U.S. stocks continue to soar!

[Stinky]

This “soaring” thread has passed 12,000 posts.

To the moon!

[jarjarM]

This “soaring” thread has passed 12,000 posts.

To the moon!

But the future is red, sad...

[000]

This “soaring” thread has passed 12,000 posts.

To the moon!

Does it count if the 12,001st post is meta in nature?

[Portfolio7]

Looks like U.S. ETFs VTI, VONE, ITOT, IJR, IWM and RSP soared enough today to give me an ATH.

IJR, IWM and RSP soared enough today to give me an up day.

My portfolio is under-invested in US Large Caps. The last ten years have not been in my sweet spot, but I'm enjoying this year a lot so far. EM and Sm/Mid caps doing great.

[whodidntante]

I regard Forester’s advice as a contra-indicator.

If he said to turn left, I would turn right.

If reliable, this is a money tree. Mom wasn't wrong about much, though.

[CurlyDave]

...Mmm...starting from 1998 100/0 trailed 50/50 until 2017 after Dot Bomb...that's a couple years worth of irrational exuberance to cushion the fall and it didn't for a long time.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=50

One problem I see with the simulation you did is that it starts at the beginning with a lump sum and never adds any more. This might be typical for a person born to wealth, or a lottery winner, but most of us do not invest that way. We might start with some savings, but then we add more throughout our working years, frequently by payroll deduction.

If I start in 1998 with $12k, and add $1000 monthly until 2021 there are only 5 years when 100% stocks lagged 50/50 and frequently by very small amounts. But there were 12 years, including the last 7 where 100% was ahead, and if we uncheck the default log scale in PV, we see that the amount 100% stock is ends up ahead is very significant.

For some reason I can not get PV to start in 1998. I put the date in, but the graph starts in 2003. Is this because I am a cheapskate and did not pay for a subscription, or am I doing something else wrong?

[dogagility]

This “soaring” thread has passed 12,000 posts.

Who's going to be the lucky 1,000,000th viewer of the thread!

[mroe800]

For some reason I can not get PV to start in 1998. I put the date in, but the graph starts in 2003. Is this because I am a cheapskate and did not pay for a subscription, or am I doing something else wrong?

Sounds like the funds you’re using didn’t exist before 2003.

[CurlyDave]

For some reason I can not get PV to start in 1998. I put the date in, but the graph starts in 2003. Is this because I am a cheapskate and did not pay for a subscription, or am I doing something else wrong?

Sounds like the funds you’re using didn’t exist before 2003.

I tried hard to choose the same ones that nigel_ht choose.

Oh well, I just have to admit I am not a great expert in the use of PV.

[Doom&Gloom]

This “soaring” thread has passed 12,000 posts.

Who's going to be the lucky 1,000,000th viewer of the thread!

This thread will never go back down to 900,000 again. Take that to the bank!

[nigel_ht]

...Mmm...starting from 1998 100/0 trailed 50/50 until 2017 after Dot Bomb...that's a couple years worth of irrational exuberance to cushion the fall and it didn't for a long time.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=50

One problem I see with the simulation you did is that it starts at the beginning with a lump sum and never adds any more. This might be typical for a person born to wealth, or a lottery winner, but most of us do not invest that way. We might start with some savings, but then we add more throughout our working years, frequently by payroll deduction.

If I start in 1998 with $12k, and add $1000 monthly until 2021 there are only 5 years when 100% stocks lagged 50/50 and frequently by very small amounts. But there were 12 years, including the last 7 where 100% was ahead, and if we uncheck the default log scale in PV, we see that the amount 100% stock is ends up ahead is very significant.

For some reason I can not get PV to start in 1998. I put the date in, but the graph starts in 2003. Is this because I am a cheapskate and did not pay for a subscription, or am I doing something else wrong?

Contribution shifts things around a little but its the start value vs contribution that shifts things around.

Historical data starts at different points. You likely picked something that didn't exist before 2003.

Same scenario with $2K/month contribution...someone in the middle/late career with decent sized portfolio contributing $24K a year.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=50

[nigel_ht]

This “soaring” thread has passed 12,000 posts.

Who's going to be the lucky 1,000,000th viewer of the thread!

This thread will never go back down to 900,000 again. Take that to the bank!

Never tempt moderators...

[LadyGeek]

^^^

[MJS]

One problem I see with the simulation you did is that it starts at the beginning with a lump sum and never adds any more. This might be typical for a person born to wealth, or a lottery winner, but most of us do not invest that way.

