The reason I ask about length is because of its relation to compounding interest. Earning 1% per day is better than 7% per week, and 7% per week is better than 30% per month.
Now if you can consistently earn 1% every single week, and not a day later, then it will be better than passive stocks no matter how much you have invested. But there's a big drop off when you need to wait 2 weeks to cash out, and you'll need a lot more capital invested to out-earn weekly passive stocks.
sometimes even sell for a loss and move on to the next one
Unless you're able to make up for that loss within the day, this is a much bigger deal than you might realize. Because now that we're working backwards—even if it's over a shorter period of time—the losses
really eat into that compounding effect. And the more it eats into that, the less reliable it'll be when comparing it to passive stocks.
I know that the BB itself is stagnant, but the money it generates can be added to your active portfolio and
then start compounding. My goal for those four stocks is to maximize the amount of money I generate in one week. If an actively traded stock takes more than a week for it to reach its optimal height, then it'll result in less money for most players.
Okay, this convo's kickstarted my decaying math brain. Lets crunch the numbers.
To demonstrate, I'll bring up a few scenarios where one shows the output of hybrid (passive and active) trading using the four BBs I mentioned, and the other shows the output for just active over a 1-week and 2-week period. For both, I'll be using $4.5B since that's the current cost of the 4 stocks I'm measuring.
Investment Type -- Length -- Interest -- Amount: Profit
Passive -- 1 week -- 4.5B: 38.4M
Active -- 1 week -- 1% 4.5B: 45M
Active -- 1 x 2 weeks -- 1% -- 4.5B: 45M
Hybrid -- 2 x 1 week -- .5% -- 4.5B: 77M
The math: 38.4M + 38.4M + 38.4M/200 (after withdrawing, investing the withdrawal, and withdrawing again next week).
That's why I ask for the length. Two weeks of active investing for 1% returns would be worse than two weeks of hybrid investing.
There's one other thing that needs to be taken into consideration, which is the scale. A larger number with a smaller percentage does have potential to be better than a smaller number with a larger percentage. So now I'm gonna try a different comparison using a total of $290B (slightly below your NW).
Active -- 2 weeks -- 1% -- 290B: 2.9B
This is already significantly higher than what I calculated with the passive/active income. However, see what happens when we split it up.
Active -- 1 x 2 weeks -- 1% -- 285.5B: 2.855B
Hybrid -- 2 x 1 week -- .5% -- 4.5B: 77M
Total: 2.932B
So if you invested using my strategy, you'd make an extra $32M in that 2-week period.
Now I'm gonna try this with $1T since there are only 12 players with a NW higher than that.
Active -- 2 weeks -- 1% 1T: 10B
And I'll split again...
Active -- 2 weeks -- 1% 995.5B: 9.955B
Hybrid -- 2 x 1 week -- .5% 4.5B: 77M
Total: 995.577B
So it'd be somewhere between 290B and 1T that we see the effectiveness of passive stocks dwindle. This means that fewer than 72 Torn players will not benefit from these stocks (I'd guesstimate roughly 40) unless they consistently make 1% every week.
If you have them recorded, I'd really like to see what your trading outcomes are so I can measure things out more accurately.
Please do let me know if you spot an error in my math somewhere. I haven't done this much math since dropping out of college. D:
Edit: Wow, that is an embarrassing arithmetic error.
This part here:
Active -- 2 weeks -- 1% 1T: 10B
And I'll split again...
Active -- 2 weeks -- 1% 995.5B: 9.955B
Hybrid -- 2 x 1 week -- .5% 4.5B: 77M
Total: 995.577B
Should actually come out to:
Total: 10.032B
So what this
actually means is that no matter how you divvy up the numbers, the profitability remains the same.
My bad!
![[image: pbs.twimg.com]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSjVcHtWUAI2_Zq.png){kind=link}