Live data from Hacker News

When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

endlessmetrics.substack.com

321–330 of 408 posts

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would $5.4T in stimulus that, as far as I know, came and went a year ago be causing ongoing inflation?

Because... you have more money in the market? It did spike up inflation when it was introduced and once inflation starts its effects tend to spiral. Look, we're also coming from years of QE. We've been screwed for years, it's just a matter of understanding when the government won't be able to support this monster they created and let th market correct itself. Instead of a series of small economic crises we'll get a m…

I assumed it was Wall Street's bundling of derivatives that caused the last economic crisis.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#322
post #101
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your strategy sounds like "pick winning stocks"? A strategy which has been show to produce (on average) worse returns than index investing. Index investing has produced a ~200% return in the past 15 years (from 2007 peak to now). Not sure what you mean by "a chance of seeing a profit in your lifetime".

No, it sounds like picking winning businesses. Big difference. Warren Buffet has said that he's a business picker, not a stock picker.

So your advice is to be Warren Buffet?

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#323
post #10

Look at a chart of the S&P 500 from 1920 to 2008 and you'll notice something rather curious: the stock market has gone parabolic ever since the financial crisis. What made this period so unique? Tremendously low interest rates coupled with quantitative easing dissuaded capital from financing the real economy and instead encouraged herding and levering up in the financial economy for returns. At ever dip, it was an op…

I think you reference only considers the index adjusted for inflation, but without taking the dividends into account. Optimists tend to consider the dividends too small to matter when buying stocks, but it turns out that over time, the dividends tend to be a large part of the inflation adjusted returns: According to this article [0], the profit of investing just before the .com bust would be only 12.9% by mid 2017, w…

People (and tool developers) forget that the purpose of a stock is to ultimately produce dividends. It is like buying a house for rental income and forgetting to include the rent.

When I retired I had to switch from a growth-stock mindset to an income-stock mindset. I have made the switch but none of the free tools makes that easy. The closest I came was TOS will do this calculation for stocks but not ETFs. Oh well. I now have all the calculations in google sheets.

I also now have a backtest that goes the the beginning of the Clinton administration to the end of the Trump administration. I added dividends to the backtest. I only went to the Clinton administration so that I could use ETFs to simplify the calculations. The backtest includes dividends - which I had to add manually.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the movie Margin Call? There’s a great scene where the CEO of a Goldman-style bank is recapping the last 100+ years of global financial collapses and he mentions, “we just can’t help ourselves.” https://youtu.be/LtFyP0qy9XU One of the best banking movies I’ve ever seen. Jeremy Irons absolutely nails his role.

It’s a terrific movie that perfectly complements The Big Short.

Big Short was a movie that other people loved but I just didn’t really like all that much. I don’t even know why. I think maybe the cameo scenes made it feel a little dumbed down?

I’d also watched Inside Job not long prior and really enjoyed it, but others found it too dry. Different strokes I guess.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#325
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just watched that a few weeks ago. Great movie, but to be honest I thought Jeremy Irons was unconvincing and played the role poorly/was poorly cast.

Felt the opposite, he really exuded that cold-and-carefree-but-wise archetype I'd expect from a mid-2000s cocky hedge fund manager who got themselves into that position in the first place.

The character was based on Dick Fuld, which if you look at any interviews with him from that time you can kind of see where the inspiration came from.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#326
post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you reference only considers the index adjusted for inflation, but without taking the dividends into account. Optimists tend to consider the dividends too small to matter when buying stocks, but it turns out that over time, the dividends tend to be a large part of the inflation adjusted returns: According to this article [0], the profit of investing just before the .com bust would be only 12.9% by mid 2017, w…

People (and tool developers) forget that the purpose of a stock is to ultimately produce dividends. It is like buying a house for rental income and forgetting to include the rent. When I retired I had to switch from a growth-stock mindset to an income-stock mindset. I have made the switch but none of the free tools makes that easy. The closest I came was TOS will do this calculation for stocks but not ETFs. Oh well.…

Out of curiosity: How do you test your sheets? I feel like I can arrive at such a sheet over a few days of reading, but unsure how I'd test I'm doing the right things (since there isn't a tool or a combination of tools that can act as oracle)

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#327

I'd love to better understand how crashes start / propagate. A lot of the discussion seems to talk in slightly binary terms - "bear" vs "bull", "crash" as an on/off state, etc. But if we think inflation and reduced stimulus are going to cause a downturn in the stock market, I assume different sectors / types of companies will get impacted at different times? I'd love to see some theories/discussion of how that might…

I can't answer the part about what sets off a crash. AFAIK, it seems to vary slightly for each crash. They all share similar valuation problems though. If a company is worth $10 but it's trading for $50 then there's a risk that it will drift back to its intrinsic value in a bear market (aka mean reversion). When the most heavily traded companies are all overvalued then you see a situation where a large market can crash.

As investment firms realize that the investment isn't going through normal volatility, they'll sell off the shares and focus on other types of returns. The same goes for individuals but most will probably move after larger firms. A heavy sell off of a stock can cause the share price to drop. To some extent it probably happens in waves as negative events keep unfolding. That helps set the downward trajectory over the long-term.

Unfolding macroeconomic conditions like raising the federal interest rate will also have an effect like it does now in the current crash. That raises the interest rate for bank loans so consumer and commercial lending slows down. That typically ripples out with knock-on effects for the broader economy. There are other factors at play like inflation and supply chain logistics that have their own knock-on effects too.

