Ghost of Igloi wrote:
KeIIy wrote:
I don’t claim to be an investment guru. This guy does, but he is an idiot.
That is because your knowledge base is narrow and Bob Pisani is your God.
My knowledge base includes knowing enough to look at someone’s rap sheet before taking their advice. Whoever Bob Pisani is, I doubt that his investment experience has been as miserable as Hussman’s.
That statement tells you really know little about John Hussman.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
That statement tells you really know little about John Hussman.
What I know is that he is a terrible fund manager...among the worst ever. You'd have to be a fool to take investment advice from him, or anyone who listens to him.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I would not advocate being out of the market. The facts are you lower portfolio volatility and you compound at a higher rate. The only way you get there is to moderate your equity exposure in favor of bond and alternatives.
Obviously reducing equity exposure reduces volatility (assuming you substitute bonds, cash, or another fixed investment), but I don’t see how that would compound at a higher rate. Please explain. Thank you.
Drawdown is what destroys compounding.
Earnings Scorecard: For Q4 2019 (with 4 of the companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results), 4 S&P 500 companies have reported a positive EPS surprise and 3 S&P 500 companies have reported a positive revenue surprise.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Seattle prattle (on a different, read: faster, browser) wrote:
Igy, if an investor has chosen to be out of the market for the last several years, they lost out. Can we admit that much? Regardless of what tomorrow or next year may hold.
I think the frustration stems from a perception that you feel anyone who has been invested in the markets these last few years is a loser who just hasn't come to terms with it yet.
I have stated multiple times that it is a mistake to be out of the market. A portfolio of 20% stocks, 15% alternatives, and 65% bonds is up 7% on the year with far less risk than 60% stock and 40% bond portfolio that might be up twice that return with three times the risk.
My view is investors as a class believe they are nibble enough to reduce exposure in advance of a downturn. That is not the history of the market. So, my view is you reduce your exposure at stretched valuations, because the timing will not matter.
The Fed saved the market this year with three rate cuts and $260 Billion in QE. Yet, the conventional view is the market has less risk 12/11/2019 at 3,140 than 12/24/2018 at 2,346. How can that be when they are taking these extraordinary measures? I find people very delusional and don’t mind taking your arguments.
That does not mean I wish you or anyone ill. It is an intellectual argument only. However, there is a poster using my employer’s name, my wife’s name, and my son’s name. Shocking at first, but he only does himself harm.
Igy
Only 20% stocks is fairly meager, no?
And how about when a market trades for so long on what has been considered (by some) 'stretched valuations" that it starts to question if that standard should be reconsidered?
I;m just saying, how fair is it to advise anyone to be only 20% in the market, in light of what a wealth builder it has been both historically over the history of the stock market, within our lifetimes, and certainly within the last decade?
Seattle prattle (on a different, read: faster, browser) wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I have stated multiple times that it is a mistake to be out of the market. A portfolio of 20% stocks, 15% alternatives, and 65% bonds is up 7% on the year with far less risk than 60% stock and 40% bond portfolio that might be up twice that return with three times the risk.
My view is investors as a class believe they are nibble enough to reduce exposure in advance of a downturn. That is not the history of the market. So, my view is you reduce your exposure at stretched valuations, because the timing will not matter.
The Fed saved the market this year with three rate cuts and $260 Billion in QE. Yet, the conventional view is the market has less risk 12/11/2019 at 3,140 than 12/24/2018 at 2,346. How can that be when they are taking these extraordinary measures? I find people very delusional and don’t mind taking your arguments.
That does not mean I wish you or anyone ill. It is an intellectual argument only. However, there is a poster using my employer’s name, my wife’s name, and my son’s name. Shocking at first, but he only does himself harm.
Igy
Only 20% stocks is fairly meager, no?
And how about when a market trades for so long on what has been considered (by some) 'stretched valuations" that it starts to question if that standard should be reconsidered?
