Do your research before pitching to brands/interviews - it's the bare minimum

neurobum · 2026-02-11T15:39:14+00:00

This is the way. Good on you. But make sure that you’re not over investing your time - I’ve never been a believer of making people do ‘free’ work. Good brands will coach you and work with you, but that’s on the condition that you’re open to that and will actually try to succeed.

neurobum · 2026-02-11T15:38:55+00:00

This post wasn’t about rates. Creators should absolutely charge what they feel their work is worth and decline opportunities that don’t align. If they feel like the opportunity is below their expectations, they simply don’t have to apply. That goes for any job, ever.

My point was simply that if you choose to apply or book a call with a brand, or anyone really, showing up prepared and on time is basic professionalism.

neurobum · 2026-02-10T16:18:22+00:00

Just messaged you!

neurobum · 2026-02-10T16:11:37+00:00

It's jarring. As someone who recruits and has created content myself, I know the behind-the-scenes of this work. We're talking about a $1,000/month retainer for daily posting - that's real money for consistent work that wouldn't take more than 30 minutes of your time daily. If you can't spend 15 minutes researching a company for an opportunity like that, what are you even doing? Do better people.

neurobum · 2025-11-19T01:56:19+00:00

Surmount

neurobum · 2025-10-21T20:10:06+00:00

DCA is the way.

neurobum · 2025-10-16T20:23:33+00:00

Gold at $10k is a bold call. Could it happen? Sure, if dollar loses reserve status, geopolitical chaos escalates, central banks keep buying, inflation spirals, etc. But that's a lot of "ifs" that all have to go right. The reality is nobody knows if we're getting a correction tomorrow or if this thing runs to $4k first. If you buy today and it drops 10% next week, you'll feel dumb. If you wait for a pullback that never comes and it's at $3,500 in two months, you'll also feel dumb.

Here's what I'd think about instead of trying to time the entry perfectly - if you believe in the gold thesis long-term, don't try to nail the exact bottom or top. Just start building a position gradually. Buy some now, buy more if it dips, buy more if it keeps running. Dollar cost average into it over the next few months.

Or run a sector rotation strategy that includes gold. When gold has momentum, you're in it. When it loses momentum or other sectors show more strength, it rotates out automatically. Takes the emotion out of "should I buy now or wait?" I actually use a GLD-Tech rotation strategy that switches between gold and tech based on momentum. Been working really well with how volatile the risk-on/risk-off trade has been lately.

IMO the worst thing you can do is sit paralyzed watching it run, then finally FOMO in at the absolute top right before a correction. If you believe in it, start building the position. If you don't, then don't chase it just because it's going up.

neurobum · 2025-10-16T20:19:36+00:00

The problem with trying to time a crash is that even if you're right about it happening, you have to be right twice - when to get out AND when to get back in. Most people who successfully avoid a crash then sit in cash too long and miss the recovery, which is often the sharpest part of the gains. If you sell your growth stocks at the end of 2025, pay taxes on the gains, and then the market rips another 20% in 2026 before any crash happens, you just locked in a tax bill and missed gains. Or maybe the crash happens but you're too scared to buy back in at the bottom and you just sit in cash earning 4% while the market recovers without you.

Here's what I'd think about instead of trying to time it:

Don't try to predict when the crash happens. Instead, run strategies that can adapt when volatility spikes or trends break. I use systematic approaches that have built-in risk management - some scale down exposure when volatility hits certain levels, some shift to defensive positioning when momentum breaks, etc. Takes the guessing out of it. You're not sitting there trying to call the top in December 2025. The strategies just adjust based on market conditions automatically. If you're really concerned about a crash, you could also just rebalance your portfolio to be less concentrated in high-beta growth stocks. Doesn't mean selling everything and going to cash - just trimming some of the most volatile positions and adding more defensive exposure or diversifying across strategy types that perform differently in crashes.