It is also a way of viewing the portfolio of someone who has retired.

[canadianbacon]

I just spent the last hour de-risking my portfolio. 65% stocks, 35% gold & bonds. Who is to say the next market meltdown won't be 60%+ instead of 50% as in the GFC, and it may not bounce back so quickly. Investors who are 100% stocks will be looking very foolish this year.

So even YOU didn't believe anything you've written over the past few months?

You're just de-risking today? And only down to 65% stocks. So you're not so certain after all. Stop posting like you're certain.

That's all I ask.

"I think this may happen", instead of "This will happen".

It is hilarious that after all this we find out he's a more aggressive investor than you are .

[CurlyDave]

One problem I see with the simulation you did is that it starts at the beginning with a lump sum and never adds any more. This might be typical for a person born to wealth, or a lottery winner, but most of us do not invest that way.

It is also a way of viewing the portfolio of someone who has retired.

Usually a retiree will have some withdrawals. I know I do. Especially over a period of 20+ years.

[nigel_ht]

I just spent the last hour de-risking my portfolio. 65% stocks, 35% gold & bonds. Who is to say the next market meltdown won't be 60%+ instead of 50% as in the GFC, and it may not bounce back so quickly. Investors who are 100% stocks will be looking very foolish this year.

So even YOU didn't believe anything you've written over the past few months?

You're just de-risking today? And only down to 65% stocks. So you're not so certain after all. Stop posting like you're certain.

That's all I ask.

"I think this may happen", instead of "This will happen".

It is hilarious that after all this we find out he's a more aggressive investor than you are .

Someone who is 50/50 through their entire accumulation period is as much an outlier as someone 100/0 in retirement.

Both exist but isn’t a very good baseline to use in comparisons of the most common behaviors and risk tolerance.

[000]

I just spent the last hour de-risking my portfolio. 65% stocks, 35% gold & bonds. Who is to say the next market meltdown won't be 60%+ instead of 50% as in the GFC, and it may not bounce back so quickly. Investors who are 100% stocks will be looking very foolish this year.

So even YOU didn't believe anything you've written over the past few months?

You're just de-risking today? And only down to 65% stocks. So you're not so certain after all. Stop posting like you're certain.

That's all I ask.

"I think this may happen", instead of "This will happen".

I think Forester has mostly been bearish on US tech and other high P/E stocks, not all stocks all over the world.

[canadianbacon]

I just spent the last hour de-risking my portfolio. 65% stocks, 35% gold & bonds. Who is to say the next market meltdown won't be 60%+ instead of 50% as in the GFC, and it may not bounce back so quickly. Investors who are 100% stocks will be looking very foolish this year.

So even YOU didn't believe anything you've written over the past few months?

You're just de-risking today? And only down to 65% stocks. So you're not so certain after all. Stop posting like you're certain.

That's all I ask.

"I think this may happen", instead of "This will happen".

It is hilarious that after all this we find out he's a more aggressive investor than you are .

Someone who is 50/50 through their entire accumulation period is as much an outlier as someone 100/0 in retirement.

Both exist but isn’t a very good baseline to use in comparisons of the most common behaviors and risk tolerance.

Totally missing the point.

[ImUrHuckleberry]

I just spent the last hour de-risking my portfolio. 65% stocks, 35% gold & bonds. Who is to say the next market meltdown won't be 60%+ instead of 50% as in the GFC, and it may not bounce back so quickly. Investors who are 100% stocks will be looking very foolish this year.

So even YOU didn't believe anything you've written over the past few months?

You're just de-risking today? And only down to 65% stocks. So you're not so certain after all. Stop posting like you're certain.

That's all I ask.

"I think this may happen", instead of "This will happen".

I think Forester has mostly been bearish on US tech and other high P/E stocks, not all stocks all over the world.

He's been bearish on S&P 500. Constantly errantly calling tops.

[Stinky]

I just spent the last hour de-risking my portfolio. 65% stocks, 35% gold & bonds. Who is to say the next market meltdown won't be 60%+ instead of 50% as in the GFC, and it may not bounce back so quickly. Investors who are 100% stocks will be looking very foolish this year.

So even YOU didn't believe anything you've written over the past few months?

You're just de-risking today? And only down to 65% stocks. So you're not so certain after all. Stop posting like you're certain.

That's all I ask.

"I think this may happen", instead of "This will happen".

I think Forester has mostly been bearish on US tech and other high P/E stocks, not all stocks all over the world.

