Flagpole you have definitely NOT always admitted to trolling under those handles. True, you eventually admitted to it, but for a long time to vehemently denied it. Is this another caveat in the distinction between an unclassified untruth and a lie? I would love to know how you rationalize that.
Not true. I didn't offer that initially I had a few different handles, but I never denied it.
As wrong as he is about many things (saying not to use credit cards, using 12% annual return to predict your stock returns, all the Christian nonsense), if people would follow the basic advice of Dave Ramsey, they would be better off...
Dave Ramsey is for poor people
There is a kernel of truth there, but it's a very misleading statement.
1) Dave Ramsey TEACHES people how to handle money and how to invest money. People who are already wealthy do not need to be taught (well, unless they inhereited it all or won it in a lottery).
2) Ramsey's advice can and will turn you from a poor person into a wealthy person. When I discovered Dave Ramsey, I was already doing most of his basic things (investing MORE than 15% of our household income, paying off debt as quickly as possible, investing in mutual funds). He was just preaching to the choir with me. I don't and never have held his opinions about not owning a credit card, and I don't count on 12% annual return as he says is standard...and I'm not a religious nut like he is...but generally speaking, his advice is solid and good for anyone, poor or not. He's right that individual stocks and precious metals are too risky.
1) NONE of us are experts on the markets, including so-called "experts." Buffet is as close as one gets, but even he can't predict accurately.
2) I have always admitted my former somewhat trolling handles.
3) As wrong as he is about many things (saying not to use credit cards, using 12% annual return to predict your stock returns, all the Christian nonsense), if people would follow the basic advice of Dave Ramsey, they would be better off...do 15% (minimum) of your income into diversified stock mutual funds, don't mess with individual stocks or precious metals, pay off debt, retire debt free including owning a house.
4) Historically the market goes up 73% of calendar years. That's a good enough track record to dump all you can stomach into it...again, into diversified mutual funds.
Don’t mess with individual socks, you say?
CORRECT! I do not own individual stocks, and the only time I ever did was because two different companies I worked for did 401k matching with company stock. I DO believe there is a time when it is acceptable to own individual stocks, and I meet that criteria, but I have still decided not to do it. I'd rather make money as passively as possible...and I do not need a big score that an individual stock MIGHT produce.
The criteria is:
1) If you or a spouse still has an income, you need to be putting 15% or more into mutual funds made up of stocks.
2) You need to have a million dollars minimum in your retirement accounts that are made up of stock-containing mutual funds.
3) You need to own your home outright and have no other debt.
Then, in my opinion, if you want to, you can dabble in individual stocks. I would take Jim Cramer's advice there and make sure to have no more than about 20% of your individual stock holdings in any one sector of the market which means that you need to hold no fewer than 5 stocks at any one time...preferrably more. This is what is called MAD MONEY...taking a bigger risk with money that is beyond the proper amount of invested money in mutual funds.
CORRECT! I do not own individual stocks, and the only time I ever did was because two different companies I worked for did 401k matching with company stock. I DO believe there is a time when it is acceptable to own individual stocks, and I meet that criteria, but I have still decided not to do it. I'd rather make money as passively as possible...and I do not need a big score that an individual stock MIGHT produce.
The criteria is:
1) If you or a spouse still has an income, you need to be putting 15% or more into mutual funds made up of stocks.
2) You need to have a million dollars minimum in your retirement accounts that are made up of stock-containing mutual funds.
3) You need to own your home outright and have no other debt.
Then, in my opinion, if you want to, you can dabble in individual stocks. I would take Jim Cramer's advice there and make sure to have no more than about 20% of your individual stock holdings in any one sector of the market which means that you need to hold no fewer than 5 stocks at any one time...preferrably more. This is what is called MAD MONEY...taking a bigger risk with money that is beyond the proper amount of invested money in mutual funds.
Ok, to be clear, you are now saying it is okay to mess with some individual stocks provided that certain thresholds have been met and within certain parameters, though you personally don’t. I find your advice here to be generally prudent, particularly for new investors. I think that more experienced investors feel comfortable tweaking those guidelines as they gain the market experience necessary to feel confident in doing so.
CORRECT! I do not own individual stocks, and the only time I ever did was because two different companies I worked for did 401k matching with company stock. I DO believe there is a time when it is acceptable to own individual stocks, and I meet that criteria, but I have still decided not to do it. I'd rather make money as passively as possible...and I do not need a big score that an individual stock MIGHT produce.
The criteria is:
1) If you or a spouse still has an income, you need to be putting 15% or more into mutual funds made up of stocks.
2) You need to have a million dollars minimum in your retirement accounts that are made up of stock-containing mutual funds.
3) You need to own your home outright and have no other debt.
Then, in my opinion, if you want to, you can dabble in individual stocks. I would take Jim Cramer's advice there and make sure to have no more than about 20% of your individual stock holdings in any one sector of the market which means that you need to hold no fewer than 5 stocks at any one time...preferrably more. This is what is called MAD MONEY...taking a bigger risk with money that is beyond the proper amount of invested money in mutual funds.
Ok, to be clear, you are now saying it is okay to mess with some individual stocks provided that certain thresholds have been met and within certain parameters, though you personally don’t. I find your advice here to be generally prudent, particularly for new investors. I think that more experienced investors feel comfortable tweaking those guidelines as they gain the market experience necessary to feel confident in doing so.
