Stock market is booming because Wall Street is confident that Trump will be easily re-elected.
Stock market is booming because Wall Street is confident that Trump will be easily re-elected.
seattle prattle wrote:
... and as for the TECL and TQQQ i advised you on?
Look no further.
Things turning over a bit coming into the most important half hour of trading.
TQQQ yes I thought about it, but I decided to own just the highest of the high flyers, with no gearing. AAPL up over 6%, AMZN up 5%, etc, TSLA its own thing, all maybe will end the day off this mark. Gearing is too risky at this point, IMO. I did do well with SPXL in the past, but now I have nothing geared.
The Unkle wrote:
[quote]Bummbull wrote:
[quote]The Unkle wrote:
[quote]Bummbull wrote:
However, I believe the equity that I buy will have long term upward trend, so I buy more on those down days.
That's a belief. Given the current economy, I don't share that belief.
Yes, if I sell my equity on the down days, then my losses will be realized.
Lost value is lost value. Not just when you sell.
Well, why else would i be investing unless I think the equity I buy will go up in the long run? Yea, if I don’t have that belief like you, I would not be investing.
Maserati wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
... and as for the TECL and TQQQ i advised you on?
Look no further.
Things turning over a bit coming into the most important half hour of trading.
TQQQ yes I thought about it, but I decided to own just the highest of the high flyers, with no gearing. AAPL up over 6%, AMZN up 5%, etc, TSLA its own thing, all maybe will end the day off this mark. Gearing is too risky at this point, IMO. I did do well with SPXL in the past, but now I have nothing geared.
I hear you on that. I've been buying more very slowly, very gradually, but i wouldn't be making big moves at this point, either.
I think the minor turn around of the last hour i bet is over and we go up a bit from here into the close. Seems that no matter what has been happening in the closing hours, it reverses right in to the close, often.
seattle prattle wrote:
Bummbull wrote:
You really don't get about asset allocation. When you hold a mix of equity and bonds, and the market tanks, bonds don't tank as much as equity. Then, you buy more equity with bonds that didn't lose in much value.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Since you presumably have a lot more in lifetime savings than you are investing each week or two, you are losing money when the market goes down."
But I'll say this. Of course that at that MOMENT when the stocks are down, my value in stocks are down. Yes, of course that's true. And it's understood that market goes up and down so there will be down days. However, I believe the equity that I buy will have long term upward trend, so I buy more on those down days.
Yes, if I sell my equity on the down days, then my losses will be realized. But I buy more on the down days by shifting my bonds to equity.
This is simple asset allocation. Please learn about this.
i get the idea, but the part that would concern me is if you are truly in the "contribution phase of your life" as would be true of an investor in the earlier stages of their career, I would question the virtue of holding much of a bond portfolio at all. I could see it if we were talking some considerable sums overall, but often not the case with younger investors.
It would be interesting to compare your results over a sufficiently long time span against a simple dollar cost averaging approaching of pure stock portfolio (with a modest cash reserve, of course). I mean, returns on bonds are not really going to get you far if you have yet to realize the bulk of your intended retirement savings.
I think the approach I am advocating would be true of most investors until at which time their portfolio grew to a size which would warrant shielding some of it in safer investments vehicles like bonds.
You don’t have to be early stages of your career to be in contribution phase. I plan on being in contribution phase until I retire. I will continue to be a net buyer until then.
I’m 37 so middle of my career and have about $1million now. To me, this is significant amount and my goal is to get to $5 million then retire.
You’re right that in the long run, holding all equity and no bonds will yield higher returns, but that’s if you can stomach the losses when market turns sour and you can lose more than half of the value and not bail. It’s extremely hard to not bail. Even people who say they are aggressive investors and do 100% equity or even 120% equity with margin, many can’t stomach it during a downturn and would bail.
So I’d rather have around 70/30 to 80/20 equity to bond ratio, transfer little bit of bond to equity on big down days. Then once or twice a year, reallocate and move some of my equity to bond.
I also agree with you that if you’re truly starting out your investing, it’s okay to be in all equity since you don’t have much money invested. However, I could also argue to start off with bond allocation so you can have the mindset of always contributing and not to bail when the bear lurks around the corner.
Pretty sure today’s market moves put us squarely back in the black on the year. Crazy times, these...
Pretty much all the news I’ve read and podcasts I’ve listened to lately predict some form of violent chaos in November regardless of the outcome at the polls. You all stay safe over there...
