Should not you look in the direction of the movement?Bustoff wrote:Enjoy the ride and don't look down!
Victoria
Should not you look in the direction of the movement?Bustoff wrote:Enjoy the ride and don't look down!
Very immature post. Adding text I never wrote makes you look foolish. Don't be mad at me for predicting this correction months agoHomerJ wrote:Oh, will the U.S. debt problem be fixed when the S&P 500 drops to 1600? That was the reason you gave for getting out of the market in the first place.broadstone wrote:I believe the S&P will fall to about 1600 which is when I'll be re-investing.
Still, good that you finally gave a real number... That last post of yours was pretty bad. "I'll do something, but I'm not saying what, depending if the Fed does what I think it will, but I'm not saying what I think it will do either".
Homer was paraphrasing, I wouldn't say that make's one foolish. Below is your actual quote, which by the ambiguity of it causes many posters to dismiss any claims you make for having done what now looks good in hindsight. But what should you care if no one on the Bogleheads message board believes you? You're dodging the bullet that the rest of us are taking right now (allegedly).broadstone wrote:Very immature post. Adding text I never wrote makes you look foolish. Don't be mad at me for predicting this correction months agoHomerJ wrote:Oh, will the U.S. debt problem be fixed when the S&P 500 drops to 1600? That was the reason you gave for getting out of the market in the first place.broadstone wrote:I believe the S&P will fall to about 1600 which is when I'll be re-investing.
Still, good that you finally gave a real number... That last post of yours was pretty bad. "I'll do something, but I'm not saying what, depending if the Fed does what I think it will, but I'm not saying what I think it will do either".
broadstone wrote:As promised...I will be switching from a cash position Thursday or Friday if Fed announces what I think they will. If not, I'll be staying 100% cash.
It is amazing how much the Emerging Markets (VEIEX) has come down. Just when I think it will stop its decline, it goes down a couple of more percentage. It reminds me again that I suck at market timing.FullYellowJacket wrote:Forget about US stocks! Vanguard total international (VXUS) is 28% off of it's peak. Emerging markets are down 38% since last May. Blood is on the streets in international markets, especially for US investors. Compared to those the S&P 500 is only down about 14%.
Fortunately DW and I are young, are not home owners, and have been busy paying off school outside of our retirement accounts. We actually just finished this month!
You're right! When I zip lined across the Royal Gorge I looked down the entire way.VictoriaF wrote:Should not you look in the direction of the movement?Bustoff wrote:Enjoy the ride and don't look down!
Victoria
I am curious though... What will change with the U.S. debt situation when S&P 500 drops to 1600?broadstone wrote:I believe the S&P will fall to about 1600 which is when I'll be re-investing.
broadstone wrote:It was only a matter of time the USA's massive debt sunk the stock market.
broadstone wrote:The economy / financial markets could not sustain at those bullish levels, especially with our debt levels which are out of control.
broadstone wrote:But this decision I made because I truly believe the US economy is a house of cards that will fall and be rebuilt soon enough. People stuck their heads in the sand regarding the housing market in pre-2006, same thing going on now in regards to the debt problem.
How do you know that it is going to -20% and -30% before it goes +20% or +30%?flyingaway wrote:I had filled up the Roth accounts of my wife's and mine until last Friday. I will buy more in taxable account when S&P is down 20%, and again at -30%. In my opinion, you just do what you believe in.
I do not know where the market will go. What I meant was I will buy more then it goes to -20% and -30%. If it does not go that direction, I have my Costa Rica vacation planned in March and Europe vacation in May.tj wrote:How do you know that it is going to -20% and -30% before it goes +20% or +30%?flyingaway wrote:I had filled up the Roth accounts of my wife's and mine until last Friday. I will buy more in taxable account when S&P is down 20%, and again at -30%. In my opinion, you just do what you believe in.
This sell-off seems irrational to me. Why are so many sellign ownership in quality companies for such a reduced asking price? I just put in another buy order...
We have been spoiled for a long time in the sense that any market drops were almost immediately follows by sharp upswings (recovery from the 2009 low being the prime example). This one may test our patience a bit more.Crushtheturtle wrote:....
Must. Get. Money. Into. Market. Faster.
oldzey wrote:This thread really needs a soundtrack for full effect.
Lack of confidence is one of the reasons the market is declining. There are many articles that explain why the stock market is correcting but you already knew that. Stock consumers are doing what they did in 2008, heading for the exits when things turn South. I was just lucky (luck?) enough to get out when I saw the many warning signs last year.HomerJ wrote:I am curious though... What will change with the U.S. debt situation when S&P 500 drops to 1600?broadstone wrote:I believe the S&P will fall to about 1600 which is when I'll be re-investing.
broadstone wrote:It was only a matter of time the USA's massive debt sunk the stock market.
