About 90% of active traders lose money while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq nearly doubled over the same period with zero effort. If you can't consistently beat a simple buy-and-hold index strategy, passive investing beats the stress and commissions of trading.
Everyone now, let's do this experiment. Think about the trading performance you've had over the last year. Okay? Keep that number in your mind. 90% of people will probably have lost money, right? 10% of people might be somewhere around breakeven or maybe a little bit profitable. A very small percentage is likely to be profitable. On the other hand, if you invested the same amount of money you invested trading in the S&P 500 exactly 1 year ago or in the NASDAQ 1 year ago, you would have almost doubled your money having spent zero time in front of the charts, having spent zero dollars on commission, and 100% of the time being successful and doubled your money. So in order for making— for trading to even make sense to you guys, it should be at least historically possible that you outperform buying and holding. Because if you can perform better by buying and holding, Why would you put all of this effort, this stress, and this, this, this, this huge effort that you're doing to try and make this trading thing work if you're not even sure you're gonna get there? Just because a guy told you on YouTube? Guys, that's, that's, that's, that's a very risky bet. It's a very risky bet. You're not here to be a degenerate gambler trying to make maybe some money. That's not what trading is, okay? It's finance. You need to know what you're doing. You need to be prepared and— and you need to know that the approach you're having will beat systematically on the long term S&P. Otherwise, you're better off investing.