He's been bearish on S&P 500. Constantly errantly calling tops.

Bearish on Nasdaq too.

[nigel_ht]

I just spent the last hour de-risking my portfolio. 65% stocks, 35% gold & bonds. Who is to say the next market meltdown won't be 60%+ instead of 50% as in the GFC, and it may not bounce back so quickly. Investors who are 100% stocks will be looking very foolish this year.

So even YOU didn't believe anything you've written over the past few months?

You're just de-risking today? And only down to 65% stocks. So you're not so certain after all. Stop posting like you're certain.

That's all I ask.

"I think this may happen", instead of "This will happen".

It is hilarious that after all this we find out he's a more aggressive investor than you are .

Someone who is 50/50 through their entire accumulation period is as much an outlier as someone 100/0 in retirement.

Both exist but isn’t a very good baseline to use in comparisons of the most common behaviors and risk tolerance.

Totally missing the point.

Nope. Comparing two individual investors is silly even if one is a huge bear. In any case, reading some of his other posts it strikes me he's just having fun on this thread with some of his other posts.

[HomerJ]

So even YOU didn't believe anything you've written over the past few months?

You're just de-risking today? And only down to 65% stocks. So you're not so certain after all. Stop posting like you're certain.

That's all I ask.

"I think this may happen", instead of "This will happen".

It is hilarious that after all this we find out he's a more aggressive investor than you are .

Someone who is 50/50 through their entire accumulation period is as much an outlier as someone 100/0 in retirement.

Both exist but isn’t a very good baseline to use in comparisons of the most common behaviors and risk tolerance.

Totally missing the point.

Nope. Comparing two individual investors is silly even if one is a huge bear. In any case, reading some of his other posts it strikes me he's just having fun on this thread with some of his other posts.

You did miss the point.

It has nothing to do with my allocation.

Guy has been talking about confidently predicting market crashes for months, and just now "de-risked" his portfolio. "Having fun", pretending he knows something, could cost real people real money who listened to him and made changes.

By now, most long-term Bogleheads have learned to completely ignore his predictions, but new posters could be swayed.

This isn't a game here. Real people, with very little investment knowledge, come here looking for help. We don't need people making troll posts "for fun".

It was bad enough that he posted so confidently, even when wrong over and over and over. But I at least thought he believed his own posts. I thought he was mistaken, but sincere.

Now I know he doesn't even believe his own posts, and is just trolling "for fun". That's not very nice.

[LadyGeek]

Before this escalates further, see: General Etiquette

At all times we must conduct ourselves in a respectful manner to other posters.

[checkyourmath]

I also don't appreciate comments of a market top. They are impossible to predict. I am just glad the 10 year is starting to soar. We need a little inflation with a touch of stimulus to make things just right.

[nigel_ht]

It is hilarious that after all this we find out he's a more aggressive investor than you are .

Someone who is 50/50 through their entire accumulation period is as much an outlier as someone 100/0 in retirement.

Both exist but isn’t a very good baseline to use in comparisons of the most common behaviors and risk tolerance.

Totally missing the point.

Nope. Comparing two individual investors is silly even if one is a huge bear. In any case, reading some of his other posts it strikes me he's just having fun on this thread with some of his other posts.

You did miss the point.

It has nothing to do with my allocation.

Guy has been talking about confidently predicting market crashes for months, and just now "de-risked" his portfolio. "Having fun", pretending he knows something, could cost real people real money who listened to him and made changes.

By now, most long-term Bogleheads have learned to completely ignore his predictions, but new posters could be swayed.

This isn't a game here. Real people, with very little investment knowledge, come here looking for help. We don't need people making troll posts "for fun".

It was bad enough that he posted so confidently, even when wrong over and over and over. But I at least thought he believed his own posts. I thought he was mistaken, but sincere.

Now I know he doesn't even believe his own posts, and is just trolling "for fun". That's not very nice.

Lol...of all threads, this thread is definitely not one to take seriously. I mean how many posts are just one dude "backing up the truck" every other day? Do you fear new investors taking that seriously? The thread itself is more dangerous as an example of over exuberance if you think folks are actually being very serious here. Fortunately (most) folks aren't and if we bears get some ribbing today then someday the bulls will get some ribbing in the free falling thread.

In any case, it doesn't take very long for any new investor to realize that nobody is taking what he says here very seriously and realize that the thread itself is very much tongue in cheek because following of markets daily...whether soaring or free falling...isn't very Boglehead behavior.