What's ambiguous? I said I was going to 100% cash and I would reinvest when the S&P dropped to 1600. I cashed out when the Fed announced the interest rate hike as I knew thought it would be the straw that breaks the camels back.TheRightKost87 wrote:
Homer was paraphrasing, I wouldn't say that make's one foolish. Below is your actual quote, which by the ambiguity of it causes many posters to dismiss any claims you make for having done what now looks good in hindsight. But what should you care if no one on the Bogleheads message board believes you? You're dodging the bullet that the rest of us are taking right now (allegedly).
broadstone wrote:As promised...I will be switching from a cash position Thursday or Friday if Fed announces what I think they will. If not, I'll be staying 100% cash.
Really? "if they announce what I think they will"? That's a clear-cut statement to you? Did you think they would raise interest rates or keep them the same, or lower them? How are we supposed to know what you "thought they would do"?broadstone wrote:What's ambiguous? I said I was going to 100% cash and I would reinvest when the S&P dropped to 1600. I cashed out when the Fed announced the interest rate hike as I knew thought it would be the straw that breaks the camels back.TheRightKost87 wrote:
Homer was paraphrasing, I wouldn't say that make's one foolish. Below is your actual quote, which by the ambiguity of it causes many posters to dismiss any claims you make for having done what now looks good in hindsight. But what should you care if no one on the Bogleheads message board believes you? You're dodging the bullet that the rest of us are taking right now (allegedly).
broadstone wrote:As promised...I will be switching from a cash position Thursday or Friday if Fed announces what I think they will. If not, I'll be staying 100% cash.
Again, your quote from earlier:broadstone wrote: What's ambiguous? I said I was going to 100% cash and I would reinvest when the S&P dropped to 1600. I cashed out when the Fed announced the interest rate hike as I knew thought it would be the straw that breaks the camels back.
By "staying 100% cash" I think most people would interpret that as you were already 100% cash leading up to the Fed announcement in September. By "switching from a cash position on Thursday or Friday if the Fed announces what I think they will" I think most people would interpret that as you would be invested in equities (i.e. no longer 100% cash), if the Fed did what you thought. By your most recent quote, you knew the Fed would be raising interest rates (which they did). Therefore, they did what you thought they would, which triggered your "if" statement from before, meaning you were no longer 100% cash as of the Thursday or Friday of that week.broadstone wrote:As promised...I will be switching from a cash position Thursday or Friday if Fed announces what I think they will. If not, I'll be staying 100% cash.
lol! what a see-saw day.dbCooperAir wrote:Its the biggest sale of the year and everyone is running out of the building
Fitting song this week, RIP Glenn Frey.MrMojoRisin wrote: This is my sound track.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI_rkZIuHzw
So when they decided not to raise rates, you switched from a cash position back when you made the comment? And then sold in Dec when they raised rates? Or have you stayed in cash the whole time (which does not match your logic). What you thought they did, what they actually did, and what you actually did is still ambiguous.broadstone wrote:What's ambiguous? I said I was going to 100% cash and I would reinvest when the S&P dropped to 1600. I cashed out when the Fed announced the interest rate hike as I knew thought it would be the straw that breaks the camels back.TheRightKost87 wrote:
Homer was paraphrasing, I wouldn't say that make's one foolish. Below is your actual quote, which by the ambiguity of it causes many posters to dismiss any claims you make for having done what now looks good in hindsight. But what should you care if no one on the Bogleheads message board believes you? You're dodging the bullet that the rest of us are taking right now (allegedly).
broadstone wrote:As promised...I will be switching from a cash position Thursday or Friday if Fed announces what I think they will. If not, I'll be staying 100% cash.
But back then, when he made the post, the Fed decided not to raise rates. It did not happen until months later.TheRightKost87 wrote: By your most recent quote, you knew the Fed would be raising interest rates (which they did). Therefore, they did what you thought they would, which triggered your "if" statement from before, meaning you were no longer 100% cash as of the Thursday or Friday of that week.
Winner winner chicken dinner.oneleaf wrote:Unless of course this is all BS, as it is increasingly looking to be.
Thank you for posting.MrMojoRisin wrote:I bailed in 2008 ... If I had left things alone I would have been better off.