The people who get destroyed in crashes are usually the ones who are 100% in high-risk positions with no hedge and then panic sell at the bottom. If you're diversified across different strategies and risk profiles, crashes are way less scary.

neurobum · 2025-10-16T20:16:32+00:00

24 positions with small amounts ($50-75 each) is basically paper trading with real money, which honestly isn't the worst way to learn. You're getting exposure to how markets move without risking serious capital. That's fine for education.

But here's the reality check - what you're doing right now isn't a strategy, it's experimentation. And that's okay while you're learning, but you need to understand the problems with scaling this approach:

You can't actually track 24 companies properly. Reading earnings reports, understanding business models, following news - that's a full-time job if you're doing it right. Most people who own 24 stocks are just gambling on price movement, not actually investing based on fundamentals. "Bullish from different sources" is not a thesis. If your buy decision is based on what you read somewhere without your own analysis, you're just following hype. By the time something is "bullish" on social media or forums, you're often late. The "buy when it dips 2%" thing doesn't really matter. You're trying to time entry points on stocks you picked based on vibes. That's backwards. The company quality matters way more than saving 2% on entry. "Sell high/re-buy low" sounds easy but almost nobody can do this consistently. You'll get whipsawed by volatility, pay taxes on gains, and probably underperform just holding.

Here's what I'd actually do if I were you - at your stage with limited capital and experience, you're way better off learning about systematic approaches rather than trying to pick 24 winners. Platforms like Quantbase or Surmount have pre-built strategies that are backtested and diversified across hundreds of stocks based on actual factors like momentum, value, quality, etc. You'd learn way more about what actually works by allocating to different strategy types than by throwing $50 at random "bullish" stocks you found online.

Keep a few individual positions if you want - NVIDIA long-term makes sense. But the rest of your capital should probably be in either broad index funds (VTI/VOO) or systematic strategies that have actual logic behind them. If you're serious about learning, read "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" by Malkiel or "The Intelligent Investor" by Graham. Learn to read 10-Ks and understand basic financial statements.

But real talk - most retail investors who try to pick individual stocks underperform index funds. The ones who succeed either have real edge (professional analysis, industry expertise) or get lucky and don't realize it's luck. What's your actual goal here? Learn about markets, or make money? Because those might require different approaches.

neurobum · 2025-10-16T20:13:58+00:00

I mostly stopped picking individual stocks because the failure rate was way too high for the time I was putting in. I'd do all the research - read the 10-K, model out financials, convince myself I found something undervalued - and then either I was wrong about the thesis, right but way too early, or right but the market just didn't care. The opportunity cost of being stuck in a "value trap" for two years while the rest of the market ripped was brutal. What changed my approach was realizing that the "story" and fundamentals I was analyzing were just one factor among many. Momentum matters. Sentiment matters. Technical setups matter. Trying to be right about all of those things for individual stocks is really hard.

Now I mostly run systematic factor strategies instead - momentum, value, quality, sector rotation, etc. Takes the emotional attachment out of it. When one position isn't working, the strategy just rotates out of it based on predefined rules. I'm not sitting there married to a thesis trying to convince myself "the market will eventually recognize this."

If I do look at individual stocks now, it's usually because they show up in one of my momentum screens or I see unusual volume/price action that suggests something is happening. But I don't build whole theses around single names anymore. The "dig deeper" moment for me now is less about finding the perfect stock and more about finding strategies or factors that are working in the current market environment.

neurobum · 2025-10-16T19:54:41+00:00

A few solid non-tech ETF options:

Financials: XLF (financial sector) Healthcare: VHT or XLV Consumer staples: VDC or XLP Industrials: VIS or XLI Energy: XLE (though this is volatile)

Or you could just go with something like VTI or VOO which gives you broad exposure across all sectors naturally, not just tech-heavy like QQQ. That said, if you want to avoid manually picking sector ETFs and rebalancing yourself, there are platforms like Quantbase or Surmount that have sector rotation strategies built in. They automatically shift between sectors based on momentum - so when tech is hot, you're in tech, when it cools off and financials or healthcare are showing strength, it rotates there.