The Unkle wrote:
[quote]Bummbull wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Since you presumably have a lot more in lifetime savings than you are investing each week or two, you are losing money when the market goes down."
How hard is that to follow?
You have been saving and investing for years, probably decades.
The value of your holdings at any time are far greater than the money you are adding to it at any point in time.
Example. You are 45 years old and have $1 million in investments and are putting in $1,000 per week.
The market falls 10% and you lose $100k in value. But you can buy a few extra shares with your $1,000 contribution.
Now, that's really not so hard, is it?
With your example, you will be buying few extra shares with the $1,000 contribution. That is exactly my point of being okay with down days. I will be able to buy at a cheaper price. That is the whole point. Yea, of course if the market doesn’t go up in the future, then I would have lost $100k in that example. But I don’t invest in the market that it will go down in the long run. I invest bc I think the market trends upward in the long run.
I think you don’t have that belief and that’s okay. But I’m explaining to you my reasoning for being okay with the market going down.
For example, I have benefited from September’s decline. I bought more when market was going down. And now, it’s much higher than the price that I bought it at.
So, I’m very curious. How has your performance been? I’ve been very open with my performance and my goals in this thread. Just curious to see if I’m talking to a little kid about this or not. I actually hope that I am talking to a little kid. Then, hopefully you will learn to be a diligent investor and not be jumping in and out of the market and waiting for the decline to jump in to invest. Well actually, decline did just happen last March. Hopefully you made money from then. I did.
the return on investment with bonds has just not been worth it to me and i park non-invested funds in cash.
Are you trading actual bonds or are you in a bond ETF?
IF actual bonds, that must get to be somewhat of a pain if you're moving them on the bigger down days.
Bummbull wrote:
The Unkle wrote:
[quote]Bummbull wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Since you presumably have a lot more in lifetime savings than you are investing each week or two, you are losing money when the market goes down."
How hard is that to follow?
You have been saving and investing for years, probably decades.
The value of your holdings at any time are far greater than the money you are adding to it at any point in time.
Example. You are 45 years old and have $1 million in investments and are putting in $1,000 per week.
The market falls 10% and you lose $100k in value. But you can buy a few extra shares with your $1,000 contribution.
Now, that's really not so hard, is it?
With your example, you will be buying few extra shares with the $1,000 contribution. That is exactly my point of being okay with down days. I will be able to buy at a cheaper price. That is the whole point. Yea, of course if the market doesn’t go up in the future, then I would have lost $100k in that example. But I don’t invest in the market that it will go down in the long run. I invest bc I think the market trends upward in the long run.
I think you don’t have that belief and that’s okay. But I’m explaining to you my reasoning for being okay with the market going down.
For example, I have benefited from September’s decline. I bought more when market was going down. And now, it’s much higher than the price that I bought it at.
So, I’m very curious. How has your performance been? I’ve been very open with my performance and my goals in this thread. Just curious to see if I’m talking to a little kid about this or not. I actually hope that I am talking to a little kid. Then, hopefully you will learn to be a diligent investor and not be jumping in and out of the market and waiting for the decline to jump in to invest. Well actually, decline did just happen last March. Hopefully you made money from then. I did.
I have more than I need. Hence, I am largely protecting my investments while setting aside 15% to take flyers on Tesla and bitcoin
Bummbull wrote:
The Unkle wrote:
[quote]Bummbull wrote:
[quote]The Unkle wrote:
[quote]Bummbull wrote:
However, I believe the equity that I buy will have long term upward trend, so I buy more on those down days.
That's a belief. Given the current economy, I don't share that belief.
Yes, if I sell my equity on the down days, then my losses will be realized.
Lost value is lost value. Not just when you sell.
Well, why else would i be investing unless I think the equity I buy will go up in the long run? Yea, if I don’t have that belief like you, I would not be investing.
Your comments make me believe that you can truly time the market. Especially with your statement of “Lost value is a list value. Not just when you sell.”
Best of luck to you with this. You sound like the OP Klondike5. Or is that you?
What’s most laughable about Klondike5 or K5 is that he brags about how he has successfully timed dotcom crash and 2008 recession. However, he wasn’t even close to retiring or didn’t have money coming out of him. If you claim that you have successfully timed both of those crashes, you should be ridiculously rich. But he wasn’t. And that’s because he was too busy timing the market rest of the time and failed to report all of the gains that he missed .
Unkle, you should go back to the very beginning of this thread and see how so many people were criticizing Flagpole of his investment strategy of continuing to buy no matter if market is going up or down. And K5 is making the argument just like you that when you buy and the price goes down, you’re losing value. However, you’re forgetting the unpredictability of the market where if you’re in the market all the time, you’re catching all of the big gain days as well.
