la gente esta muy loca wrote:
Typical day on Down goes the Dow.
Emma Stone and Poor Things won!
you can't vote against Emma Stone. I don't make the rules but I am willing to enforce them.
-
10
-
Flagpole wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
The S & P DID fall 48% in six months. I just copied that from the article and didn't notice the time line.
That's the issue with you though. You often do stuff like that...make statements or throw out a stat with no thought about whether it could be true or not. When you post something like that and state that the Dow or the S&P 500 went down like that over a period of time from 1999-2022, that shows a serious lack of comprehension. How could you not have typed that and thought, "well, that can't be right," and then not posted it? This is why you remain the dumbest person I have ever encountered. You seem not to have the ability to learn or understand even the most basic things. No harm in that really. Not everyone was given the gift of intelligence, but you should recognize that and not try to participate where you are not equipped.
I am the dumbest person in the world and you, with a degree in journalism, don't even know to put closing quotation marks outside the punctuation.
01 -
Flagpole wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
That's interesting and thanks for that.
The investor you are describing here doesn't sound like the one you have conveyed before.
The investor before didn't move stuff around much, bought funds and generally stuck with them, and directed the new money to new funds if they wanted to change things a bit. Excuse me if I misunderstood, but that sure sounded like what you described in general. It was not an investor that was regularly moving their money around.
Seriously, now we are to believe that you were "a very active investor"?
Before you said you went rather diversified and didn't worry about it - you said you had better things to do with your time.
If I have this wrong, my apologies. And if so, you should have been in the business because you have achieved a track record like no one I have ever, ever!, heard of.
I have been investing for nearly 34 years. I have said time and time again that I didn't just inherit a portfolio and keep it the same since 1989. I have mentioned several times that I changed things around especially initially. Your (and others here) level of interest in the history of my investing is far beyond what I would have ever imagined. I am a buy and hold guy, but that to me means I buy and then don't sell to take profit. It doesn't mean I buy a fund and hold that FUND forever, and I don't buy individual stocks, so that doesn't apply here. Every penny I have ever put into the stock market has never come back out to me. I have also said several times now that since I am now so diversifed and do NOT change things up every year like I did once upon a time (it takes a lot of TIME to become as diversifed as I am the way I went about it...adding new funds, changing percentages that I put into certain funds), that I likely will not continue to have the same success against the Dow as I have in the past...to wit, I lost big time to the Dow in 2022. At this point, it doesn't matter to me at all. I have more money than I will ever need.
I began to "not worrry about it" in 2017 when the Dow hit 22,000 for the first time and I had enough then to retire (and have my wife retire) if I wanted to. I wasn't ALWAYS in that position, and I have never said I was.
Since you are so interested in minutia, let me define "active investor". I have been "active" in the early years only in that I switched funds a lot at the end of the year. I did NOT put a lot of time and effort into that and I did do it somewhat randomly, just looking to be different than the year before, especially with the year before was great. I do not and never have BOUGHT individual stocks and traded them. MUTUAL FUNDS are what have enabled me not to have to put a lot of time and effort into my investing. So, being an "active" investor in those early years involved probably less than an hour of my time at the end of the year to move stuff around a little bit.
Methinks you haven't heard of enough investors. In one of my early companies, I was in an investor club that consisted of other members of the company. We ALL had that company stock match, and the younger of us did better than the older ones because that well-performing stock was a bigger percentage of our portfolios at the time. Among those younger invetors, I was doing worse than average if my memory serves me well.
Your level of interest in this is really odd. You have said you have done better than me over this time period, and yet I have ZERO interest in what you have done...doesn't affect me, and I have my own pile of money.
I just figured out who Flagpole is. Flagpole has his piles of money that he likes to count and Scrooge McDuck used to look at all his piles of money. Flagpole is Scrooge McDuck!!!
01 -
I love this one:
REITS are a disaster, right? Record high vacancies in US office buildings, debt problems, buildings being sold at half what they sold for pre-covid...
3 month performance:
REITS (VNQ): +18%
SP500: +11%
Obviously, office buildings are just a small part of the REIT index...could be a big bounceback asset class.
21 -
does anybody here own any investment grade corporate bonds or bond funds?
00 -
seattle prattle wrote:
That's interesting and thanks for that.
The investor you are describing here doesn't sound like the one you have conveyed before.
The investor before didn't move stuff around much, bought funds and generally stuck with them, and directed the new money to new funds if they wanted to change things a bit. Excuse me if I misunderstood, but that sure sounded like what you described in general. It was not an investor that was regularly moving their money around.
Seriously, now we are to believe that you were "a very active investor"?
Before you said you went rather diversified and didn't worry about it - you said you had better things to do with your time.
If I have this wrong, my apologies. And if so, you should have been in the business because you have achieved a track record like no one I have ever, ever!, heard of.
