Down goes the Dow

JJKinahan wrote:

noop wrote:

Nah. That's just investment industry nonsense.

Indeed much of the industry believes in the tradition of decreasing exposure to equities as one nears/enters retirement. It is debatable as to whether that is "nonsense". Modern thinking is that exposure to equities should be continued further in one's life due to increased life expectancy. Either way, a 60% drop should not panic someone who is years from retirement.

Only because you want to more sell stock. Eat mor chicken.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

JJKinahan wrote:

Indeed much of the industry believes in the tradition of decreasing exposure to equities as one nears/enters retirement. It is debatable as to whether that is "nonsense". Modern thinking is that exposure to equities should be continued further in one's life due to increased life expectancy. Either way, a 60% drop should not panic someone who is years from retirement.

Only because you want to more sell stock. Eat mor chicken.

Why would I want to do that?

JJKinahan wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Only because you want to more sell stock. Eat mor chicken.

Why would I want to do that?

JJ,

You have been getting fatter by the day. Your cholesterol must be as high as the overvalued market. You are looking like a bloated toad.

Eat mor chicken. And read this article. It would be a good time to moderate your stocks at all cost manntra.

Igy

I guess you avoided the question because you don’t have a good answer. I knew that

Idiot here wrote:

... you tend to overgeneralize and project your assumptions and beliefs onto others without basis.

We’ve been telling him this for years.

Ben There wrote:

Idiot here wrote:

... you tend to overgeneralize and project your assumptions and beliefs onto others without basis.

We’ve been telling him this for years.

Yet it is perfectly alright for posters to repeat fairy tales that are factually incorrect.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Ben There wrote:

We’ve been telling him this for years.

Yet it is perfectly alright for posters to repeat fairy tales that are factually incorrect.

I know you believe that, but you’ve been wrong for years.

Ben There wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Yet it is perfectly alright for posters to repeat fairy tales that are factually incorrect.

I know you believe that, but you’ve been wrong for years.

Like your belief in “cash on the sidelines.”

Your inability to stay on topic reveals the weakness of your position. The smell of desperation is in your posts.

“There is some suspicion that machine-driven funds – whether classic quant funds or AI funds – can speed up and deepen sell-offs. JPMorgan Chase strategists wrote in a note on Friday, cited by Bloomberg, that adoption rates of AI and quant trading have increased, which is making AI strategies more crowded. “In all, we find that AI funds, similar to CTAs, likely played a big role in February’s correction by being forced to de-risk given an unprecedented 7.3 percent loss over the past month,” they said.

So it seems AI-driven algos have a little more machine-learning to do to get beyond their understanding that markets can only go up.”

—Wolfstreet, 3/12/2018

Ben There wrote:

Your inability to stay on topic reveals the weakness of your position. The smell of desperation is in your posts.

Desperate Posters

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

“There is some suspicion that machine-driven funds – whether classic quant funds or AI funds – can speed up and deepen sell-offs. JPMorgan Chase strategists wrote in a note on Friday, cited by Bloomberg, that adoption rates of AI and quant trading have increased, which is making AI strategies more crowded. “In all, we find that AI funds, similar to CTAs, likely played a big role in February’s correction by being forced to de-risk given an unprecedented 7.3 percent loss over the past month,” they said.

So it seems AI-driven algos have a little more machine-learning to do to get beyond their understanding that markets can only go up.”

—Wolfstreet, 3/12/2018

Thanks for proving my point.

That comment wasn’t worthy of even a dim-witted 10-year-old.

The funny thing is that you probably know this, but cannot retract or edit the comment—although admittedly I don’t know if that’s the case.

In any event, it was tied for the highest grade in the class that year. And the company I had while drinking the cognac meant deep access on a private level.

I don’t know why I am explaining any of this, I will stop now.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

a 10% drop is more likely than a 10% rise.

History says otherwise.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Also, if you cannot predict the future and it is truly random, why would one not adjust their allocation to equities up or down over time.

Investors adjust allocations all the time. It's called rebalancing.

Not too fast wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

a 10% drop is more likely than a 10% rise.

History says otherwise.

Not so fast, sonny.

In times of extreme valuations, history doesn't say otherwise.

ghost of twenty nine wrote:

Not too fast wrote:

History says otherwise.

Not so fast, sonny.

In times of extreme valuations, history doesn't say otherwise.

Not reallly, once out eight times in 130 years. I’ll take my odds young wipper snapper.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Yet it is perfectly alright for posters to repeat fairy tales that are factually incorrect.

I don't know if it's perfectly alright, but you've been doing it (60% drop on the horizon) for years.

Purple Martin wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Yet it is perfectly alright for posters to repeat fairy tales that are factually incorrect.

I don't know if it's perfectly alright, but you've been doing it (60% drop on the horizon) for years.

No, 50% previously, 67% today.