Beginning of this thread is hilarious. K5 is arguing that Dow will he going down from like 15k and market is way overvalued at that price so he sits out. Then next thing you know, Dow is above 18k and then keeps climbing.
Man, I feel like I’m having to fight the battle for Flagpole here. I need him to come back here.
[quote]Bummbull wrote:
And K5 is making the argument just like you that when you buy and the price goes down, you’re losing value.
That's not a argument.
That's a fact.
Market value = stock price time shares held.
Now, if the price goes down and the # of shares is fixed, what happens to the MV?
seattle prattle wrote:
the return on investment with bonds has just not been worth it to me and i park non-invested funds in cash.
Are you trading actual bonds or are you in a bond ETF?
IF actual bonds, that must get to be somewhat of a pain if you're moving them on the bigger down days.
I buy bond etf like BND. I’m not using it to improve on my returns. More of protection against falling market. Definitely, I’ll probably have higher return by not having any bonds, but if I didn’t have bonds, I cannot guarantee that I will bail out of equity during bear downturn. If that’s the case, itll be worse to be holding all equity instead of bonds. Also, I have done better by actually holding bonds as when market goes really sour, by having lots of bonds, I look at equity as being on discounts and I tend to put more of my bonds to equity. So, during good times, I may have a ratio of 70/30. But when market tanks, I move a lot of bonds to equity and when market bounces back like it did this year, it’s a great great year.
I don’t want to hold it in cash as that’s just too much cash to be holding.
I tend to also hold bonds as I do invest in more risky investments. But I believe that they have positive upward trends but will be volatile. But I see volatility as good thing as that will give me plenty of dips to buy at a discount.
idiot on the ipad wrote:
Pretty sure today’s market moves put us squarely back in the black on the year. Crazy times, these...
Pretty much all the news I’ve read and podcasts I’ve listened to lately predict some form of violent chaos in November regardless of the outcome at the polls. You all stay safe over there...
Market was in the black well before today.
The Unkle wrote:
[quote]Bummbull wrote:
And K5 is making the argument just like you that when you buy and the price goes down, you’re losing value.
That's not a argument.
That's a fact.
Market value = stock price time shares held.
Now, if the price goes down and the # of shares is fixed, what happens to the MV?
Why do you keep going back to this? We all understand that when stock price goes down, you lose money.
My belief that is shared by many successful investors is this: you cannot time the market in the short term. However, market goes upward in the long term with lots of variances if stocks going up and down. So, if you believe in market having an upward trend, you want to buy when it dips. So, I try to buy when it dips by moving my bonds to equity on down days. Then once or twice a year, I would reallocate and sell some of equity to bonds.
I don’t understand why I have to keep explaining this.
So, how is your investment? You’re all cash except for bitcoin and TSLA? Are you really rich or something? Or not much money at all? I’m very curious to see if I’m in conversation with someone really rich and can do whatever so you buy just bitcoin and TSLA. Or someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing and just gambling on two things while waiting for the crash to happen again.
The Unkle wrote:
Bummbull wrote:
With your example, you will be buying few extra shares with the $1,000 contribution. That is exactly my point of being okay with down days. I will be able to buy at a cheaper price. That is the whole point. Yea, of course if the market doesn’t go up in the future, then I would have lost $100k in that example. But I don’t invest in the market that it will go down in the long run. I invest bc I think the market trends upward in the long run.
I think you don’t have that belief and that’s okay. But I’m explaining to you my reasoning for being okay with the market going down.
For example, I have benefited from September’s decline. I bought more when market was going down. And now, it’s much higher than the price that I bought it at.
So, I’m very curious. How has your performance been? I’ve been very open with my performance and my goals in this thread. Just curious to see if I’m talking to a little kid about this or not. I actually hope that I am talking to a little kid. Then, hopefully you will learn to be a diligent investor and not be jumping in and out of the market and waiting for the decline to jump in to invest. Well actually, decline did just happen last March. Hopefully you made money from then. I did.
I have more than I need. Hence, I am largely protecting my investments while setting aside 15% to take flyers on Tesla and bitcoin
So you have 15% in TSLA and bitcoin. And rest cash? Just wow. So, how much cash are you holding? $85K? Or $850K? So if bitcoin and TSLA both pop from here and 5x, then you’ll be good?
