Only thing that was carrying the day for me was a Tesla bounce-back this morning that saw the price go to to over $930 for $878 (nearly 6%).
Now that has settle back to just above 0% while S+P 500 is down another 2.5%.
S+P 500 down 12% for the year.
You guys shouldn't be distressing over the market so much. The S&P is down 12% for the year? In 2008 the S&P was down 48%. THAT is something to fret about.
You guys shouldn't be distressing over the market so much. The S&P is down 12% for the year? In 2008 the S&P was down 48%. THAT is something to fret about.
12% in four months.
Almost 13% (12.8%) now. Four months. Annualized = (1.128)^(12/4) = 43.5%.
Let's hope this gets turned around soon.
Many people will be severely harmed if this continues
Almost 13% (12.8%) now. Four months. Annualized = (1.128)^(12/4) = 43.5%.
Let's hope this gets turned around soon.
Many people will be severely harmed if this continues
I can't recall exactly but I read something that when the Dow and S&P have the worst starts to the year (Jan/Feb), 88% of the time they end up in the positive for the year.
Almost 13% (12.8%) now. Four months. Annualized = (1.128)^(12/4) = 43.5%.
Let's hope this gets turned around soon.
Many people will be severely harmed if this continues
I can't recall exactly but I read something that when the Dow and S&P have the worst starts to the year (Jan/Feb), 88% of the time they end up in the positive for the year.
Six of 23 years since 2000 have been negative (counting this year to date).
Only 2 negatives in 1980s and 1990s (note all ignore inflation).
Three of ten in the 70s and in the 60s were negative.
Over ninety percent of you on this thread are not Chief Investment Strategists, have never gone out for drinks with a Chief Investment Strategist and have never met a Chief Investment Strategist. Try to think like a Chief Investment Strategist. Try to think like a mutual manager of U.S. equities. Look at which sectors are taking a beating. Look at which sectors are up. Stop whining. Stop fighting against mutual fund mangers of U.S. equities. Dance with them. Sell what they are selling and buy what they are buying.
“The very nature of a bubble is that there’s an inside and an outside, an expanding reality-distortion field that assures people inside the bubble that they’re doing things that are rational and normal. But when the bubble bursts (and speculative bubbles always do), be prepared for reality to disagree.” – Seth Godin, March 18, 2022
“Among the 15 largest stocks in the Nasdaq 100 index at the 2000 peak, only four of them remain in the index: Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, and Qualcomm. The others either became defunct or were bought out after they collapsed. Of these four survivors, each of them had lost between 60% and 88% by the October 2002 market low. By March 2009, all were still down between 52% and 83% on a total return basis. It took until October 2015 for Microsoft to finally outperform Treasury bills from its March 2000 peak. It took until April 2019 for Qualcomm to do so. The others are still behind T-bills.”
Earnings Scorecard: For Q1 2022 (with 55% of S&P 500 companies reporting actual results), 80% of S&P 500 companies have reported a positive EPS surprise and 72% of S&P 500 companies have reported a positive revenue surprise.
Earnings Scorecard: For Q1 2022 (with 55% of S&P 500 companies reporting actual results), 80% of S&P 500 companies have reported a positive EPS surprise and 72% of S&P 500 companies have reported a positive revenue surprise.
“Among the 15 largest stocks in the Nasdaq 100 index at the 2000 peak, only four of them remain in the index: Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, and Qualcomm. The others either became defunct or were bought out after they collapsed. Of these four survivors, each of them had lost between 60% and 88% by the October 2002 market low. By March 2009, all were still down between 52% and 83% on a total return basis. It took until October 2015 for Microsoft to finally outperform Treasury bills from its March 2000 peak. It took until April 2019 for Qualcomm to do so. The others are still behind T-bills.”
-John Hussman, April 29, 2022
Is this a joke? If not, then either Hussman is ignorant or purposely disingenuous. Given the performance of his funds, My guess is it’s the former.
“Among the 15 largest stocks in the Nasdaq 100 index at the 2000 peak, only four of them remain in the index: Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, and Qualcomm. The others either became defunct or were bought out after they collapsed. Of these four survivors, each of them had lost between 60% and 88% by the October 2002 market low. By March 2009, all were still down between 52% and 83% on a total return basis. It took until October 2015 for Microsoft to finally outperform Treasury bills from its March 2000 peak. It took until April 2019 for Qualcomm to do so. The others are still behind T-bills.”
-John Hussman, April 29, 2022
Is this a joke? If not, then either Hussman is ignorant or purposely disingenuous. Given the performance of his funds, My guess is it’s the former.