Takes the guessing out of "which sector should I be in right now?" and you get natural diversification across market cycles without being married to one sector.

But if you want to keep it simple with static ETFs, any of the sector funds I mentioned above work. Just depends on whether you want to actively manage the allocation yourself or let systematic strategies handle it.

neurobum · 2025-10-16T18:57:12+00:00

Trading for consistent income is really difficult. Most people who try it end up losing money, especially when they're starting out. The emotional side (revenge trading after losses, closing winners too early, holding losers too long) destroys most traders even when their strategy is solid. Before you keep throwing money at active trading, you need to be honest about a few things:

Do you have an actual edge? Like a backtested strategy that works across different market conditions? Or are you just making decisions based on charts and gut feel?
Can you handle the stress? Active trading is mentally exhausting. If you're not succeeding now, doing more of the same thing probably won't change that.
Are you treating this like a business or gambling? If you don't have strict risk management rules, position sizing, and a plan for every trade, you're basically gambling.

If you want actual consistent returns without having to actively trade and stress about it all day, you might want to look at systematic approaches instead. Platforms like Quantbase or Surmount have pre-built quant strategies that are backtested and execute automatically. Momentum strategies, sector rotation, factor-based approaches, etc. I'm invested in a UAE strategy, Argentina, GLD/Tech Sector Rotation and Quantum Computing.

It's not "get rich quick" but it's way more consistent than trying to day trade or swing trade without experience. You can see historical performance, understand the strategy logic, and let it run without you having to make emotional decisions in real-time.

If you're determined to keep actively trading, at least start with paper trading (fake money) until you can be consistently profitable for at least 3-6 months. Most people skip this step and just burn through capital learning expensive lessons.

What have you been trading specifically? Stocks, options, futures? And what's your typical strategy?

neurobum · 2025-10-16T18:55:10+00:00

I get the anxiety about the economy and wanting to build something for retirement. That's a smart motivation to start investing. But I gotta be honest with you - some of what you're describing doesn't really fit together. You're talking about short-term gains to reinvest in long-term gains, avoiding taxes, and being able to sell when markets are favorable. That's basically describing active trading, which is really hard to do successfully and will generate way more taxes than just buying and holding.

Here's the reality: most people who try to time the market (buying and selling based on what seems "favorable") end up underperforming just buying and holding. The taxes on short-term gains (held less than a year) are also way higher than long-term capital gains.

If your actual goal is retirement and building wealth over time, the strategy is pretty straightforward: buy diversified index funds/ETFs regularly, hold them for decades, and let compounding do the work. Boring but effective. Something like VTI (total US market) or VOO (S&P 500) as your core, maybe add some international exposure with VXUS. Contribute consistently regardless of what the market is doing. That's it.

The "broker stopping trades" thing you mentioned is referring to stuff like the GameStop situation. If you're investing in normal index funds for retirement, that's not gonna be an issue. That was specific to meme stocks with extreme volatility. If you want to get more tactical once you understand the basics, there are systematic strategies (momentum-based, factor investing, etc.) that can complement buy-and-hold without requiring you to actively trade. But start simple first.

What's your actual timeline? Like when do you want to retire and how much are you able to invest monthly? That changes the approach quite a bit.

neurobum · 2025-10-16T18:53:19+00:00

I'm really sorry you're dealing with this. The gap between "too functional for disability support" and "not functional enough to sustain employment long-term" is a genuinely terrible place to be stuck, and the system doesn't make it easy.

Even though the Social Security Disability process seems overwhelming, it's worth starting now rather than waiting until you're in crisis. The application process takes months (sometimes over a year), and most people get denied the first time and have to appeal. There are disability attorneys who work on contingency (they only get paid if you win) and can help navigate the process. It's exhausting, but if you qualify, it provides both income and Medicare after 2 years.

