What investment strategy would you deduce from the latest article from Charles Munger?
"So, I've read the article in question, ""Basically, It's Over"".  Here's my opinion: I respect Charlie Munger but I think his parable misses the mark.  If he's trying to convince the average person (or at least the average Slate-reading person) that America is overspending and headed for trouble, the parable could have been told better.  I wasn't sure how to follow some of the analogies he was making, and didn't experience the clear ""aha"" I was hoping for. Nevertheless, I agree with his point of view, which I see as:  In the long run, the United States is going to have serious difficulty in supporting its debt habit, energy consumption habit, and its currency. In terms of an investment strategy to protect oneself, here are some thoughts.  These don't constitute a complete strategy, but are some points to consider as part of an overall strategy: If the U.S. is going to continue amassing debt fast, it would stand to reason it will become a worse credit risk, requiring it to pay higher interest rates on its debt.  Long-term treasury bonds would decline as rates increase, and so wouldn't be a great place to be invested today. In order to pay the mounting debt and debt servicing costs, the U.S. will continue to run the printing presses, to inflate itself out of debt.  This increase in the money supply will put downward pressure on the U.S. dollar relative to the currencies of better-run economies.  U.S. cash and short-term treasuries might not be a great place to be invested today.  Hedge with inflation-indexed bonds (e.g. TIPS) or the bonds of stronger major economies – but diversify; don't just pick one. If you agree that energy prices are headed higher, especially relative to U.S. dollars, then a good sector to invest a portion of one's portfolio would be world energy producing companies.  (Send some of your money over to Canada, we have lots of oil and we're right next door :-) Anybody who has already been practicing broad, global diversification is already reasonably protected.  Clearly, ""diversification"" across just U.S. stocks and bonds is not enough. Finally: I don't underestimate the ability of the U.S. to get out of this rut.  U.S. history has impressed upon me (as a Canadian) two things in particular: it is highly capable of both innovating and of overcoming challenges.  I'm keeping a small part of my portfolio invested in strong U.S. companies that are proven innovators – not of the ""financial""-innovation variety – and with global reach."
"Yes. There are several downsides to this strategy: You aren't taking into account commissions. If you pay $5 each time you buy or sell a stock, you may greatly reduce or even eliminate any possible gains you would make from trading such small amounts. This next point sounds obvious, but remember that you pay a commission on every trade regardless of profit, so every trade you make that you make at a loss also costs you commissions. Even if you make trades that are profitable more often than not, if you make quite a few trades with small amounts like this, your commissions may eat away all of your profits. Commissions represent a fixed cost, so their effect on your gains decreases proportionally with the amount of money you place at risk in each trade. Since you're in the US, you're required to follow the SEC rules on pattern day trading. From that link, ""FINRA rules define a “pattern day trader” as any customer who executes four or more “day trades” within five business days, provided that the number of day trades represents more than six percent of the customer’s total trades in the margin account for that same five business day period."" If you trip this rule, you'll be required to maintain $25,000 in a margin brokerage account. If you can't maintain the balance, your account will be locked. Don't forget about capital gains taxes. Since you're holding these securities for less than a year, your gains will be taxed at your ordinary income tax rates. You can deduct your capital losses too (assuming you don't repurchase the same security within 30 days, because in that case, the wash sale rule prevents you from deducting the loss), but it's important to think about gains and losses in real terms, not nominal terms. The story is different if you make these trades in a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, but the other problems still apply. You're implicitly assuming that the stock's prices are skewed in the positive direction. Remember that you have limit orders placed at the upper and lower bounds of the range, so if the stock price decreases before it increases, your limit order at the lower bound will be triggered and you'll trade at a loss. If you're hoping to make a profit through buying low and selling high, you want a stock that hits its upper bound before hitting the lower bound the majority of the time. Unless you have data analysis (not just your intuition or a pattern you've talked yourself into from looking at a chart) to back this up, you're essentially gambling that more often than not, the stock price will increase before it decreases. It's dangerous to use any strategy that you haven't backtested extensively. Find several months or years of historical data, either intra-day or daily data, depending on the time frame you're using to trade, and simulate your strategy exactly. This helps you determine the potential profitability of your strategy, and it also forces you to decide on a plan for precisely when you want to invest. Do you invest as soon as the stock trades in a range (which algorithms can determine far better than intuition)? It also helps you figure out how to manage your risk and how much loss you're willing to accept. For risk management, using limit orders is a start, but see my point above about positively skewed prices. Limit orders aren't enough. In general, if an active investment strategy seems like a ""no-brainer"" or too good to be true, it's probably not viable. In general, as a retail investor, it's foolish to assume that no one else has thought of your simple active strategy to make easy money. I can promise you that someone has thought of it. Trading firms have quantitative researchers that are paid to think of and implement trading strategies all the time.  