221–230 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incorrect. https://static.twentyoverten.com/5980d16bbfb1c93238ad9c24/rJ...
Yeah, no. Us normal working stiffs don't typically have a $20M windfall we're looking to invest. That's a whole other ballgame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you liquidate your portfolio you're going to have to recognize (pay tax on) capital gains.
Good point, but how about for retirement portfolios? I'm trying to point out the irrationality of it - after all, I don't think people desist from liquidating only for tax/fee reasons. "I would sell everything today and DCA back in over the next year if not for those pesky taxes and fees! (shakes fist at sky)"
If at the beginning of 2022, I'd had a crystal ball saying "stocks will crash in March then rebound in December", then I have a motivation: I do want to switch to a stock-light position, hold that for a while, then move back. In that situation I'd be inclined to DCA on the way out in January, as well as DCA back in during December.
I want to reduce variance more than I want to increase the expected value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of the AI stuff really solves things like affordable housing or keeping wages up with inflation (or addressing inflation). It's not going to magically give us more energy without environmental impacts, or settle conflicts between countries. Building another AI-marketed SaaS only benefits people who don't need those benefits. In all likelihood, it'll just give us more bullshit jobs.
It might, you can't possibly know that. If the coming AIs make humans twice as productive, then we've boosted our output tremendously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is buy and hold a "pessimal strategy"?
IDK what OP believes, but to me, the "Boglehead" strategy is great, with giant caveats. Most devotees I talk to get visibly frustrated when I suggest that you can look at larger macroeconomic forces, like COVID, supply chain issues, Fed manipulations(both positive and negative) and make educated predictions on the direction of stocks. My guess is that these are folks who just don't want the frustration of learning ab…
On the other hand, DCA'ing you way through a market decline and recovery will always leave you in a better position than one where the crash never happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. Druck isn't one of those types. Bill Ackman is. Druck is just known to change his opinion when the facts change or he comes to a new conclusion. There's some anecdote about him completely flipping on a position when going in and out on an elevator ride that I can't quite remember. By the way, sideways means that the stock market is going nowhere long or short. IMO, currencies and commodities are a far better pla…
While you may know the guy better, notice this Druck comment comes at a time when the long term buy-and-hold thinking is at its weakest point. A slightly respectable guru saying this sort of things is enough to make some people sell.
Also, forget him saying it. He says a lot of things at a lot of different times. The real people to question are the ones making his headline known. CNBC/MarketWatch/Cramer et all are the biggest shills for banks. If you remember, they were all pushing Dalio's cash is trash line--which he has been saying since about 2018--HARD at the peak.
And Michael Burry has been predicting crashes every few years since the 2008 one. And Bill Ackman predicted 'hell is coming' at the onset of the pandemic and made $2B [0]. And there were US Senators that also did possibly illegal things to pull money out of the market before the public knew about the pandemic. Outside of disclosures filed with the SEC, stock trading is anonymous yet they will have all sorts of headli…
>So all players in the market are just selling everything across the market to the tune of -1.4% because FedEx is having issues? FedEx's issues is that their volume is down massively. High (nay, accelerating) rates of trade are the foundation of the modern economy. If trade starts to slow down, or, Lord forbid, decline , then yes that can have massive negative repercussions.
23.52B Expected Revenue
23.20B Reported Reported
Difference: ~1%
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think most of these investors don’t really understand how close we are to have very useful AI and what it’s impact will be. We are roughly on the verge of another industrial revolution Tell me more. I'm willing to be persuaded by this position but I'm skeptical. What specific AI breakthroughs do you think will happen on what timelines?
Just take AI assisted programming, if it makes devs twice as effective at their jobs then its massively increased the output of our most profitable industry. This is just one field, AI will impact the output of most fields
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might, you can't possibly know that. If the coming AIs make humans twice as productive, then we've boosted our output tremendously.
One way that we become twice as productive is to use half the labor. This is my fear that AI brings about—not huge gains for society, but huge gains for a small minority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just take AI assisted programming, if it makes devs twice as effective at their jobs then its massively increased the output of our most profitable industry. This is just one field, AI will impact the output of most fields
I'm a dev. It won't make us more productive. Our limitations are not how much code can we write, it's how many requirements can we gather.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 65% drop in price over 17 years is "only" about 6% per year. The S&P500 annual dividend yield during 1966-1982 was not much less than 6%, especially during the latter half of that period. If you look at an inflation-adjusted total return chart (as opposed to just price), the actual drop in investment value was much smaller. I think "flat" isn't a terrible way to describe it. https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend-…
Total return (dividends reinvested, inflation adjusted) is -13.4% for 1965-1983.