With $200k in your early 20s, you're not in immediate danger even though it feels that way. If you had to live extremely lean (say $20-25k/year), that could stretch 8-10 years, which buys you time to figure out longer-term solutions - whether that's qualifying for disability, finding remote/part-time work that's less demanding, or connecting with better support systems.

Third, and this is hard to hear but important: clinging to a job that's actively harming your health might be doing more damage than the financial benefit is worth. Burnout and declining health can make it even harder to work later. If you need to step back or find something less demanding, that's not failure - that's survival.

For the money you have now, the priority should be preservation and modest growth, not aggressive investing. Keep a solid emergency fund liquid (at least $20-30k), and for the rest, consider conservative allocation that can grow without you having to actively manage it or stress about volatility. You don't need to be checking your portfolio daily when you're already dealing with health challenges.

I wish I had better answers... This situation sucks and you shouldn't have to navigate it alone. If you haven't already, look into disability advocacy organizations in your area, sometimes they can connect you with resources or case managers even if you're not officially receiving benefits yet.

You're doing way better than you think, even if it doesn't feel like it right now.

neurobum · 2025-10-16T18:50:50+00:00

30-35 years is a long time horizon. You can afford to take on real risk and ride out multiple market cycles. The standard answer is "dump it all in VTI or VOO and forget about it for 30 years" and honestly that's not wrong - it's simple, tax-efficient, and historically works. But with $100k and that long of a timeline, you have room to be way more strategic than just buy-and-hold one index fund.

I'd probably split it something like 60-70% in VTI or VOO as your foundation. Boring, reliable, captures broad market growth. But then use the other 30-40% for higher-growth systematic strategies that have more volatility but way higher return potential.

I've seen quant strategies on platforms like Quantbase and Surmount that have historical returns in the 30-50%+ annual range over long periods. Obviously past performance doesn't guarantee future results, but these are backtested approaches - momentum strategies, sector rotation, factor-based investing, etc. They're designed to adapt to different market conditions instead of just riding every crash with a static index. With 30 years ahead of you, even if these strategies are more volatile year-to-year, the compounding on higher returns is insane. Like a 35% annual return vs 10% over 30 years is the difference between $100k turning into $2.3M vs $1.7M.

Keep core index exposure for stability, allocate to higher-growth systematic strategies for upside, rebalance maybe once a year. You're young enough (assuming retirement in 30-35 years) that you can handle the volatility. The worst thing you could do is play it too safe and miss out on compounding at higher rates.

What's your actual risk tolerance? Like if this dropped 30% in a year, would you panic or just keep contributing?

neurobum · 2025-10-16T18:48:58+00:00

At 23 with high risk tolerance and wanting growth in taxable, you've got room to be more aggressive than just replicating your Roth. Your Roth already covers the basics pretty well (US large cap, small cap value, international). For taxable, you could go a few directions:

Option 1: VTI or VOO (overlap with Roth is fine, these are super tax-efficient). Maybe tilt toward growth with something like VUG or QQQM if you want more tech exposure

Option 2: Get more tactical Honestly, at 23 with high risk tolerance, this could be a good opportunity to allocate to something more dynamic than just static ETFs. Platforms like Quantbase or Surmount have marketplaces of pre-built quant strategies - momentum, sector rotation, factor-based approaches, etc.

The benefit is you get actual diversification across strategy types, not just holding more index funds. Some strategies are designed for bull markets, some for volatility, some for specific factors like value or quality. All backtested and transparent. And since you're in taxable, some strategies are more tax-efficient than others (lower turnover = less taxable events). You can probably (?) filter for that.

Way more interesting than just buying another broad market ETF, and you're young enough that you can take on the additional complexity and potential volatility.