Buy and hold just doesn't care until you get closer to retirement. If anything folks not close to retirement should be lamenting that the markets are soaring and not free falling...when soaring it should be like "darn, I'm backing up the truck again...why can't it go down for a change?"

For Bogelheads it's "Yes, I invested last week...I always invest. Was the market up or down? I dunno, I wasn't really paying attention. I think it was bad in March?" We watch the futures here for fun...if new investors take that seriously that's really bad...up or down its not actionable.

[nigel_ht]

I also don't appreciate comments of a market top. They are impossible to predict. I am just glad the 10 year is starting to soar. We need a little inflation with a touch of stimulus to make things just right.

Me, I want a bear (without recession) that lasts a couple years right after all the retirees go 0/100.

That way they can still be happy and everyone accumulating can buy in a fire sale...this thread kinda sucks if you are accumulating. Him being right is good for majority of the folks on BH.

[HomerJ]

Lol...of all threads, this thread is definitely not one to take seriously.

He posts confidently in other threads too, and even starts threads with confident predictions... that he obviously doesn't believe himself.

[nigel_ht]

Lol...of all threads, this thread is definitely not one to take seriously.

He posts confidently in other threads too, and even starts threads with confident predictions... that he obviously doesn't believe himself.

My conjecture is that he doesn't believe in the hyperbole...its not fact but opinion. I guess you can just ask him but so what? Whether he's disruptive or whatever is something for the mods to decide and not us.

There is already sufficient quashing of alternative ideas that I'm unsympathetic to your concerns that peer pressure and polite debate is insufficient to keep new investors "safe". Especially on THIS thread.

His opinion that the sky is falling and therefore you should "de-risk" to 65/35 is moderately amusing and no more "dangerous" to new investors than say an opinion that 50/50 is the right allocation through the entire accumulation period.

Personally, I do see there is more risk in the market today than say...2011. So my opinion is "de-risking" to 70/30 from 100/0 for folks mid career isn't a terrible idea despite the tongue in cheek unfettered optimism in this thread. There is a large performance cost though...around 4% in 2020 between the two allocations but I don't think it unreasonable that SWAN levels change with time and market conditions.

The difference between 100/0 and 50/50 last year was over 6%.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=50

Almost 2% over the last 30 years.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=50

Over the course of a 30 year career with $24K a year investments that's leaving a million dollars on the table or about $40K a year in retirement using 4% SWR.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=50

[HomerJ]

His opinion that the sky is falling and therefore you should "de-risk" to 65/35 is moderately amusing and no more "dangerous" to new investors than say an opinion that 50/50 is the right allocation through the entire accumulation period.

I, of course, have never stated such a position. I myself switched to 50/50 about 10 years ago, but I was well on track to win the game at that point, and I'm pretty conservative.

I've never told others that 50/50 is "right" allocation for any time period, and I certainly have never said it's the right allocation for the "entire accumulation period.".

So please stop misrepresenting me. Thanks...

[checkyourmath]

Lol...of all threads, this thread is definitely not one to take seriously.

He posts confidently in other threads too, and even starts threads with confident predictions... that he obviously doesn't believe himself.

My conjecture is that he doesn't believe in the hyperbole...its not fact but opinion. I guess you can just ask him but so what? Whether he's disruptive or whatever is something for the mods to decide and not us.

There is already sufficient quashing of alternative ideas that I'm unsympathetic to your concerns that peer pressure and polite debate is insufficient to keep new investors "safe". Especially on THIS thread.

His opinion that the sky is falling and therefore you should "de-risk" to 65/35 is moderately amusing and no more "dangerous" to new investors than say an opinion that 50/50 is the right allocation through the entire accumulation period.

Personally, I do see there is more risk in the market today than say...2011. So my opinion is "de-risking" to 70/30 from 100/0 for folks mid career isn't a terrible idea despite the tongue in cheek unfettered optimism in this thread. There is a large performance cost though...around 4% in 2020 between the two allocations but I don't think it unreasonable that SWAN levels change with time and market conditions.

The difference between 100/0 and 50/50 last year was over 6%.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=50

Almost 2% over the last 30 years.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=50

Over the course of a 30 year career with $24K a year investments that's leaving a million dollars on the table or about $40K a year in retirement using 4% SWR.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=50

I second that. Free thought is essentually oppressed on this forum especially if you don't maintain a 60/40 portfolio and DCA. The 10 year treasury continues to soar!