The problem with lying all the time is that your lies start to contradict each other. That's where flagpole is at, he's told so many different lies that he can't keep them straight.
10 -
total moron wrote:
does anybody here own any investment grade corporate bonds or bond funds?
I bought into a half dozen investment grade corporate bonds around the end of October, around when yields had recently passed their peak and prices were starting to edge back up. Average yield 6.4% and average time to maturity somewhere around 6 to 7 years.
I’ve got some fixed income stuff maturing over the next several months and will likely put most of it into corporate bonds. Mind you, my investing objectives are not the same as most on here, being (actually, not nearly) retired, and working to decumulate as we enjoy our hoped-for retirement lifestyle. 5% total returns (net of fees, but before any taxes) will make me happy provided they come with low risk / volatility. That’s enough to cover our “comfortable” (not luxurious) retirement plans, so I see little incentive to reach for more.
30 -
agip wrote:
We've cleared 2 years waiting for a new all-time closing high on the SP500
Historically, that's a long time.
Long, sure, but not close to the longest. I’d say there’s a decent chance of a new ATH in 2024, but at the same time there’s some chance it doesn’t happen in the next 2-5 years. Buyer beware….
This small but non-zero risk of large drop is what keeps me cautious with my nest egg in retirement. A big drop can throw very cold water on retirement lifestyle, especially if it happens early in retirement when bigger savings are threatened and there are more years of spending still ahead.
10 -
total moron wrote:
does anybody here own any investment grade corporate bonds or bond funds?
yes, I own chugs of CORP and LQD.
And a truckload of VCSH.
10 -
thanks. I am looking at some now, still some good companies and decent yields, above corresponding term notes. I would hold them in our Roth iras
are you willing to name any of the individual companies, or did you buy funds?
I assume the coupon's tax treatment is that of interest income.
and thanks agip I will check those out
00 -
retired, yes 5-7 years is the sort of duration I am looking for
00 -
nearly retired wrote:
agip wrote:
We've cleared 2 years waiting for a new all-time closing high on the SP500
Historically, that's a long time.
Long, sure, but not close to the longest. I’d say there’s a decent chance of a new ATH in 2024, but at the same time there’s some chance it doesn’t happen in the next 2-5 years. Buyer beware….
This small but non-zero risk of large drop is what keeps me cautious with my nest egg in retirement. A big drop can throw very cold water on retirement lifestyle, especially if it happens early in retirement when bigger savings are threatened and there are more years of spending still ahead.
Luckily, we are virtually back to an ATH at the moment, and I've come to within 2% of it recently, and a reasonable person would call that good enough. That being the case, I need to rebalance my portfolio to one with less risk and less stock exposure. Since I am recently retired, now would definitely be the time.
I think I will look into bond funds.
Why is this bumming me out so much?
00 -
agip wrote:
total moron wrote:
does anybody here own any investment grade corporate bonds or bond funds?
yes, I own chugs of CORP and LQD.
And a truckload of VCSH.
The CORP and LQD lost as much as 20%- 25% of their value during the 2020 downturn. The Short term bond fund, VCSH, on the other hand, only lost half as much.
If looking for a defensive edge to your portfolio, I would think that the VCSH is a better option.
It does have a smaller yield, but it also has lower management fee, so those factors probably cancel themselves out.
I guess it does make sense to diversify across both long and short terms, though.
00 -
seattle prattle wrote:
agip wrote:
yes, I own chugs of CORP and LQD.
And a truckload of VCSH.
The CORP and LQD lost as much as 20%- 25% of their value during the 2020 downturn. The Short term bond fund, VCSH, on the other hand, only lost half as much.
If looking for a defensive edge to your portfolio, I would think that the VCSH is a better option.
It does have a smaller yield, but it also has lower management fee, so those factors probably cancel themselves out.
I guess it does make sense to diversify across both long and short terms, though.
yes, when rates rise fast, LQD and CORP will get hammered very badly. During the great rate rise I owned virtually no bonds but VCSH, for that reason...probably the best allocation investment decision I made in the last 20 years.
Now is different...CORP and LQD are yielding over 5% so there is a much larger margin of error now. Hard to see rates going much higher.
The weird thing about an inverted curve is that VCSH, short term bonds, yields more than these two funds, which own longer term bonds. So I own all three...I figure rates on longer term bonds are likely to fall, and CORP and LQD should benefit more than VCSH should rates fall across the curve.
But you have to be careful when defining 'defensive.' If there is a standard recession, rates will fall, and for every one percent fall in rates LQD will gain 8%, while VCSH might rise only 3%. So which is the defensive play? Tricky stuff.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.10 -
agip wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
The CORP and LQD lost as much as 20%- 25% of their value during the 2020 downturn. The Short term bond fund, VCSH, on the other hand, only lost half as much.
If looking for a defensive edge to your portfolio, I would think that the VCSH is a better option.
