401–410 of 499 posts
To put it into perspective, the last time the market behaved like (multiple drops of this magnitude) this was 90 years ago, in 1929, and it was at the start of the Great Depression. Today was the second largest percentage drop for US Markets in history. Now is not a good time to sell your stock holdings (at least not anymore). This smells of a panic right now. I think a severe recession is all but guaranteed at this…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why, exactly? If you have a healthy emergency fund in cash to cover your liabilities for 6 months (or even 1 year to be more conservative in this environment), what is the problem in throwing every bit of cash that comes your way (paycheck savings, ...) and you won't need for a few years, at the stock market as it goes down? Over decades the stock market has had an IRR or 8%+, and that IRR includes crashes like these…
“and that IRR includes crashes like these.” No it doesn’t.
This is what I mean and what I do, by always allocating the same amount of savings per year, in good or bad times [1]. You can see how in 2008 such portfolio had a drawdown of more than -50%. Despite that, it performed well above the 8% IRR I mentioned.
Another interesting data point, by investing lump sums of money at the very peak of every market cycle, immediately followed by a massive crash [2]. I believe the IRR in this case is still above 7%, which is absolutely phenomenal considering the horrible investing timing.
If you don't agree, please tell me exactly why I am wrong and why you are right, so I might learn something. I come to HN to read HN-quality comments, not Reddit-quality content. Thank you.
[1] https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-asset-class-all...
[2] https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2014/02/worlds-worst-market...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing with dotcom and GFC is that they both revealed fundamental problems in the marketplace. Dotcom was over-hype around internet startups, GFC was the financial house of cards around subprime mortgages. There was no "going back to the way things were" in those cases. In this case, on the other hand, the primary mechanism is "people can't work/aren't going out and buying things". That's absolutely going to "go b…
Previous recessions were a lack of demand. What happens when it’s a lack of supply? We can’t go back to the way things were if the global supply chain is damaged or completely stopped. And that’s not even considering local businesses that may never come back after this is over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said that with a very specific meaning and you're taking it out of context.
> you're taking it out of context You claimed the the GFC and dotcom bust "revealed fundamental problems in the marketplace" , but "In this case...the primary mechanism is "people can't work/aren't going out and buying things". That's..going to "go back to the way things were" To which I explained to you there are fundamental issues with this as well, mainly the world's second largest economy is messed up, royally. W…
> the primary mechanism is "people can't work/aren't going out and buying things"
As soon as it's safe, people will very quickly start working and consuming again. The world around that mechanism will have changed - some businesses will have closed, some jobs will have been lost, some personal finances will have taken a hit - but people's desire to work for income and spend money on goods didn't break. It's only being blocked for a little while. The circumstances around that are an independent question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The S&P500, the best general index, closed at 2386 today. It's risen over 300% since the last crash, the GFC in 2007. It's been an extraordinarily lengthy bull run, and well overdue fo a crash. Before the GFC the index was 1550, and after it was ~760 (~50% drop) At the peak of the dotcom boom it was generally under 1500. In 2002 after that crash it was 800. (45% drop) The recent peak was ~3380. A 50% drop is ~1700, w…
The thing with dotcom and GFC is that they both revealed fundamental problems in the marketplace. Dotcom was over-hype around internet startups, GFC was the financial house of cards around subprime mortgages. There was no "going back to the way things were" in those cases. In this case, on the other hand, the primary mechanism is "people can't work/aren't going out and buying things". That's absolutely going to "go b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never thought about all-out selling during this. In fact I'm buying more with each dip. I feel that securities are a bargain right now. With select selling I'll also be taking advantage of tax loss harvesting for years to come.
Be weary of catching falling knives. I've made that mistake before.
To put it into perspective, the last time the market behaved like (multiple drops of this magnitude) this was 90 years ago, in 1929, and it was at the start of the Great Depression. Today was the second largest percentage drop for US Markets in history. Now is not a good time to sell your stock holdings (at least not anymore). This smells of a panic right now. I think a severe recession is all but guaranteed at this…
Since 2008 money means something different. The fed will keep releasing liquid funds for banks to buy up all the cheap stock. Or the US government might even give away money to keep consumer spending going. Either way it will expand the money supply enough until the SP500 goes back to 3000 even if 3000 equals 1500 in 2019 money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is much riskier than just holding. stock prices are about expectations, not necessarily reality. for all we know, everything might spike back up to January 2020 prices the second there's an inflection point in the new infection rate, and you could miss your chance to buy back in.
No. Being in cash is always less risky than being in the market. "Missing a chance" is not what "risky" means.
I’m buying S&P index every day at this point, trying to drive my average down without trying to find the bottom. ...with that being said, I feel really worried about American economic stability long term now. Governors are closing restaurants and businesses leaving tons of folks out of work while providing minimal safety net coverage. Even liberal states like New York are ignoring the downstream economic effects thes…
Every time I see this, I fail to grasp the logic. So you had money sitting on the sidelines for safety during boom times, and you elect to put it in a riskier asset class during a panic? I'm not saying this isn't likely the most profitable action, I just don't see how the principles are consistent with each other. The former is conservative; the latter is wildly speculative and risky.