I;m just saying, how fair is it to advise anyone to be only 20% in the market, in light of what a wealth builder it has been both historically over the history of the stock market, within our lifetimes, and certainly within the last decade?
History of the stock market tells you an investment in stocks will yield nothing over the next ten years. The history of the market also tells you your second sentences is very common, and a repeated belief in a bubble. Unfortunately investors make the mistake repeatedly. Of course that Zeitgeist is required to manufacture the greatest asset bubble in history.
"History of the stock market tells you an investment in stocks will yield nothing over the next ten years."
No it doesn't. History is about the past, not the future.
Those of us in the business often tell people that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. You would do well to remember that.
OK, believe what you wish.
Father Time wrote:
"History of the stock market tells you an investment in stocks will yield nothing over the next ten years."
No it doesn't. History is about the past, not the future.
Those of us in the business often tell people that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. You would do well to remember that.
So what do you base your investment strategy on if not the past?
Then U Know Nothing wrote:
Father Time wrote:
"History of the stock market tells you an investment in stocks will yield nothing over the next ten years."
No it doesn't. History is about the past, not the future.
Those of us in the business often tell people that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. You would do well to remember that.
So what do you base your investment strategy on if not the past?
whatever you build it on, if it continues to deliver sub-par returns, you might consider it wise to change it. How long you hold out until you reach that conclusion, and how much you are willing to wager based on your level of certainty and comfort with risk, is a personal decision.
But as for a 20% level, and for this long to hold that view, well, let's just say that that is not indicative of my levels or time to reach the aforementioned conclusions.
Then U Know Nothing wrote:
Father Time wrote:
"History of the stock market tells you an investment in stocks will yield nothing over the next ten years."
No it doesn't. History is about the past, not the future.
Those of us in the business often tell people that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. You would do well to remember that.
So what do you base your investment strategy on if not the past?
Seriously?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Seattle prattle (on a different, read: faster, browser) wrote:
Only 20% stocks is fairly meager, no?
And how about when a market trades for so long on what has been considered (by some) 'stretched valuations" that it starts to question if that standard should be reconsidered?
I;m just saying, how fair is it to advise anyone to be only 20% in the market, in light of what a wealth builder it has been both historically over the history of the stock market, within our lifetimes, and certainly within the last decade?
History of the stock market tells you an investment in stocks will yield nothing over the next ten years. The history of the market also tells you your second sentences is very common, and a repeated belief in a bubble. Unfortunately investors make the mistake repeatedly. Of course that Zeitgeist is required to manufacture the greatest asset bubble in history.
History shows stocks will yield an average of around 10% per year for the next ten years.
Then U Know Nothing wrote:
Father Time wrote:
"History of the stock market tells you an investment in stocks will yield nothing over the next ten years."
No it doesn't. History is about the past, not the future.
Those of us in the business often tell people that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. You would do well to remember that.
So what do you base your investment strategy on if not the past?
Future outlook. Isn’t that obvious?
Kindergarten for Investing wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
History of the stock market tells you an investment in stocks will yield nothing over the next ten years. The history of the market also tells you your second sentences is very common, and a repeated belief in a bubble. Unfortunately investors make the mistake repeatedly. Of course that Zeitgeist is required to manufacture the greatest asset bubble in history.
History shows stocks will yield an average of around 10% per year for the next ten years.
?
What now wrote:
I took half my money out of an S and P 500 index fund awhile back when the market was at around 3050 thinking there was no way it went higher before year's end, but it just keeps setting record highs... There are a lot of conflicting indicators as to whether the market is overbought or not, but it seems to me that it keeps getting more disconnected from reality, like no real-world happenings are driving it higher; it just keeps going higher on its own. Passive investors? What do I do now? Put my money back in? I regret selling... Don't think I ever will again.
Don't feel bad! There's a guy who has been posting here on a regular basis that thought the market topped out in 2011.
Your missed out gains are nothing compared to his.
?