to the extent where I will have a lot of people invested in the project, teams working to churn out a prototype or a full product and have something out by next year like some indie videogame developers who have taken to kickstarter and YouTube celebrities that have taken to Patreon as an additional source of revenue.

[The Archregimancy]

NationStates does not make one rich.

<Takes a break from bathing in champagne to light a cigar made of 500 euro notes>

Are you sure you're doing it right?

[The Blaatschapen]

NationStates does not make one rich.

<Takes a break from bathing in champagne to light a cigar made of 500 euro notes>

Are you sure you're doing it right?

Damn, the NS sports crowd bribes well, eh?

[Toubourlouki]

I think that becoming rich is an unnecessery trouble. One has to look at Donald Trump and how the world views him. Not my cup of tea thanks.

[Farnhamia]

I think that becoming rich is an unnecessery trouble. One has to look at Donald Trump and how the world views him. Not my cup of tea thanks.

On the other hand, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are considered fairly decent people.

[Shofercia]

I think that becoming rich is an unnecessery trouble. One has to look at Donald Trump and how the world views him. Not my cup of tea thanks.

On the other hand, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are considered fairly decent people.

I heard that those who follow Warren, have a buffet of investment options to consider

[Saiwania]

On the other hand, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are considered fairly decent people.

Buffett and Gates are right about how the rich pay too little in taxes in the US but their "high and mighty" behavior doesn't really impress me. As just one example, Gates is too busy helping Africa rather than the country which gave him the opportunity to become so rich in the first place.

Maybe it is because it is cheaper to try to develop the poorest African nations than to try doing the same for Detroit or Flint, Michigan? I wouldn't know, but it ain't sending a good message. They look like any other neo-liberal who wants nothing but automation, free trade, and outsourcing.

[Conserative Morality]

On the other hand, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are considered fairly decent people.

Buffett and Gates are right about how the rich pay too little in taxes in the US but their "high and mighty" behavior doesn't really impress me. As just one example, Gates is too busy helping Africa rather than the country which gave him the opportunity to become so rich in the first place.

Maybe it is because it is cheaper to try to develop the poorest African nations than to try doing the same for Detroit or Flint, Michigan? I wouldn't know, but it ain't sending a good message. They look like any other neo-liberal who wants nothing but automation, free trade, and outsourcing.

Ignoring the fact that Gates does a lot of philanthropic work in the US?

Er...?

[Eredion]

Open up a gas station with a large chain that is trying to expand in your region of the country (from the North to the West), if you work hard enough and keep at it, you´ll have enough money to buy a Porsche or Audi RS8 within a year.
It´s not super wealthy but you don´t need any degree in economics or so to see through the matter and don´t have as a high risk as with stocks.

[Koi Princess]

really gambling can be profitable stuff but if you do not have the addiction! because it is the real problem!

[Arkolon]

Don't invest by picking stocks yourself, OP, this isn't the 1970s anymore. Actively-managed hedge funds consistently fail to beat the market, and today there are plenty of low-fee passively-managed index funds which guarantee you sizable returns (as long as the stock market in general does well, which it generally does) using plenty of algorithms to pick hundreds of stocks for you. You can try investing in index funds yourself, but since there are so many you might as well place it at an agency that knows what it's doing.

[Saiwania]

Don't invest by picking stocks yourself, OP, this isn't the 1970s anymore. Actively-managed hedge funds consistently fail to beat the market, and today there are plenty of low-fee passively-managed index funds which guarantee you sizable returns (as long as the stock market in general does well, which it generally does) using plenty of algorithms to pick hundreds of stocks for you. You can try investing in index funds yourself, but since there are so many you might as well place it at an agency that knows what it's doing.

I'd want to pick individual stocks primarily because in theory, you can get a higher return because you own greater equity in a company than you would if it was part of an index fund. Like having 1 share vs. having a 0.10% share in any one company. I'm interested only in blue chip dividend stocks primarily because it pays you more money each quarter (which can be reinvested in those stocks) and compounded, as opposed to stocks which only give you equity.

I do think I'd like to use index funds, but I'd want to invest in individual stocks as well. I want to try a bit of everything to see what works, without spreading myself out too thin. Diversifying limits your losses but also your potential gains. Over-diversifying is just as bad for your portfolio. The single biggest obstacle to investing that I worry about- is fees and commissions. That is what I think would hold you back the most or cause the most losses.

I don't necessarily need to "beat the market." I really just want to do well by being a true "buy and hold" and value investor where I don't worry about what the DOW is doing at all or how much red ink there is on paper but I pick quality companies. All I'd need to do really- is try to pick stocks in companies which won't go bankrupt but will probably be worth more at a future date. Experienced but stable companies like Dow Chemical or Boeing. It is impossible to have perfect picks, but the idea is to have more winners than losers.