If it's viable at any scale, they'll probably already have utilized it and arbitraged away the potential for small traders to make significant gains. Trust me, you're not the first person who thought of using limit orders to make ""easy money"" off volatile stocks. The fact that you're asking here and doing research before implementing this strategy, however, means that you're on the right track. It's always wise to research a strategy extensively before deploying it in the wild. To answer the question in your title, since it could be interpreted a little differently than the body of the question: No, there's nothing wrong with investing in volatile stocks, indexes, etc. I certainly do, and I'm sure many others on this site do as well. It's not the investing that gets you into trouble and costs you a lot of money; it's the rapid buying and selling and attempting to time the market that proves costly, which is what you're doing when you implicitly bet that the distribution of the stock's prices is positively skewed. To address the commission fee problem, assuming a fee of $8 per trade ... and a minimum of $100 profit per sale Commissions aren't your only problem, and counting on $100 profit per sale is a significant assumption. Look at point #4 above. Through your use of limit orders, you're making the implicit assumption that, more often than not, the price will trigger your upper limit order before your lower limit order. Here's a simple example; let's assume you have limit orders placed at +2 and -2 of your purchase price, and that triggering the limit order at +2 earns you $100 profit, while triggering the limit order at -2 incurs a loss of $100. Assume your commission is $5 on each trade.  If your upper limit order is triggered, you earn a profit of 100 - 10 = 90, then set up the same set of limit orders again. If your lower limit order is triggered this time, you incur a loss of 100 + 10 = 110, so your net gain is 90 - 110 = -20. This is a perfect example of why, when taking into account transaction costs, even strategies that at first glance seem profitable mathematically can actually fail.  If you set up the same situation again and incur a loss again (100 + 10 = 110), you're now down -20 - 110 = -130. To make a profit, you need to make two profitable trades, without incurring further losses.  This is why point #4 is so important. Whenever you trade, it's critical to completely understand the risk you're taking and the bet you're actually making, not just the bet you think you're making. Also, according to my ""algorithm"" a sale only takes place once the stock rises by 1 or 2 points; otherwise the stock is held until it does. Does this mean you've removed the lower limit order? If yes, then you expose yourself to downside risk. What if the stock has traded within a range, then suddenly starts declining because of bad earnings reports or systemic risks (to name a few)? If you haven't removed the lower limit order, then point #4 still stands.  However, I never specified that the trades have to be done within the same day.  Let the investor open up 5 brokerage accounts at 5 different firms (for safeguarding against being labeled a ""Pattern Day Trader""). Each account may only hold 1 security at any time, for the span of 1 business week. How do you control how long the security is held? You're using limit orders, which will be triggered when the stock price hits a certain level, regardless of when that happens. Maybe that will happen within a week, or maybe it will happen within the same day. Once again, the bet you're actually making is different from the bet you think you're making. Can you provide some algorithms or methods that do work for generating some extra cash on the side, aside from purchasing S&P 500 type index funds and waiting? When I purchase index funds, it's not to generate extra liquid cash on the side. I don't invest nearly enough to be able to purchase an index fund and earn substantial dividends. I don't want to get into any specific strategies because I'm not in the business of making investment recommendations, and I don't want to start. Furthermore, I don't think explicit investment recommendations are welcome here (unless it's describing why something is a bad idea), and I agree with that policy. I will make a couple of points, however. Understand your goals. Are you investing for retirement or a shorter horizon, e.g. some side income? You seem to know this already, but I include it for future readers.  If a strategy seems too good to be true, it probably is. Educate yourself before designing a strategy. Research fundamental analysis, different types of orders (e.g., so you fully understand that you don't have control over when limit orders are executed), different sectors of the market if that's where your interests lie, etc. Personally, I find some sectors fascinating, so researching them thoroughly allows me to make informed investment decisions as well as learn about something that interests me. Understand your limits. How much money are you willing to risk and possibly lose? Do you have a risk management strategy in place to prevent unexpected losses? What are the costs of the risk management itself? Backtest, backtest, backtest. Ideally your backtesting and simulating should be identical to actual market conditions and incorporate all transaction costs and a wide range of historical data. Get other opinions. Evaluate those opinions with the same critical eye as I and others have evaluated your proposed strategy." Your financial advisor got a pretty good commission for selling you the annuity is what happened. As for transferring it over to Vanguard (or any other company) and investing it in something else, go to Vanguard's site, tell them that you want to open a new Roth IRA account by doing a trustee-to-trustee transfer from your other Roth IRA account, and tell them to go get the funds for you from your current Roth IRA trustee.  