This is a good one:TomatoTomahto wrote:Winner winner chicken dinner.oneleaf wrote:Unless of course this is all BS, as it is increasingly looking to be.
postby broadstone » Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:16 pm
I too started investing again in 2015 and think about being late to the bull party.
And I think that's happening this year.The stock market is designed to transfer money from the active to the patient
+1. Good point.We have been spoiled for a long time in the sense that any market drops were almost immediately follows by sharp upswings (recovery from the 2009 low being the prime example). This one may test our patience a bit more.
Down and to the left looks just the same as up and to the right! At least, when you're backtesting...shelanman wrote:Up-and-to-the-right always just feels so good in exactly the way that down-and-to-the-right just doesn't.
Correct, but it seems that many Bogleheads don't realize that their strategy doesn't necessarily work even over periods of many years.lack_ey wrote: Negative after inflation. Well, it's happened for 16 years in the US, certainly much longer than that in other markets. And even Vanguard's relatively optimistic annual investment outlooks would put that at a ~15% chance or so for the next ten years here starting about today (the exact number is unclear because it falls between histogram bins).
Better be ready for anything, whether it's some more nosediving, a rebound, a whole lot of sideways, or whatever.
I agree with the article. I'm in wonder when pundits on TV talk about a decline on oil prices as if it is a bad thing for the US economy. Are we a net importer or exporter? I'm guessing the market is taking the decline as a sign of a world-wide economic slowdown. I'm taking it as part a China story and part an oil price war from the producers. Anyway, the net effect on me is to feel more confident in my rebalancing. However, the market has proved me wrong in the past. Let's see.carofe wrote:Very interesting and encouraging article.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/markets-are ... 1453336114
Sure does seem like a lot of boglehead slagging going on on the boglehead forums nowadays.visualguy wrote:Correct, but it seems that many Bogleheads don't realize that their strategy doesn't necessarily work even over periods of many years.lack_ey wrote: Negative after inflation. Well, it's happened for 16 years in the US, certainly much longer than that in other markets. And even Vanguard's relatively optimistic annual investment outlooks would put that at a ~15% chance or so for the next ten years here starting about today (the exact number is unclear because it falls between histogram bins).
Better be ready for anything, whether it's some more nosediving, a rebound, a whole lot of sideways, or whatever.
The point is that long-term buy and hold of stock market indices sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't, even over very long periods of time such as 16 years.CantPassAgain wrote:Please, let us in on the strategy that "necessarily works"
We here are aware of the 16-year period from 1966-1982... However, 16-years is not what I would consider long-term for someone saving for retirement.visualguy wrote:The point is that long-term buy and hold of stock market indices sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't, even over very long periods of time such as 16 years.CantPassAgain wrote:Please, let us in on the strategy that "necessarily works"
There is a widespread belief here that if you "stay the course", you will be rewarded. Looking at historical results, it's clear that this is the case only some of the time.
Japan is indeed an example that is scary (Although over-stated... No one invested all their money on one day at the very top).It's particularly hard to justify this belief if you look at foreign markets. It has been a bit more solid in the US (i.e. there were more periods when the strategy worked), but whether the US will continue to be somewhat exceptional is a difficult question.
In the short term, I have definitely shifted more into bonds as the stock portions of my portfolio have declined. But I'm in for the long term. The short term corrections, recessions, etc. don't bother me. In fact, a depressed market for 5-10 years with a run up afterwards like we saw after 2008-2009 would be great for me since I'm buying $47,000+ per year.dbCooperAir wrote:At this rate you may self balance to your desired AAmattshwink wrote:Not me....although I probably have 15 years to retirement. Slowly moving my AA towards an eventual 60/40 in retirement. But I am 90%+ in stocks right now (60/30/10 domestic/international/REIT) and other than gradually shifting roughly 2% more per year towards bonds (which I am doing every year regardless of markets) I am not making any changes.scsiguru wrote:Sounds like even the BH's are moving to safer investments.
If you think of 16 years as a " very long period of time", Bogle's strategy probably isn't for you.visualguy wrote:The point is that long-term buy and hold of stock market indices sometimes works and sometimes it doesn't, even over very long periods of time such as 16 years.CantPassAgain wrote:Please, let us in on the strategy that "necessarily works"
There is a widespread belief here that if you "stay the course", you will be rewarded. Looking at historical results, it's clear that this is the case only some of the time. It's particularly hard to justify this belief if you look at foreign markets. It has been a bit more solid in the US (i.e. there were more periods when the strategy worked), but whether the US will continue to be somewhat exceptional is a difficult question.
The question about what you can do instead with your money is an orthogonal question, and a different discussion.