Down goes the Dow

seattle prattle wrote:

that's precisely the point. Sure, there are downturns, but they are pauses in an overall uptrend. It only has relevance when you consider the window - both the point of entry and the end. And i believe your forecast was not for a relatively small downturn i.e. 15%) but for a massive 60% correction. Tell me when that occurred since your forecast was made.

As for where Nasdaq will be at the end of the year, i am smart enough to know a) i don't know, and b) investing in the stock market over the long term can be very profitable. I am subscribing to the part b between now and the year.

The real issue:

Of course, you do understand that those who bought in 2000 are probably up now if they held on.

Your comments are instructive in preparing oneself for what-it scenarios, but there are winning strategies just as there are losing ones.

I think the big story so far is the one about those investors who got shook out from the 2009 downturn and stayed out, missing this incredible bull run (so far). That would be regrettable, imo. At least, that would be the way it appears so far...

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

that's precisely the point. Sure, there are downturns, but they are pauses in an overall uptrend. It only has relevance when you consider the window - both the point of entry and the end. And i believe your forecast was not for a relatively small downturn i.e. 15%) but for a massive 60% correction. Tell me when that occurred since your forecast was made.

As for where Nasdaq will be at the end of the year, i am smart enough to know a) i don't know, and b) investing in the stock market over the long term can be very profitable. I am subscribing to the part b between now and the year.

The real issue:

http://realinvestmentadvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SP500-Rolling-20yr-TotalReturn-080118.png

classic case of cherry picking,. In this case, selecting the flattest sections of the curve from which to derive their results for 20 year rolling returns. NOt impressed.

Seattle,

I haven’t run the numbers lately, but I believe if you bought the NASDAQ Composite in 2000 your total return would be annualized at about 2.5%. Here is another chart concerning stock valuations for what it is worth.

Oh, ran the Idaho Senior Games 5k road. Ran the entire distance without walking but in my slowest time ever 30:39. I haven’t run that far without walking since my treatment so consider it a victory. The treatment I was under really affects your respiration negatively. Keep working at it.

Best wishes.

Igy

http://realinvestmentadvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/832018.png

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Seattle,

If you recall my market forecast was correct, the next big move was down and not up (-12% and -15%).

When did you post that?

igy, if someone only got 2% annualized returns since 2000, they weren't buying Apple and Google, like someone i know.

Good job on finishing the race given what you[ve been through. I really notice a loss of speed this last year and age is the only thing it can be. It's rather remarkable. Working on changing that trajectory but so far the return on my exercise investment is not all i would like it to be.

Take care.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Seattle,

I haven’t run the numbers lately, but I believe if you bought the NASDAQ Composite in 2000 your total return would be annualized at about 2.5%.

The NASDAQ Composite is presently 245% above its low point in 2000.

Big Dick Johnson wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

My view is the last several years of investor returns will be wipped out shortly.

You are disgusting.

At least he was honest enough about his length. ?

Ghost of Igloi wrote:The real issue:

http://realinvestmentadvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SP500-Rolling-20yr-TotalReturn-080118.png

That's a very interesting chart, and it speaks to the value of dollar cost averaging. Sure, money invested right at those circled peaks earns nothing for the next twenty years, but the money invested during the troughs earns huge returns, with the net effect that average returns for money invested at frequent intervals, covering both peaks and valleys, earns a "decent" average return.

I tend to believe, after having stared long and hard at the chart I shared earlier, that right now is not the best time to put money in the US market (based solely on a naïve analysis of long term trends, like those embedded in your current plot). In my own case, I currently have no money in the US market (well, not zero, but less than 2% of my portfolio) because I think other markets are currently better valued.

Fact checker wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Seattle,

I haven’t run the numbers lately, but I believe if you bought the NASDAQ Composite in 2000 your total return would be annualized at about 2.5%.

The NASDAQ Composite is presently 245% above its low point in 2000.

That would mean the annualized return was more than twice what GOI suggested.

Fact checker wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Seattle,

I haven’t run the numbers lately, but I believe if you bought the NASDAQ Composite in 2000 your total return would be annualized at about 2.5%.

The NASDAQ Composite is presently 245% above its low point in 2000.

Classic cherry picking. And still a lie

It dropped from a high of nearly 7,000 in Feb 2000 to a low of just under 3,800 in Dec of 2000 (to drop further in 2001).

Now at nearly 7,900.

Mein Goat wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Your rear view mirror is quite prescient.

Igy

You may want to look up ‘prescient’.

You can't be that thick.

Let me help you by using a cliche you may have heard and then you will get it: Hindsight is 20/20.

Glad to help.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Investors often quote historical stock market returns for the last 130 years

There he goes again telling us what investors do.

I can only assume he is talking about his clients.

Speaking of that, I really hope comments on here about him being a Financial Advisor are just a joke.

If he is, he's the worst kind. Unwilling to change course when they're wrong. At the clients expense!

Cherry Cherry wrote:

Fact checker wrote:

The NASDAQ Composite is presently 245% above its low point in 2000.

Classic cherry picking. And still a lie

It dropped from a high of nearly 7,000 in Feb 2000 to a low of just under 3,800 in Dec of 2000 (to drop further in 2001).

Now at nearly 7,900.

The 2000 low for the NASDAQ was 2288.

Your claims of “nearly 7,000 in Feb 2000“ and “a low of just under 3,800 in Dec of 2000“ are completely false.

Like I thought, which was off the top of my head, 5132 to 7873 is 2.9%.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Like I thought, which was off the top of my head, 5132 to 7873 is 2.9%.

Uh, no, it’s not.

Helloooooo? wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Like I thought, which was off the top of my head, 5132 to 7873 is 2.9%.

Uh, no, it’s not.

I cringe every time Igy is faced with something mathematical. The outcome is never good.