Nice.
-
00
-
la gente esta muy loca wrote:
Hussman Strategic Market Cycle Fund celebrated it's new name by losing 3.36% yesterday. That ranks as it's 7th worst day (adjusted price; 11th worst by price)! There are better ways to implement the strategy he allegedly employs.
A reminder, I've pointed out in the past that FT Alphaville is free with registration. It's the closest thing to a free lunch in finance. If you had been reading their articles, yesterday's post election pop, esp $RUT, would come as no surprise.
gente, thanks for sharing. Interesting as always
10 -
comfortably retired from the other ipad wrote:
la gente esta muy loca wrote:
Hussman Strategic Market Cycle Fund celebrated it's new name by losing 3.36% yesterday. That ranks as it's 7th worst day (adjusted price; 11th worst by price)! There are better ways to implement the strategy he allegedly employs.
A reminder, I've pointed out in the past that FT Alphaville is free with registration. It's the closest thing to a free lunch in finance. If you had been reading their articles, yesterday's post election pop, esp $RUT, would come as no surprise.
gente, thanks for sharing. Interesting as always
You're welcome
You might find this interesting.
30 -
Not yet. 10 year real rate fell since this tweet.
11/24: 2.1%
Now: 1.5%. Or at least in october it was 1.5%. Maybe it's higher now, to be fair.
Bloomberg New Economy
@BBGNewEconomy
Citadel billionaire Ken Griffin says the world is likely to see higher real rates as the US spends "like a drunken sailor."10:08 PM · Nov 8, 2023
·
79.2K
Views01 -
SP 6000
rally hats, gents
10 -
agip wrote:
SP 6000
rally hats, gents
Wow, that does demand a certain degree of attention.
Tesla - it's on fiya!
00 -
agip wrote:
Basically, the S&P 500 at 6000 reflects it's past historical returns and the odds* of 12000 in 10 years at 80%; the odds of 5000 in 10 years at 20%! Retirees and those nearing retirement take note, there's a 5% chance of an S&P 500 3750 (16980 also). Disclaimer, remember that past performance is not indicative of future results.
*Since 1871 rolling 10 year index returns; positive 81.23% and up an average of 99.8%. It was negative 18.77% of the time and down an average of -17.59%.
10 -
10
-
la gente esta muy loca wrote:
agip wrote:
Basically, the S&P 500 at 6000 reflects it's past historical returns and the odds* of 12000 in 10 years at 80%; the odds of 5000 in 10 years at 20%! Retirees and those nearing retirement take note, there's a 5% chance of an S&P 500 3750 (16980 also). Disclaimer, remember that past performance is not indicative of future results.
*Since 1871 rolling 10 year index returns; positive 81.23% and up an average of 99.8%. It was negative 18.77% of the time and down an average of -17.59%.
A better example, what is the market willing to pay for a lotto ticket that has an 80% chance of doubling your money and a 20% chance of losing almost 20% (can't ignore those fat tails though). I also believe there's recency bias at work here. If I get ambitious I might try to "torture" the data.
20 -
la gente esta muy loca wrote:
la gente esta muy loca wrote:
Basically, the S&P 500 at 6000 reflects it's past historical returns and the odds* of 12000 in 10 years at 80%; the odds of 5000 in 10 years at 20%! Retirees and those nearing retirement take note, there's a 5% chance of an S&P 500 3750 (16980 also). Disclaimer, remember that past performance is not indicative of future results.
*Since 1871 rolling 10 year index returns; positive 81.23% and up an average of 99.8%. It was negative 18.77% of the time and down an average of -17.59%.
A better example, what is the market willing to pay for a lotto ticket that has an 80% chance of doubling your money and a 20% chance of losing almost 20% (can't ignore those fat tails though). I also believe there's recency bias at work here. If I get ambitious I might try to "torture" the data.
It's the only ticket I've got, so I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping Igy is wrong.
00 -
this is it wrote:
la gente esta muy loca wrote:
A better example, what is the market willing to pay for a lotto ticket that has an 80% chance of doubling your money and a 20% chance of losing almost 20% (can't ignore those fat tails though). I also believe there's recency bias at work here. If I get ambitious I might try to "torture" the data.
It's the only ticket I've got, so I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping Igy is wrong.
So much of our current retirement savings are thorougly rooted in stocks today, it's hard to imagine that the govt. and the Fed would not go absolutely full game-on if the markets took a deep and sustained dive.
But in the realm of individual responsiblity, it is very prudent to make sure one's balance sheet would sustain such a downturn, and invest (or not) accordingly.
10 -
I am glad I lived most of my life in simpler times.
20 -
la gente esta muy loca wrote:
la gente esta muy loca wrote:
Basically, the S&P 500 at 6000 reflects it's past historical returns and the odds* of 12000 in 10 years at 80%; the odds of 5000 in 10 years at 20%! Retirees and those nearing retirement take note, there's a 5% chance of an S&P 500 3750 (16980 also). Disclaimer, remember that past performance is not indicative of future results.
*Since 1871 rolling 10 year index returns; positive 81.23% and up an average of 99.8%. It was negative 18.77% of the time and down an average of -17.59%.
A better example, what is the market willing to pay for a lotto ticket that has an 80% chance of doubling your money and a 20% chance of losing almost 20% (can't ignore those fat tails though). I also believe there's recency bias at work here. If I get ambitious I might try to "torture" the data.
If it will help anyone sleep well tonight; since 1957 the S&P 500 Index has only been negative 7.25% of the rolling 10 year periods!
10 -
this is it wrote:
Hey this is it, are you moving to be closer to the grandkid(s)? That's the only reason we live here in Central Texas. It seems to be the story for many of my neighbors, even those that lived in TX.
30 -
How about since 1994?
00 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
How about since 1994?
7.57% (starting with 1/1984 to 1/1994). 11.2% (starting with 1/1994 to 1/2004)
Remember, I'm talking about rolling 10 year returns, not drawdowns.
There's more I might add to this, re returns for the next 10 years and why I believe they will not come close to what many expect (there's a good chance they could be negative). But not tonight.
00 -
I would assume 1/2004 thru 1/2014 one of the worst, and 1/2014 thru 1/2024 one of the best.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.00 -
la gente esta muy loca wrote:
this is it wrote:
Hey this is it, are you moving to be closer to the grandkid(s)? That's the only reason we live here in Central Texas. It seems to be the story for many of my neighbors, even those that lived in TX.
The main reason we are moving is that my mother is currently in memory care and we have become increasingly unhappy with the care she is receiving so we are buying a bigger place where we can care for her ourselves. We're staying in Virginia but moving from Fairfax county out to Winchester. An added benefit is that we're both (my wife in particular) tired of Northern Virginia and looking forward to a slower pace of life and being closer to the mountains and the great outdoors.
10 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I would assume 1/2004 thru 1/2014 one of the worst, and 1/2014 thru 1/2024 one of the best.
10-year change from Jan 2004 was a little below average (5.2% annualized) and from Jan 2014 a fair bit above average (9.9%) but the worst and best 10-year start years since 1995 have been 1999 (-3.0%) and 2012 (+14.3%).
00 -
Those are annualized change, BTW. In other words, the change between 1 January 2014 and 2024 is equivalent of 9.9% per year compounded. Note that the average annual change in that period (mean value of the actual fluctuations year to year) was 11.1% (ranging from -20.3% to +29.8%).
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.