I have long held this stance on stocks and have mentioned it many times here. My view is that those who have most of their investments in individual stocks are kidding themselves about how much they know and how experienced they are. It is very risky to invest in individual stocks no matter who you are, and really it should be done only after you are pretty well financially set. The problem there is that once a person is debt free including owning a house outright and has a million or more dollars in mutual funds, there likely isn't much motivation to invest in individual stocks...that has been my situation. There's just no need. I don't need a big score. For me the hay has been in the barn for many years now.
Elon gets his $48 billion despite the stock going nowhere for four years and the company not doing all that great.
$48 billion. Absurd.
They kind of have no choice until they line up a viable replacement CEO. The reality though is that Tesla is as much a provocative meme as Elon is this days - one cannot survive without the other.
Other investors probably hate Elon and wish he would stfu but at the same time they know that Tesla is just a mid car company without him
the next year or two will be interesting...Tesla has always justified its high valuation by saying 'hey we're not a car company we're a tech/battery company!'
but that doesn't seem to be working and they're sliding into becoming a car company after all, with a lot of competition, a very stale lineup and high fixed costs. And a much lower valuation.
Certainly not something that deserves a PE of 45! And the stock's long fall has shown that.
Unless they've got a great new series of products coming. Which is why they think they need elon so much I suppose. We'll see. Hard to be optimistic for them when all these lower priced EVs are coming to market.
This post was edited 24 seconds after it was posted.
CORRECT! I do not own individual stocks, and the only time I ever did was because two different companies I worked for did 401k matching with company stock. I DO believe there is a time when it is acceptable to own individual stocks, and I meet that criteria, but I have still decided not to do it. I'd rather make money as passively as possible...and I do not need a big score that an individual stock MIGHT produce.
The criteria is:
1) If you or a spouse still has an income, you need to be putting 15% or more into mutual funds made up of stocks.
2) You need to have a million dollars minimum in your retirement accounts that are made up of stock-containing mutual funds.
3) You need to own your home outright and have no other debt.
Then, in my opinion, if you want to, you can dabble in individual stocks. I would take Jim Cramer's advice there and make sure to have no more than about 20% of your individual stock holdings in any one sector of the market which means that you need to hold no fewer than 5 stocks at any one time...preferrably more. This is what is called MAD MONEY...taking a bigger risk with money that is beyond the proper amount of invested money in mutual funds.
Ok, to be clear, you are now saying it is okay to mess with some individual stocks provided that certain thresholds have been met and within certain parameters, though you personally don’t. I find your advice here to be generally prudent, particularly for new investors. I think that more experienced investors feel comfortable tweaking those guidelines as they gain the market experience necessary to feel confident in doing so.
Re; individual stock picking:
I think the past 5-10 years have been unusual in that the big winners have all been in the same sector and mostly household recognized names. And were heavily owned even before this huge runup.
In other words, a lot of people owned MSFT, Apple, etc going into this run and these are household name stocks. It's been very very easy to pick huge winners. This is not normal.
This has in fact been a perfect environment for stock picking. Unlikely to continue or happen again soon. Over confidence in ability to pick big winners will probably cost people a lot of money in the future.
But yes, people have made vast fortunes in these huge runups. Left them with very risky portfolios but tech stock picking has worked brilliantly.
This post was edited 46 seconds after it was posted.
Earnings Scorecard: For Q2 2024 (with 4 S&P 500 companies reporting actual results), 3 S&P 500 companies have reported a positive EPS surprise and 2 S&P 500 companies have reported a positive revenue surprise.
another predictor of recession goes down to failure. This poster said it had a 100% success rate until now. And yes, when he posted 6 months ago he mocked anyone who suggested that it might be different this time.
Post See new posts Conversation Michael A. Arouet @MichaelAArouet 100 percent accuracy rate to predict each recession in last 80 years 👇 Did someone say higher for longer?
Aye Seattle, these are the good old days. At some point in the not distant future we'll be 20% off the highs with no upward momentum and wondering what it could feel like to hit all time highs day after day.
Here's a good call, from six months ago, suggesting that the market could surge leading into a rate cut. Yes, yes it has surged, even more than he suggested. SP500 was at 4700 when the tweet was issued. But he was wrong that there would be a rate cut in May.
Post See new posts Conversation Warren Pies @WarrenPies Historically, during soft landings, the S&P 500 rips in 6 months leading into a first Fed cut. Would put the market at 5,200 by May...
· Dec 20, 2023 "Our first [rate] cut [forecast] is for May," says @3f_research's @warrenpies 4:44 PM · Dec 20, 2023 · 201.3K Views
A quirk with one of the most popular tech ETFs has seen the product lag this year because it couldn't own enough Nvidia. On Friday, that looks set to change.
It won't really have much of an impact to me initially since I've got all three of the biggies that will get rebalanced, so a hit to one is a boost to the others. The change to the ETF going forward, though, will be different, of course.
I wonder if any signs of this re-balancing will be immediately apparent when it is slated to occur - in after hours trading tomorrow, as in sizable movements of their NAV/share prices.
this guy sold most of his stocks in late 2023 with the argument that 'it's not different this time - the rate curve inversion is a 100% accurate predictor. '
But it hasn't worked yet this time.
SPX up 15% year to date and he apparently missed that.
Puru Saxena @saxena_puru This is why I sold my US stocks late last year... Nearly 70 years of history shows no post persistent yield curve inversion rally proved to be durable and ALL of them fully reversed during subsequent downturn. Time will tell if this time is different. Chart @kurtsaltrichter
7:06 PM · Jan 15, 2024 ·
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