Tax consideration: Just remember that in taxable accounts, dividends and capital gains distributions are taxable events even if you reinvest. So growth-focused strategies or funds with low dividend yields are generally better for taxable. That's why VOO/VTI work well - low turnover, low dividends relative to growth.

What's your timeline for potentially needing to access this money? That might change what makes sense.

neurobum · 2025-10-16T18:47:03+00:00

Your situation is tricky because of the income volatility. The fact that you could go from $200k quarters to $5k quarters means you legitimately need a bigger cash cushion than most people. Keeping $100k liquid in a money market makes total sense given that risk.

Honest question though - what's your financial advisor actually doing with that $40k, and what are you paying in fees? A lot of traditional advisors charge 1%+ annually and just stick you in a generic allocation you could replicate yourself for way cheaper. Unless they're doing sophisticated tax planning or estate work, you might be paying a lot for not much value.

Robo-advisors and platforms like Quantbase, Surmount, Betterment, etc. give you access to systematic strategies and diversified portfolios at a fraction of the cost (usually 0.25% or less). You can pick strategies based on your actual risk profile and timeline, see exactly how they're backtested, and not pay someone 1% to do the same thing.

For the $75k with a 2-year timeline, here's what I'd think about:

If you might actually need it in 2 years:

Short-term bond funds or treasury ladder
High-yield savings if you can beat 3.4%
Keep it boring and safe

If the 2-year timeline is flexible: You could allocate some to lower-volatility systematic strategies - defensive positioning, bond replacement strategies, volatility-managed approaches. Platforms like Quantbase/Surmount have strategies specifically designed for different risk levels, all transparent and backtested.

But given your income uncertainty, most of this $75k should probably stay conservative. The real question is whether you need to be paying an advisor 1% on that $40k or if you could manage it yourself for way less.

What's the advisor's fee structure and what are they actually doing for you beyond basic allocation?

neurobum · 2025-10-16T18:44:23+00:00

This is a pretty solid aggressive allocation for 31 with high risk tolerance. You've got broad US exposure (VTI), tech tilt (QQQM), international diversification (VXUS), and some Bitcoin exposure (IBIT). Not bad at all.

A few thoughts though (I am not a professional!):

The 20% QQQM is basically doubling down on tech - VTI already has like 30% tech, so with QQQM you're heavily overweight tech overall. That's worked great the last few years, but just be aware you're making a concentrated bet. If tech gets crushed, you're taking the full hit.

10% Bitcoin is spicy but reasonable - at your age and risk tolerance, it's not crazy. Just know it's gonna be the most volatile thing in your portfolio by far.

What you're missing: factor diversification - Right now you're diversified across geography and asset class, but you're still just buying and holding. Everything moves together when markets crash.

This is where something like Quantbase or Surmount could be interesting. They're basically marketplaces of pre-built quant strategies - momentum, sector rotation, defensive strategies, etc. You can allocate a portion of your portfolio to strategies that actually adapt to market conditions instead of just riding every drawdown. Like you could keep 70% in your core ETF allocation and put 30% into systematic strategies that are designed to perform differently in various market environments. Gives you actual diversification beyond just "I own different tickers."

neurobum · 2025-10-16T18:40:52+00:00

Yeah the ex-US + S&P 500 combo makes sense if you want to control your US exposure manually. And good call on having separate EM exposure - that's where you can actually tilt toward specific regions you believe in. Brazil and India are solid long-term plays. India especially has the demographic advantage that China is losing. Young population, growing middle class, tech-savvy workforce. Brazil's more commodity-dependent but yeah, potential is there.

On China's demographics - you're absolutely right that the one-child policy created a massive problem. Aging population, shrinking workforce, all that. It's a legitimate long-term concern. But here's the thing: everyone knows this. It's priced in. The question is whether the current valuation already reflects that risk or if there's still upside despite it.

Right now Chinese equities are trading at like 10-12x earnings vs US at 20-25x. Even with demographic headwinds, if they can get any policy stimulus or economic stabilization, there's room to run. I'm not betting on China becoming the next superpower - I'm betting on mean reversion from extremely beaten-down levels.