It does have a smaller yield, but it also has lower management fee, so those factors probably cancel themselves out.
I guess it does make sense to diversify across both long and short terms, though.
yes, when rates rise fast, LQD and CORP will get hammered very badly. During the great rate rise I owned virtually no bonds but VCSH, for that reason...probably the best allocation investment decision I made in the last 20 years.
Now is different...CORP and LQD are yielding over 5% so there is a much larger margin of error now. Hard to see rates going much higher.
The weird thing about an inverted curve is that VCSH, short term bonds, yields more than these two funds, which own longer term bonds. So I own all three...I figure rates on longer term bonds are likely to fall, and CORP and LQD should benefit more than VCSH should rates fall across the curve.
But you have to be careful when defining 'defensive.' If there is a standard recession, rates will fall, and for every one percent fall in rates LQD will gain 8%, while VCSH might rise only 3%. So which is the defensive play? Tricky stuff.
Yes, that was a great call on the short term bond etf over the last couple of years. And indeed, I recall you talking about this several times. Good one.
I also looked at this intermediate bond etf - Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund (BIV). That might be a good neutral way to go.
What you say makes perfect sense, and I never comprehend bond basics, but I've just read up on it since last post - a very good explanation, along with your discussion (of course):
I'm not sure I have it in me to take the plunge though. Just bought some more tech ETF, so that doesn't portend well. That's on top of the other buy earlier this morning....
10 -
Sally Vix wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
That's the issue with you though. You often do stuff like that...make statements or throw out a stat with no thought about whether it could be true or not. When you post something like that and state that the Dow or the S&P 500 went down like that over a period of time from 1999-2022, that shows a serious lack of comprehension. How could you not have typed that and thought, "well, that can't be right," and then not posted it? This is why you remain the dumbest person I have ever encountered. You seem not to have the ability to learn or understand even the most basic things. No harm in that really. Not everyone was given the gift of intelligence, but you should recognize that and not try to participate where you are not equipped.
I am the dumbest person in the world and you, with a degree in journalism, don't even know to put closing quotation marks outside the punctuation.
1) You are the supidest person I have ever ENCOUNTERED. I haven't encountered everyone. Once again you got something I have said wrong.
2) You say that quotation marks thing following a post of mine in which the ending quotation mark is outside the punctuation. This is an example of the many reasons you are the person I describe in #1.
10 -
this is it wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
That's interesting and thanks for that.
The investor you are describing here doesn't sound like the one you have conveyed before.
The investor before didn't move stuff around much, bought funds and generally stuck with them, and directed the new money to new funds if they wanted to change things a bit. Excuse me if I misunderstood, but that sure sounded like what you described in general. It was not an investor that was regularly moving their money around.
Seriously, now we are to believe that you were "a very active investor"?
Before you said you went rather diversified and didn't worry about it - you said you had better things to do with your time.
If I have this wrong, my apologies. And if so, you should have been in the business because you have achieved a track record like no one I have ever, ever!, heard of.
The problem with lying all the time is that your lies start to contradict each other. That's where flagpole is at, he's told so many different lies that he can't keep them straight.
INCORRECT! I have not told a lie in my adult life.
10 -
seattle prattle wrote:
nearly retired wrote:
Long, sure, but not close to the longest. I’d say there’s a decent chance of a new ATH in 2024, but at the same time there’s some chance it doesn’t happen in the next 2-5 years. Buyer beware….
This small but non-zero risk of large drop is what keeps me cautious with my nest egg in retirement. A big drop can throw very cold water on retirement lifestyle, especially if it happens early in retirement when bigger savings are threatened and there are more years of spending still ahead.
Luckily, we are virtually back to an ATH at the moment, and I've come to within 2% of it recently, and a reasonable person would call that good enough. That being the case, I need to rebalance my portfolio to one with less risk and less stock exposure. Since I am recently retired, now would definitely be the time.
I think I will look into bond funds.
Why is this bumming me out so much?
I have no idea why this is bumming you out so much either. You say you have done better than I have since 1989, and yet I have so much money that I couldn't care less how it is invested or what the return is that I get on it. It's more than I will ever need. Are you a person with a gambling problem or something like that? The only way I can see your claim of doing better than I have since 1989 to be true and yet you are concerned about your portfolion makeup is that you didn't invest enough that whole time. I don't care to know any specifics though...so no need to explain yourself. I'm pretty sure I have the idea.
10 -
I remember SP claiming a better 2023 than Flagpole, but since 1989? If he wrote that, I missed it.
00 -
nearly retired wrote:
I remember SP claiming a better 2023 than Flagpole, but since 1989? If he wrote that, I missed it.
I haven't been in the market that long, only since about 1995, at least in terms of the brokerage accounts of various sorts. Work retirement funds is not what I am talking about, but those have all done well, too.
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.