[marcopolo]

Lol...of all threads, this thread is definitely not one to take seriously.

He posts confidently in other threads too, and even starts threads with confident predictions... that he obviously doesn't believe himself.

My conjecture is that he doesn't believe in the hyperbole...its not fact but opinion. I guess you can just ask him but so what? Whether he's disruptive or whatever is something for the mods to decide and not us.

There is already sufficient quashing of alternative ideas that I'm unsympathetic to your concerns that peer pressure and polite debate is insufficient to keep new investors "safe". Especially on THIS thread.

His opinion that the sky is falling and therefore you should "de-risk" to 65/35 is moderately amusing and no more "dangerous" to new investors than say an opinion that 50/50 is the right allocation through the entire accumulation period.

Personally, I do see there is more risk in the market today than say...2011. So my opinion is "de-risking" to 70/30 from 100/0 for folks mid career isn't a terrible idea despite the tongue in cheek unfettered optimism in this thread. There is a large performance cost though...around 4% in 2020 between the two allocations but I don't think it unreasonable that SWAN levels change with time and market conditions.

The difference between 100/0 and 50/50 last year was over 6%.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=50

Almost 2% over the last 30 years.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=50

Over the course of a 30 year career with $24K a year investments that's leaving a million dollars on the table or about $40K a year in retirement using 4% SWR.

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion2_2=50

I second that. Free thought is essentually oppressed on this forum especially if you don't maintain a 60/40 portfolio and DCA. The 10 year treasury continues to soar!

I think the general recommendation is lump sum investing rather than DCA.

Oh, the oppression! I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I saw someone the other day complaining about not being able to be get their message out while speaking into a microphone, on national TV.

Can you point to where free thought has been oppressed?
Disagreeing with, and questioning someone's position, on a discussion forum is NOT oppression.

Sorry if this post feels like I am oppressing you.

[LadyGeek]

Please stay on-topic, which is about the market (increasing).

[canadianbacon]

Always funny to watch the markets on a day where US markets are closed but Canadian markets are open.

VCN (Canadian Index) - +0.11%
XUU (US Index) - +0.49%
VIU (International Developed) - +0.64%

So I guess we're soaring .

[lostdog]

Always funny to watch the markets on a day where US markets are closed but Canadian markets are open.

VCN (Canadian Index) - +0.11%
XUU (US Index) - +0.49%
VIU (International Developed) - +0.64%

So I guess we're soaring .

[Stinky]

Always funny to watch the markets on a day where US markets are closed but Canadian markets are open.

VCN (Canadian Index) - +0.11%
XUU (US Index) - +0.49%
VIU (International Developed) - +0.64%

So I guess we're soaring .

When the NFL is shut down, we’re relegated to watching the CFL.

When the US markets are shut down, we’re relegated to watching the Canadian markets.

[Stinky]

Always funny to watch the markets on a day where US markets are closed but Canadian markets are open.

VCN (Canadian Index) - +0.11%
XUU (US Index) - +0.49%
VIU (International Developed) - +0.64%

So I guess we're soaring .

US futures are up about 0.50% as of now.

Hoping for a good start to the week tomorrow.

[dru808]

Whoa! futures up .57 new ath’s this week?

[Keenobserver]

No need for premature celebrations. Lets see what happens

[Normchad]

No need for premature celebrations. Lets see what happens

The KeenObserver would say that

[bog007]

.90

[stocknoob4111]

I see 4000 SPX incoming in the next few weeks!!

[dru808]

I see 4000 SPX incoming in the next few weeks!!

That would be great

[TheTimeLord]

Looks like my work last Thursday and Friday might be rewarded in the morning

[000]

I wonder if we'll see SPX 5000 this year.

[CurlyDave]

Futures are roarin' and soarin'.

I just hope it holds until the morning.

[whodidntante]

I wonder if we'll see SPX 5000 this year.

I don't know. I'll be happy if we have a December 31st this year. I'm enjoying zipping around on this glorious ellipsoid.

[TheTimeLord]

Futures are roarin' and soarin'.

I just hope it holds until the morning.

I hope I can get some sleep tonight.

[CurlyDave]

Futures are roarin' and soarin'.

I just hope it holds until the morning.

I hope I can get some sleep tonight.

If melatonin doesn't work, Jack Daniel's might.

[CurlyDave]

Looks like they rang the bell this morning and lit the fuse on the rocket at the same time. Nothing quite like a little morning soaring.