When the market crashes, it is the very best time to buy if your stocks survive. When the market comes way back up, it is time to sell if you're happy with the return you'd get, but if you're too greedy- that can cause your window of opportunity to close.

If in 10 years or so, my portfolio is somehow worth 5 million+, I think I could sell off half of it and try to live off of it. It depends on how long I think I'll be alive for. It'd be a whole lot more fun if investing could be my full time job instead.

[Infected Mushroom]

I think that becoming rich is an unnecessery trouble. One has to look at Donald Trump and how the world views him. Not my cup of tea thanks.

On the other hand, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are considered fairly decent people.

Not with me. They exemplify corporate greed and high class hypocrisy.

[Arkolon]

Don't invest by picking stocks yourself, OP, this isn't the 1970s anymore. Actively-managed hedge funds consistently fail to beat the market, and today there are plenty of low-fee passively-managed index funds which guarantee you sizable returns (as long as the stock market in general does well, which it generally does) using plenty of algorithms to pick hundreds of stocks for you. You can try investing in index funds yourself, but since there are so many you might as well place it at an agency that knows what it's doing.

I'd want to pick individual stocks primarily because in theory, you can get a higher return because you own greater equity in a company than you would if it was part of an index fund. Like having 1 share vs. having a 0.10% share in any one company. I'm interested only in blue chip dividend stocks primarily because it pays you more money each quarter (which can be reinvested in those stocks) and compounded, as opposed to stocks which only give you equity.

If you're seeking a constant flow of payments, you shouldn't be looking at stocks. Dividends will not be more than 1% of the share price: it would take you about 250 years at current prices to pay off the purchase of one share in AAPL just through dividends; for Coca Cola & Company, a blue chip stock, it would take you 130 years. If what you're looking for is long-term return on investment in the form of consistent income flows (and not selling at a later date) you should buy bonds/bond ETFs. US Treasury 10-year yield for example is currently at around 2.3%, meaning you could buy about $10,000 of it now to become $12,500 in ten years time, if you choose to hold the bonds to maturity. If you want higher yield (so riskier securities) you could look at other types of bonds, like commercial paper. But bond ETFs would most likely give you higher yield than US govt bonds, so you could look into them. Alternatively you could look at blue-chip stocks that don't pay dividends but instead reinvest all profits, like Priceline if I recall correctly, which effectively more than tripled the value of the shares you could buy in 2012 as a result. Dividends are also taxed as capital gains so aren't very attractive to shareholders anyway, who much prefer share buybacks as a result.

If in 10 years or so, my portfolio is somehow worth 5 million+, I think I could sell off half of it and try to live off of it. It depends on how long I think I'll be alive for. It'd be a whole lot more fun if investing could be my full time job instead.

My mother used to tell me that if there was an easy way to get rich, everyone would have done it by now. Unfortunately, you won't turn a portfolio composed of your savings into a portfolio worth millions of dollars, unless you are really really lucky. The most reliable way to get rich is to have rich parents, people who could give you a small loan of a million dollars for example, at which point the world's your oyster. 2% return pa is nothing when you have $10,000, but when you have $10 million it's enough to buy a private helicopter.

[Saiwania]

My mother used to tell me that if there was an easy way to get rich, everyone would have done it by now. Unfortunately, you won't turn a portfolio composed of your savings into a portfolio worth millions of dollars, unless you are really really lucky. The most reliable way to get rich is to have rich parents, people who could give you a small loan of a million dollars for example, at which point the world's your oyster. 2% return pa is nothing when you have $10,000, but when you have $10 million it's enough to buy a private helicopter.

Ronald Read did it on a Janitor's salary, so that is good enough for me. Yes, I recognize that replicating that perfectly is impossible- but it doesn't hurt to try your hand at it if you're able to. I look for a flow of payment, but it isn't the only metric of success I'd use. Would be just as happy if I bought say 1,000 of BAC in 2009 but sold 990 of it earlier this year. That alone would buy me a new car.

If I got modest gains such as that, across the board- I'd become rich in no time. No, I don't need to spend a whole lot, I just need to do well. I've been in a mansion before and that just isn't for me. It felt too empty and soul less from my perspective. I could definitely improve my lifestyle but there is an upper limit to how much more I crave.

If I eventually got too much money, I could perhaps use half for living off of, and use the other half for kids or gold diggers.

[Donut section]

Live no frills.

Eleven years ago I was a homeless drug addict.

Today I have saved a quarter mill (Australian) as a day labourer/ machine driver.