There are trends in how to invest during a crash and bear market. Try looking for companies that are trading close to their intrinsic value that also offer a dividend. It's helpful to partition the companies by industry. Some industries are going to be fairly safe like healthcare, utilities, and defensive consumer products (e.g. toilet paper producers). Those companies are going to have steady business whether the market crashes or not.

On the other side of the coin, there are okay sectors and bad sectors. You can check the general valuations across the sector and what's going on across companies. For example, energy companies are hot right now because of oil demand. That's okay because it doesn't track the crash of the larger market. It's heavily dependent on oil value though, good luck predicting what happens to the price of oil over a year out.

A bad investment is something overvalued with bad future prospects. If you know people will be capital constrained and limiting big purchases, then cyclical industries like real estate might not be as good to invest in.

It might be helpful to think about companies in terms of size and market valuation too. A growth stock usually has higher price to book because it's invested in R&D for future growth. They may not be making that money right now but the price is higher because they should at some point if everything works. That hurts when mean regression happens and the market price snaps back to book value. Value companies make money now and have lower price to book. When they go through a bear market they'll be largely unaffected by mean regression and have an easier time getting consistent returns. They usually pay dividends which helps over time too.

I'm not sure if there's any consistent trend with how market cap size works in a crash or bear market. Check out some quarterly or annual economic outlook reports from major investment firms. They'll do the best at analyzing the current risk based on market cap if there is a trend.

Those bear market investment strategies should be put behind the caveat that long-term investing is a better way to go. The market ups and downs smooth out over time so trading based on fundamental analysis of a company usually works out much better than speculating on the current trends. With a long-term mindset you can be less stressed about news since you'll get less caught up with the short-term market conditions. Stay the course and all that.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#328
post #268
post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never said I "think [I am] entitled to returns just because Exactly! Why did you think I said anything about not taking risks. I didn't say that either. I was misinterpreting on purpose to show yours. > "if my goals change, I don't want to lose money" I did not say that either. I vehemently agree with everything else that you said.

Ok, then I misunderstood and am very confused. You said "This a very popular idea but I don't fully accept it. Goals and desires are not static. They are path dependent and adaptive. I want a funding scheme that's able to fund that." Which I interpret as "I reject the idea of setting some financial goal decades into the future. I want a scheme that is flexible and can accommodate changes to how I want to use my money…

The best sort of discussions are those where each is happy with the other's rewording of their position. I certainly do not reject setting financial goals decades into the future. I do not like ('like' and 'reject' aren't synonyms) investment discipline that are strictly fixated on some goal I had in the past. I would rather have an adaptive trade off of risk to return depending on where I am right now financially. Some goal I had ten years ago may not be as relevant in my current state. I wouldn't want to let go of a favorable opportunity by pulling out the money, just because a goal that I had set in the past has been met.

> How is that different than "If my goals change, I don't want to lose money."?

… and I don't see at all how they are equivalent. I might be willing accept the possibility of losing some money if there is a notable increase in the possibility of meeting my updated goal.

I doubt that we have any fundamental disagreement. You have a good day.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#329
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone buys stocks from a third party in the open market, are they financing real projects? It really feels like it’s all speculation since the value of my shares doesn’t actually entitle me to that portion of the company’s profits, unless I can sell back directly to the company.

The value of stocks is pinned to two events that you often don’t directly participate in but are absolutely connected to in a real way. 1. The IPO. While it’s true that only the people who buy at the IPO directly finance the company, if there wasn’t the promise of someone else in the future to sell the shares to, nobody would buy at the IPO. The existence of future second-hand buyers makes the direct funding at the I…

Point 2 is false: shares of stock derive their value from the fact that they represent ownership in a company.

If the company is profitable or owns valuable assets beyond their liabilities, then the shares themselves are valuable.

Their value does not depend on current or future dividends, but on the company’s current assets and the market’s estimation of the value of the company’s future cash flows.

Your point about crypto still stands: there are no future cash flows to consider with crypto, only the current value of the asset, although the comparison is really apples to oranges.

Re: When buying the dip doesn’t work: An analysis of the dot-com crash

#330
post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People (and tool developers) forget that the purpose of a stock is to ultimately produce dividends. It is like buying a house for rental income and forgetting to include the rent. When I retired I had to switch from a growth-stock mindset to an income-stock mindset. I have made the switch but none of the free tools makes that easy. The closest I came was TOS will do this calculation for stocks but not ETFs. Oh well.…

Out of curiosity: How do you test your sheets? I feel like I can arrive at such a sheet over a few days of reading, but unsure how I'd test I'm doing the right things (since there isn't a tool or a combination of tools that can act as oracle)

I used ETFs (and not stocks) to simplify the test. I was mostly looking for correlations of different investments across different scenarios. I then looked at severe market downturns to see how the correlations changed.

As you can imagine - when there is a severe market drop, most investments are highly correlated to the S&P. The most negative correlation I could get was medium term bond ETFs. Short term bonds were still highly correlated and I am not sure why.

The dot com bust was particularly interesting because each segment dropped at different times. Telecom dropped first, then tech. It took about a year for the drop to hit mid cap. In comparison - the 2008 crash hit everything quickly.

Also - lately I have been using the backtesting tools in TOS. As I said earlier, this only works for stocks and not ETFs.

Post reply on HN