“Among the 15 largest stocks in the Nasdaq 100 index at the 2000 peak, only four of them remain in the index: Microsoft, Cisco, Intel, and Qualcomm. The others either became defunct or were bought out after they collapsed. Of these four survivors, each of them had lost between 60% and 88% by the October 2002 market low. By March 2009, all were still down between 52% and 83% on a total return basis. It took until October 2015 for Microsoft to finally outperform Treasury bills from its March 2000 peak. It took until April 2019 for Qualcomm to do so. The others are still behind T-bills.”
-John Hussman, April 29, 2022
“All of these were great companies, but for over 15 years, they were extremely disappointing investments, because investors imagined that their growth made their valuations irrelevant. As Benjamin Graham and David Dodd wrote after the collapse of the 1929 market bubble, ‘The notion that the desirability of a common stock was entirely independent of its price seems incredibly absurd. Yet the new-era theory led directly to this thesis. An alluring corollary to this principle was that making money in the stock market was the easiest thing in the world. It was only necessary to buy ‘good’ stocks, regardless of price, and then to let nature take her upward course. The results of such a doctrine could not fail to be tragic.’”
1) I'm not a "conservative" investor...I lean aggressive.
2) I haven't beaten the "market" 32 of 33 years. I have beaten The Dow. I have lost to other indices more often.
3) Let's do a YTD update!
Dow YTD: -6.66% Flagpole YTD: -15.60%
Man...getting killed this year. Would be a big surprise if I can pull this one out, especially since I'm not planning to pick something mid year to throw a ton of money into as I have done in the past in big down years...just no need for me to do that kind of thing anymore.
Not much posting on the stock market today, for some reason. Your numbers are likely to get much worse. If you choose to use your brain, you may want to hedge you stock exposure. Just in case we see another 2000-2013 market.
I am beyond caring how the stock market does in any given year. I've won the stock market game. I have more money than I will ever need. It is insane even. No hedging needed.
Well...I suppose you consider this a hedge -- I DO have three YEARS of expenses liquid. I did that several years ago before I really needed it,, but since the market has done so well, I just kept it on the sidelines, so, after my wife retires in 5 more years and we no longer have any income, if the market tanks for 3 years or so, it's really not a problem...well, it's not a problem anyway. I have more than I need.
Not much posting on the stock market today, for some reason. Your numbers are likely to get much worse. If you choose to use your brain, you may want to hedge you stock exposure. Just in case we see another 2000-2013 market.
I am beyond caring how the stock market does in any given year. I've won the stock market game. I have more money than I will ever need. It is insane even. No hedging needed.
Well...I suppose you consider this a hedge -- I DO have three YEARS of expenses liquid. I did that several years ago before I really needed it,, but since the market has done so well, I just kept it on the sidelines, so, after my wife retires in 5 more years and we no longer have any income, if the market tanks for 3 years or so, it's really not a problem...well, it's not a problem anyway. I have more than I need.
What happens if the market is negative for 13 years like 2000-13?
I am beyond caring how the stock market does in any given year. I've won the stock market game. I have more money than I will ever need. It is insane even. No hedging needed.
Well...I suppose you consider this a hedge -- I DO have three YEARS of expenses liquid. I did that several years ago before I really needed it,, but since the market has done so well, I just kept it on the sidelines, so, after my wife retires in 5 more years and we no longer have any income, if the market tanks for 3 years or so, it's really not a problem...well, it's not a problem anyway. I have more than I need.
What happens if the market is negative for 13 years like 2000-13?
For another thing, IF I were really on the edge with withdrawals (I would STILL be completely debt free, living in a house I owned outright, and have Social Security), if there were one big down turn year, I could use my emergency fund plus Social Security to pay for that year's expenses.
BUT, since I have WAY more money than I will ever need, I'll just continue to take money from my retirement accounts. I won't even be taking 4% annually, because I will not need anywhere close to that much, even if I spend very freely.
For normal investors, you DO realize why the 4% withdrawal rule is there, right? To be able to handle down years.
For another thing, IF I were really on the edge with withdrawals (I would STILL be completely debt free, living in a house I owned outright, and have Social Security), if there were one big down turn year, I could use my emergency fund plus Social Security to pay for that year's expenses.
BUT, since I have WAY more money than I will ever need, I'll just continue to take money from my retirement accounts. I won't even be taking 4% annually, because I will not need anywhere close to that much, even if I spend very freely.
For normal investors, you DO realize why the 4% withdrawal rule is there, right? To be able to handle down years.