[Saiwania]

For anyone interested, here is the case for buying individual stocks as opposed to index funds. I think the arguments are very compelling, the fact that you have more control if you trail blaze your own way. How would you analyze it? Does it compel you to give individual stocks a chance?

I saw this short list of 10 tips for sound financial advice and one of the rules was "never buy individual stocks" and I can't help but think- no, that is flat out not true! Individual stocks do not lose money 100% of the time. There might be certain conditions that make it a better choice than index funds- it depends and I can't objectively rule that financial decision out for people.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/292373 ... ck-picking

[Arumbia67]

Buy ordinary clothes or bags and put expensive labels on them. Most people are too stupid to tell the difference.

[The Blaatschapen]

Buy ordinary clothes or bags and put expensive labels on them. Most people are too stupid to tell the difference.

Why bother putting labels?

I mean, in middle school, sure.

But you can find good, quality clothes off the rack indeed.

[Valrifell]

I'd be wary and cautious about listening to success stories before jumping into something, survivorship bias is a real problem in warping people's perspective on what is reasonably feasible.

[Arkolon]

My mother used to tell me that if there was an easy way to get rich, everyone would have done it by now. Unfortunately, you won't turn a portfolio composed of your savings into a portfolio worth millions of dollars, unless you are really really lucky. The most reliable way to get rich is to have rich parents, people who could give you a small loan of a million dollars for example, at which point the world's your oyster. 2% return pa is nothing when you have $10,000, but when you have $10 million it's enough to buy a private helicopter.

Ronald Read did it on a Janitor's salary, so that is good enough for me. Yes, I recognize that replicating that perfectly is impossible- but it doesn't hurt to try your hand at it if you're able to. I look for a flow of payment, but it isn't the only metric of success I'd use. Would be just as happy if I bought say 1,000 of BAC in 2009 but sold 990 of it earlier this year. That'd alone would buy me a new car.

If I got modest gains such as that, across the board- I'd become rich in no time. No, I don't need to spend a whole lot, I just need to do well. I've been in a mansion before and that just isn't for me. It felt too empty and soul less from my perspective. I could definitely improve my lifestyle but there is an upper limit to how much more I crave.

If I eventually got too much money, I could perhaps use half for living off of, and use the other half for kids or gold diggers.

Read's advantage was time more than anything else. To turn $50,000 into $8 million over 50 years you need about 10% annualised return: since 1980, the S&P 500 and DJIA have grown at an annualised pace of around 9%. With a little bit of luck (or just focusing on certain outperforming or consistent stocks) it is not that impressive to make so much money over such a long time horizon. What you're missing is that Read lived his whole life with the mentality and lifestyle of a janitor, something you're obviously not interested in: Read never 'cashed out', he just stayed in for the long haul, and died with impressive assets.

[Summertimequestionswine]

It goes without saying that no one wants to be poor,

Jesus didn't seem to mind.

that means you are very restricted in what you're able to do financially.

Something something freedom from entrapment by your own greed.

In any economy, it seems that there will be haves and have nots.

Except for socialist ones.

Then there are just have nots.

The haves can live life more easily, provided they live within their means and have ways of preserving that wealth, such as the ownership of assets which bring in passive income.

Until the proles rise against them in a violent seizure of those assets so as to install their dictatorship, sure.

The have nots, have to focus most of their energies on merely surviving

And out-breeding the haves.

and consequently, they don't enjoy any good quality of life,

They don't do they?

they often die earlier, and that is truly a pity.

Depending on who you ask, that actually could be considered a plus.

What is the best means of becoming wealthy in your opinion, statistically speaking?

Being born to wealthy parents.

If you inherit your wealth, you don't have to work for it and it's easier to accrue even more wealth.

*knods*

[Sovaal]

It goes without saying that no one wants to be poor,

Jesus didn't seem to mind.

that means you are very restricted in what you're able to do financially.

Something something freedom from entrapment by your own greed.

In any economy, it seems that there will be haves and have nots.

Except for socialist ones.

Then there are just have nots.

The haves can live life more easily, provided they live within their means and have ways of preserving that wealth, such as the ownership of assets which bring in passive income.

Until the proles rise against them in a violent seizure of those assets so as to install their dictatorship, sure.

The have nots, have to focus most of their energies on merely surviving

And out-breeding the haves.

and consequently, they don't enjoy any good quality of life,

They don't do they?

they often die earlier, and that is truly a pity.

Depending on who you ask, that actually could be considered a plus.

What is the best means of becoming wealthy in your opinion, statistically speaking?

Being born to wealthy parents.

If you inherit your wealth, you don't have to work for it and it's easier to accrue even more wealth.

*knods*

Or just blow it all on hookers and blow.