You will need to sign some papers authorizing Vanguard to go fetch, make sure all the account numbers and the name of the current trustee (usually a  company with a name that includes Trust or Fiduciary as shown on your latest statement) are correct, and sit back and wait while your life improves. "What you are looking for is a pretty terrible deal for you, so I'd say it doesn't exist because there isn't a market for it, or nobody has noticed there is a market for it. In principle I would happily take the deal you offer from as many people as would let me, put the money into treasury bills, and take half the profits while doing pretty much nothing.    If I had more risk tolerance I would be pretty happy to have half the value of my ""fund"" as zero cost investment capital for more aggressive investments.  My business would then be a lot like an insurance company without the hassle of selling insurance to get hold of float to invest.  Also, most insurance companies actually lose money on policies, but come out ahead by investing the float, so an insurance company with zero cost float is quite a good business. Another answer mentions Berkshire Hathaway.  If you read one of the famous Berkshire Hathaway annual letters to shareholders and read the section about insurance you'll see that very low cost float has a large role in that company's success. So, back to your end of the deal: if the deal is that good for me, how good is it for you?  I'd have to double market returns just for you to break even.  If you're smart enough to pick a financial adviser that can beat the market by that much, how come you aren't able to pick an investment strategy that ties the market?" "Oh how I detest ""Good to Great"". Worst management book ever. Incredibly poor analysis method and useless results. They even asked the inverse of the question you actually would want to know.   They asked ""Given companies that went from Good to Great, what strategies did they use in common."" That's worthless. It's like analyzing lottery winners and finding out they all used the strategy of buying lottery tickets, and they concluding that you should also buy lottery tickets.  The question should be, ""How many companies using Strategy X went from Good to Great compared to using Strategy Y."" Even if GtG found some coherently useful strategies (they didn't), it might be that most Bad to Worse companies also used the same strategies. What you want are strategies that are statistically likely to improve your odds of success, not what the successful are statistically likely to have had." "The link to the paper is in this paragraph:  &gt;Entitled [""The Chicago Plan Revisited""](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf), it revives the scheme first put forward by professors Henry Simons and Irving Fisher in 1936 during the ferment of creative thinking in the late Depression.   [Full Paper](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf) (PDF)" To understand his comments about bear-market performance it's important to take them in context. (My research method was Crtl+F: bear; read around the highlights. This is not a complete survey of 60+ years of letters.)  In his earlier letters, statements about bull market performance are always made in reference to Buffet's belief that many of BH's current holdings are in undervalued securities. Ex:  To the extent possible, therefore, I am attempting to create my own work-outs by acquiring large positions in several undervalued securities. Such a policy should lead to the fulfillment of my earlier forecast – an above average performance in a bear market. It is on this basis that I hope to be judged (p 6; emphasis mine). Similar statements are made throughout the earlier letters, along with this interesting note:  In a year when the general market had a substantial advance I would be well   satisfied to match the advance of the Averages (p 6). So to your question of why BH fund performance is likely to be better in a bear market than in a bull market, I believe the implicit assertion is that undervalued securities are more resilient in a bear market (presumably because they don't have as far to fall, and are also less likely to be subject to a bubble). Buffet is also explicitly asserting that when facing a choice to either (a) position BH to weather a possible downturn or (b) position BH to enjoy a bullish stock that is outpacing the market, he would choose the former over the later. As to your assertion that he always says this, I can find no reference to bear market's in the letters past 1960. I don't see a contrast. It's really hard to predict which mutual funds will do well in the future. Predicting that ones which have done well recently will continue to do well works slightly better than chance. The WSJ article and Morningstar agree on all the objective facts, they just spin them differently. There's an interview with Andrew Lo on the WSJ that's worth a listen. One idea he touched on briefly is how the rise of index funds may be creating an investor monoculture. If this is the case, then he thinks it could lead to more market volatility. Interesting stuff.  http://www.wsj.com/podcasts/andrew-w-lo-talks-how-to-evolve-with-adaptive-markets/4B141ED2-23EA-409E-BFEE-96791EEB473E.html