Did you not invest in TSLA back in March and April? It was much cheaper back then. Why are you in now when it’s so much more expensive? You couldn’t predict this? But now you’re confident that market will crash so your 85% I cash will be ready to be invested? Now that you saw a crash in March, you are ready for the next one? Lol you’re funny man.
seattle prattle wrote:
the return on investment with bonds has just not been worth it to me and i park non-invested funds in cash.
Are you trading actual bonds or are you in a bond ETF?
IF actual bonds, that must get to be somewhat of a pain if you're moving them on the bigger down days.
Bond returns have been very good: over 5% per year for 5 years for the big generic bond indices.
Much more than that for long term bonds.
agip wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
the return on investment with bonds has just not been worth it to me and i park non-invested funds in cash.
Are you trading actual bonds or are you in a bond ETF?
IF actual bonds, that must get to be somewhat of a pain if you're moving them on the bigger down days.
Bond returns have been very good: over 5% per year for 5 years for the big generic bond indices.
Much more than that for long term bonds.
that's not bad and i was just looking at BND, which can't make the same claim. Not even close, and besides an ok 2.38% dividend, i wouldn't hardly bother.
Checking a couple out, they look like they had a good couple of years (i.e. since Jan. 2019), but over a 5 year span, pretty mediocre.
Honestly, the point about having a portion of portfolio in less riskier vehicles is not lost on me, though. Probably headed there in the near future, if I were smart enough to actually do it.
seattle prattle wrote:
agip wrote:
Bond returns have been very good: over 5% per year for 5 years for the big generic bond indices.
Much more than that for long term bonds.
that's not bad and i was just looking at BND, which can't make the same claim. Not even close, and besides an ok 2.38% dividend, i wouldn't hardly bother.
Checking a couple out, they look like they had a good couple of years (i.e. since Jan. 2019), but over a 5 year span, pretty mediocre.
Honestly, the point about having a portion of portfolio in less riskier vehicles is not lost on me, though. Probably headed there in the near future, if I were smart enough to actually do it.
I'm looking at BND, same as you.
But I made a mistake.
I was looking at BND, yes, but the 5 year return is 4.1% per year.
It's the 3 year return that is at 5.1% per year.
Be sure you are looking at total return and not just yield or not just change in NAV.
Morningstar is the best place to find up to date total return.
seattle prattle wrote:
agip wrote:
Bond returns have been very good: over 5% per year for 5 years for the big generic bond indices.
Much more than that for long term bonds.
that's not bad and i was just looking at BND, which can't make the same claim. Not even close, and besides an ok 2.38% dividend, i wouldn't hardly bother.
Checking a couple out, they look like they had a good couple of years (i.e. since Jan. 2019), but over a 5 year span, pretty mediocre.
Honestly, the point about having a portion of portfolio in less riskier vehicles is not lost on me, though. Probably headed there in the near future, if I were smart enough to actually do it.
Yea, exactly about the benefit of having a portion of portfolio in less riskier vehicle. I love it as when market tanks, it's just an opportunity to go out and buy more equity! It's such a psychological benefit where it gives you the opportunity to go buy at a discount instead of praying that it won't keep falling even more.
As well as having safer investment, it'll be good when there's a recession causing me to lose my job. i'll have more cushion with money to utilize instead of having to sell my equity at a loss to feed my family or pay for mortgage.
agip wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
that's not bad and i was just looking at BND, which can't make the same claim. Not even close, and besides an ok 2.38% dividend, i wouldn't hardly bother.
Checking a couple out, they look like they had a good couple of years (i.e. since Jan. 2019), but over a 5 year span, pretty mediocre.
Honestly, the point about having a portion of portfolio in less riskier vehicles is not lost on me, though. Probably headed there in the near future, if I were smart enough to actually do it.
I'm looking at BND, same as you.
But I made a mistake.
I was looking at BND, yes, but the 5 year return is 4.1% per year.
It's the 3 year return that is at 5.1% per year.
Be sure you are looking at total return and not just yield or not just change in NAV.
Morningstar is the best place to find up to date total return.
Will check out morningstar. I just look at Yahoo charts and do the math in my head based on stock price over the given standard timeframes.
Good to know. I use some cash sweep at my brokerage that got about 2% per year (maybe a little less) and not federally insured, and i used to use PGX, a preferred share ETF that yields almost 5.8 % per year, but it does fluctuate in value so a bit riskier and i haven't always been the best at timing it.
I actually have more in cash than i should considering it's earning nothing, and this is a good time to park it somewhere more beneficial.