Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Real financial advisors get paid in a variety of ways. Most of the business is fee based today. Even at Scwab
If your financial advisor gets paid in any way other than an hourly - or session - fee, then you should run away. Run. Don’t walk.
Lynch wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Real financial advisors get paid in a variety of ways. Most of the business is fee based today. Even at Scwab
If your financial advisor gets paid in any way other than an hourly - or session - fee, then you should run away. Run. Don’t walk.
So says the guy with no money.
J. Hardy wrote:
Idiot move wrote:
I got out of the market when the S and P 500 was at about 2990 a month-ish ago because all indicators suggested it wouldn't go any higher the rest of the year and very well could go much lower. Now the S and P 500 is at 3100 and keeps going up. I feel like a fool as I've normally done a very good job of just buying and holding, but I didn't stick to the plan this time, and it has bitten me. Now I'm wondering how/when to get back in when the market keeps hitting record highs almost every single day. This can't last, but it could potentially be a runaway that goes up another 4% or something before stagnating (or dropping?).
What am I to do?
Market history shows that on average the market will rise about 14% in the year following a market high and 10%/year annualized for the 5 years following the record high.
Your returns may vary.
Market history shows at current valuations a loss of 50-65%.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Lynch wrote:
If your financial advisor gets paid in any way other than an hourly - or session - fee, then you should run away. Run. Don’t walk.
So says the guy with no money.
Funny. The truth is I would have significantly less money if I relied on a financial advisor that was not solely fee based. The others are not adhering to a fiduciary standard, though many will falsely claim that they do.
Lynch wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
So says the guy with no money.
Funny. The truth is I would have significantly less money if I relied on a financial advisor that was not solely fee based. The others are not adhering to a fiduciary standard, though many will falsely claim that they do.
I can tell you know little about the subject other than talking points. Clearly high net worth individuals predominantly work with a financial advisor. Bernie Madoff was a fee for advice financial advisor by the way. Don’t confuse hourly rates for financial planning with fee based accounts.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Lynch wrote:
Funny. The truth is I would have significantly less money if I relied on a financial advisor that was not solely fee based. The others are not adhering to a fiduciary standard, though many will falsely claim that they do.
I can tell you know little about the subject other than talking points. Clearly high net worth individuals predominantly work with a financial advisor. Bernie Madoff was a fee for advice financial advisor by the way. Don’t confuse hourly rates for financial planning with fee based accounts.
I actually have a very good grasp of the subject. And I notice that you are twisting my words to try to deflect from my point. That alone proves my point.
?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
J. Hardy wrote:
Market history shows that on average the market will rise about 14% in the year following a market high and 10%/year annualized for the 5 years following the record high.
Your returns may vary.
Market history shows at current valuations a loss of 50-65%.
When?
Knead 2 no wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Market history shows at current valuations a loss of 50-65%.
When?
If you're with an advisor that's been (and currently) investing your money based on history, it 's another good reason to run, not walk, away as fast as you can.
Racket wrote:
Igy made the news!
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-10/go-back-to-california-wave-of-newcomers-fuels-backlash-in-boise?utm_source=pocket-newtab
By the way, the comment section of that article does not disappoint
Racket wrote:
Racket wrote:
All Trump has to do is remove tariffs (aka fix the problem he created) and then we'll probably see some stupid gains going into next year which is coincidentally an election year. Huh, look at that.
Trump literally tweeted "it's gonna be a good day for the stock market today" just a few hours ago. I'm all for listening to bear theses and all, but when the president of the US is willing to pump the stock market (actually economy and income inequality be damned) through whatever means necessary, then don't fight the trend.
Also if Trump wins next year then I'll plan on selling everything in January of 2021 because that mofo is gonna 2008 us
Love him or hate him, the fact is that he has put his foot on the accelerator, with the car already heading for the cliff.
At least he’s up-front about some of it—he says he wants the dollar devalued, and he acknowledges governing for the indexes rather than for the economy.
The result of and response to the coming election are the greatest unknowns in my personal program. It might be seismic.
Racket wrote:
Igy made the news!
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-10/go-back-to-california-wave-of-newcomers-fuels-backlash-in-boise?utm_source=pocket-newtab
LOL! Poor Igy isn’t even wanted in his adopted home town. No wonder he is so miserable.
If Igy can't acknowledge that CDs are a terrible investment versus other types of investment, mainly stocks, mutual funds and bonds, and can't acknowledge that the market has gone gangbusters lately, what does he bring here?
Sally Vix wrote:
If Igy can't acknowledge that CDs are a terrible investment versus other types of investment, mainly stocks, mutual funds and bonds, and can't acknowledge that the market has gone gangbusters lately, what does he bring here?
Comic relief.
Gruntz wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
If Igy can't acknowledge that CDs are a terrible investment versus other types of investment, mainly stocks, mutual funds and bonds, and can't acknowledge that the market has gone gangbusters lately, what does he bring here?
Comic relief.
Along with updates on family, home projects,health,training etc. At least they're much more fact based than his investment comments.
I left California in 1977. I don’t live in Boise. I will agree places are becoming unaffordable. My house value is up 50% in less than 7 years.
Sally Vix wrote:
If Igy can't acknowledge that CDs are a terrible investment versus other types of investment, mainly stocks, mutual funds and bonds, and can't acknowledge that the market has gone gangbusters lately, what does he bring here?
I’ll try to find something from Zerohedge or Hussman just to get in your head.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/one-bank-finally-admits-feds-not-qe-indeed-qe-and-could-lead-financial-collapsePurple Martin wrote:
Gruntz wrote:
Comic relief.
Along with updates on family, home projects,health,training etc. At least they're much more fact based than his investment comments.
“At present, our measures of valuations are breathtakingly extreme, and our measures of market internals are negative and divergent. Yet despite these market extremes, we always have to allow for the possibility that investors will take the speculative bit back in their teeth. An improvement in the uniformity market internals wouldn’t avoid the negative total returns that we project for the S&P 500 over the coming 10-12 years, nor would it reduce the 50-65% downside risk that I continue to view as likely over the completion of this market cycle, but it would defer our immediate near-term downside expectations for the market.
Here and now, we observe a combination of market conditions that has historically been permissive of “trap door” market losses. I use the word “permissive” because market losses are not a certainty. Rather, when we examine points of extreme market risk across history, they share many of the features we observe today.”
John Hussman, 11/2019