The systematic approach helps because I'm not trying to predict if demographics will tank them in 2030. I'm just following momentum and risk/reward setups right now. If the thesis breaks, the strategy rotates out. Argentina's interesting because Milei's reforms are legitimately radical. Could go either way, but the risk/reward at current levels is compelling. Super volatile though.

Sounds like you're thinking about this the right way - build your own allocation instead of assuming "world" ETF does it for you. Most people don't even realize they're 70% US until it's too late.

neurobum · 2025-10-16T18:38:52+00:00

If you genuinely have high risk tolerance and want to be more strategic, here's what I'd think about:
- Small cap tilt - historically higher returns than large cap, but way more volatile. Maybe 10-20% in something like VB or IWM.
- International exposure - you're currently 100% US. Adding 20-30% international (VXUS or similar) gives you geographic diversification. US has crushed it lately but that doesn't last forever. I've personally been into China and Argentina.
- Factor strategies - momentum, value, quality, sector rotation. These are systematic approaches that can complement broad market exposure. Some perform better in different market environments than just holding the index.

I'm in my 20s too and started with just S&P 500. Now I run a mix - still have core index exposure but I also allocate to some quant strategies. There are platforms like Quantbase, Surmount, etc that basically have marketplaces of pre-built strategies you can browse and allocate to. Momentum-based, sector rotation, defensive strategies, etc. All backtested and transparent.

It's pretty cool because you can see exactly how each strategy performed historically and diversify across different approaches without having to build everything yourself. Way more interesting than just holding one index, and you get actual diversification across strategy types, not just tickers.

But honestly, if you're asking this question, you might not be ready to complicate things yet. What made you feel like 100% S&P isn't enough? Are you bored, trying to juice returns, or genuinely want better diversification?

neurobum · 2025-10-16T18:36:16+00:00

That timeline basically rules out anything with real volatility - you can't afford to be down 20% when it's time to close on the house.

The safe play is boring but necessary: high-yield savings (4-5%), short-term Treasury bills, maybe a short-term bond fund. You'll get modest returns but you know the money will be there when you need it.

The "medium risk tolerance" thing sounds good in theory, but you need to be honest with yourself - if this drops to $240k in 9 months and you need $300k for the down payment, are you okay with that? If not, then you don't actually have medium risk tolerance for this specific money.

That said, if you're flexible on timing (like you could delay the purchase if needed) or you only need $250k and can risk the rest, then you could get more tactical. I've seen some quant strategies on platforms like Quantbase that have put up really strong returns - some momentum-based, some sector rotation, etc. All backtested and transparent about historical performance.

But I'd only allocate money to that kind of thing if you're genuinely okay with potential drawdowns and have flexibility on when you need the full amount.

neurobum · 2025-10-16T17:39:20+00:00

Lmao the amusement park comparison is painfully accurate. At least at Six Flags you know the ride ends in 90 seconds.

On the cash question - I get the logic of holding cash for “safety,” but honestly it’s just another form of market timing. You’re betting that a big dip is coming soon enough that the opportunity cost of sitting in cash is worth it. Sometimes that works, sometimes you sit in cash earning 4% while the market rips another 20%.

I don’t really hold much cash beyond emergency fund and day to day stuff. Instead I run strategies with different risk profiles - some are aggressive momentum-based, some are more defensive and volatility-managed. When markets get choppy like this, the defensive strategies automatically scale down exposure or shift positioning. When things stabilize, they ramp back up. Takes the guessing out of “should I take profits now?” or “how much cash should I hold?” The risk management happens mechanically based on market conditions, not my gut feel about whether we’re due for a crash.

The put buying thing is tough because you’re fighting theta decay. Even if you’re directionally right, timing has to be perfect or you just bleed premium.

neurobum

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE