depends on your investment horizon. And did you forget the hodl?
depends on your investment horizon. And did you forget the hodl?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Longest economic expansion. Buy or sell?
Having been hunkered down for years now, and I assume very little to sell, you might as well do nothing.
purple martin wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Longest economic expansion. Buy or sell?
Having been hunkered down for years now, and I assume very little to sell, you might as well do nothing.
That's one dumb assumption.
Most people make the majority of their net worth via their labor, not gambling on Wall Street.
That's Dumb wrote:
purple martin wrote:
Having been hunkered down for years now, and I assume very little to sell, you might as well do nothing.
That's one dumb assumption.
Most people make the majority of their net worth via their labor, not gambling on Wall Street.
It’s not a dumb assumption at all. If you’ve followed this thread, you would understand.
Your second sentence makes sense, but has nothing to do with the current discussion.
Three of eight indexes on our world watch list have posted gains through Monday, August 13, 2018. The top performer this year is India's BSE SENSEX with a gain of 11.33%. In second is our own S&P 500 with a gain of 5.55%. In third is France's CAC 40 with a gain of 1.88%. Coming in last is Shanghai's SSE with a loss of 15.76%.
[quote]seattle prattle wrote:
depends on your investment horizon.
Do you know when you are going to die?
No?
Then how the Hell do you know what your "investment horizon" (what a BS term) is?
Try to keep up wrote:
That's Dumb wrote:
Having been hunkered down for years now, and I assume very little to sell, you might as well do nothing.
That's one dumb assumption.
Most people make the majority of their net worth via their labor, not gambling on Wall Street.
It’s not a dumb assumption at all. If you’ve followed this thread, you would understand.
Why don't you explain it since it is so simple?
Explain it wrote:
Try to keep up wrote:
That's one dumb assumption.
Most people make the majority of their net worth via their labor, not gambling on Wall Street.
It’s not a dumb assumption at all. If you’ve followed this thread, you would understand.
Why don't you explain it since it is so simple?
Sure. Since the person he was responding to has said that cash is king in this environment, he made the logical assumption that there would be little to sell. You’re welcome.
Try to keep up wrote:
Sure. Since the person he was responding to has said that cash is king in this environment, he made the logical assumption that there would be little to sell. You’re welcome.
I guess I should have clarified little "STOCK" to sell.
Besides, he's been following this thread. He's been one of the primary posters since 2015.
Try to keep up wrote:
Explain it wrote:
It’s not a dumb assumption at all. If you’ve followed this thread, you would understand.
Why don't you explain it since it is so simple?
Sure. Since the person he was responding to has said that cash is king in this environment, he made the logical assumption that there would be little to sell. You’re welcome.
Wow. You really are dumb. That has nothing to do at all with the fact that most folks have most of their savings from labor and maybe home ownership and not market returns and therefore the assertion that someone who has invested overly conservatively the last several years will have no assets to sell is just wrong.
wow that is really dumb wrote:
Try to keep up wrote:
Sure. Since the person he was responding to has said that cash is king in this environment, he made the logical assumption that there would be little to sell. You’re welcome.
Wow. You really are dumb. That has nothing to do at all with the fact that most folks have most of their savings from labor and maybe home ownership and not market returns and therefore the assertion that someone who has invested overly conservatively the last several years will have no assets to sell is just wrong.
Actually you’re the dumb one. Your comment has nothing to do with the original discussion. This has been pointed out to you, but you cannot get this simple idea through your thick head. Please do not post anymore. You are just embarrassing yourself.
Agreed.
wow that is really dumb wrote:
therefore the assertion that someone who has invested overly conservatively the last several years will have no assets to sell is just wrong.
You should read prior posts before commenting. Assets and Stocks are not the same thing.
Try to keep up wrote:
[Actually you’re the dumb one. Your comment has nothing to do with the original discussion. This has been pointed out to you, but you cannot get this simple idea through your thick head. Please do not post anymore. You are just embarrassing yourself.
Settle down Looney Tunes
purple martin wrote:
wow that is really dumb wrote:
therefore the assertion that someone who has invested overly conservatively the last several years will have no assets to sell is just wrong.
You should read prior posts before commenting. Assets and Stocks are not the same thing.
Here's the post: "Having been hunkered down for years now, and I assume very little to sell, you might as well do nothing." I still can't see the part where he specifies stocks.
Maybe I am not the one who " should read prior posts before commenting"? What do you think?
I get wet dreams about deleting this thread but then I realize it'd crash my computer to do so :(
purple martin wrote:
I guess I should have clarified little "STOCK" to sell..
Here is the post you decided to ignored.
Try to keep up wrote:
wow that is really dumb wrote:
Wow. You really are dumb. That has nothing to do at all with the fact that most folks have most of their savings from labor and maybe home ownership and not market returns and therefore the assertion that someone who has invested overly conservatively the last several years will have no assets to sell is just wrong.
Actually you’re the dumb one. Your comment has nothing to do with the original discussion. This has been pointed out to you, but you cannot get this simple idea through your thick head. Please do not post anymore. You are just embarrassing yourself.
Ok, sure.
purple martin wrote:
purple martin wrote:
I guess I should have clarified little "STOCK" to sell..
Here is the post you decided to ignored.
A post that was made after comment you were attacking.
Timeline matters.
Clown.