Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Big Dan wrote:
Only market timers like yourself would consider that to be drama. Fortunately most investors are more level headed and not inclined to hyperbole.
Most investors do a very poor job of analyzing anything, have gone whole hog into passive ETFs, will ride the next downturn just like they did the last.
Not true.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Most investors do a very poor job of analyzing anything
Not most investors, just his clients.
And what they do a poor job of analyzing, is their Financial Advisor.
mister wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Most investors do a very poor job of analyzing anything
Not most investors, just his clients.
And what they do a poor job of analyzing, is their Financial Advisor.
Euro markets way off again.
Losing money hand over fist for past two weeks.
Down again wrote:
mister wrote:
Not most investors, just his clients.
And what they do a poor job of analyzing, is their Financial Advisor.
Euro markets way off again.
Losing money hand over fist for past two weeks.
Only if you owned them, then sold for a loss. Holding is not “losing money.”
Cashew wrote:
Down again wrote:
Euro markets way off again.
Losing money hand over fist for past two weeks.
Only if you owned them, then sold for a loss. Holding is not “losing money.”
Right. If you had 20k and it is down to 15k you can still buy that $20k car.
Righto wrote:
Cashew wrote:
Only if you owned them, then sold for a loss. Holding is not “losing money.”
Right. If you had 20k and it is down to 15k you can still buy that $20k car.
One doesn’t typically but cars with stock.
Wrongo wrote:
Righto wrote:
Right. If you had 20k and it is down to 15k you can still buy that $20k car.
One doesn’t typically but cars with stock.
One does typically cash in their stick at some point to buy things and if the value of the stock is down you have less cash to buy those things. Not sure why you guys deny this.
Righto wrote:
Wrongo wrote:
One doesn’t typically buy cars with stock.
One does typically cash in their stick at some point to buy things and if the value of the stock is down you have less cash to buy those things. Not sure why you guys deny this.
No one has denied that. But you seem to believe that stock is cash. It’s not. It’s no different than any other commodity that can be bought and sold.
Wrongo wrote:
But you seem to believe that stock is cash.
No! No! No! He would never compare stock to cash.
Anyone in their right mind knows Cash has been the superior asset over Stock for at least the past 7 years.
Wrongo wrote:
Righto wrote:
One does typically cash in their stick at some point to buy things and if the value of the stock is down you have less cash to buy those things. Not sure why you guys deny this.
No one has denied that. But you seem to believe that stock is cash. It’s not. It’s no different than any other commodity that can be bought and sold.
You have ZERO understanding of what money is. To believe that any asset that has depreciated has not cost you any wealth, any money, until you sell that asset is just plain stupid.
Down again wrote:
mister wrote:
Not most investors, just his clients.
And what they do a poor job of analyzing, is their Financial Advisor.
Euro markets way off again.
Losing money hand over fist for past two weeks.
Down again today.
Almost a good day cuz it was not down as much as in recent days.
U no know wrote:
Wrongo wrote:
No one has denied that. But you seem to believe that stock is cash. It’s not. It’s no different than any other commodity that can be bought and sold.
You have ZERO understanding of what money is. To believe that any asset that has depreciated has not cost you any wealth, any money, until you sell that asset is just plain stupid.
To equate an asset to cash illustrates a financial naïveté. This is not a surprise given your previous posts.
I guess i just don't understand.
When an asset underperforms for a number of years - say 3 1/2 years, for example - it's called positioning oneself for the overdue correction. Likewise. when one an overly defensive position underperforms the indices for a number of years, it is also called positioning oneself for the overdue correction.
But if a long-time bull market swoons for a week or two, like it inevitably will, it's called "losing your money".
How could that be? If the latter is true, then certainly the former strategy would be that of an investor losing out on what could have been some pretty serious profits, no?
Regardless, I think that Hussman guy who's been done over 9% on average in his signature fund over the last five years is clearly losing money.
Now that's losing money!
*lost over 9% on average in his signature found over the last five years
seattle prattle wrote:
I guess i just don't understand.
When an asset underperforms for a number of years - say 3 1/2 years, for example - it's called positioning oneself for the overdue correction. Likewise. when one an overly defensive position underperforms the indices for a number of years, it is also called positioning oneself for the overdue correction.
But if a long-time bull market swoons for a week or two, like it inevitably will, it's called "losing your money".
How could that be? If the latter is true, then certainly the former strategy would be that of an investor losing out on what could have been some pretty serious profits, no?
Regardless, I think that Hussman guy who's been done over 9% on average in his signature fund over the last five years is clearly losing money.
Now that's losing money!
I would assume at the bottom of this cycle Hussman will outperform you and all the equity ETFs going back to year 2000. That is outperformance.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
I guess i just don't understand.
When an asset underperforms for a number of years - say 3 1/2 years, for example - it's called positioning oneself for the overdue correction. Likewise. when one an overly defensive position underperforms the indices for a number of years, it is also called positioning oneself for the overdue correction.
But if a long-time bull market swoons for a week or two, like it inevitably will, it's called "losing your money".
How could that be? If the latter is true, then certainly the former strategy would be that of an investor losing out on what could have been some pretty serious profits, no?
Regardless, I think that Hussman guy who's been done over 9% on average in his signature fund over the last five years is clearly losing money.
Now that's losing money!
I would assume at the bottom of this cycle Hussman will outperform you and all the equity ETFs going back to year 2000. That is outperformance.
You know, i looked at how his funds performed during the downturns like 2000 and it wasn't all that great. His funds were down then, too. Maybe by not as much as some others, but they weren't all that impressive. ANd certainly not impressive enough to make up for all his years of under-performance.
Hussman Strategic Growth Fund July 2000 to 2008, outperformed the S&P 500 (including dividends) by more than 12% annually.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Hussman Strategic Growth Fund July 2000 to 2008, outperformed the S&P 500 (including dividends) by more than 12% annually.
And it's lost all that and more since then.
Even in the downturn of 2008, his fund couldn't replicate his former performance. Sad.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I would assume at the bottom of this cycle Hussman will outperform you and all the equity ETFs
And let's see, "MOST investors will wait until the bottom of this cycle to get out".
You would like to believe that. Like always, you're wrong.
seattle prattle wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Hussman Strategic Growth Fund July 2000 to 2008, outperformed the S&P 500 (including dividends) by more than 12% annually.
And it's lost all that and more since then.
Even in the downturn of 2008, his fund couldn't replicate his former performance. Sad.
Oh, snap!