Down goes the Dow

No. The market went down 50% in about a month in the 2008 meltdown. I was not in the market. Ergo, I lost nothing.

You're not too sharp are you?

Actually, the pros know NOTHING. Investment advice is snake oil sales.

It has been proven time and time again that all of the indices outperform the managed funds.

Which makes sense due to the fees

K5 wrote:

No. The market went down 50% in about a month in the 2008 meltdown. I was not in the market. Ergo, I lost nothing.

You're not too sharp are you?

you get so many facts wrong....I don't know why you even try to use facts in your arguments. hmmm...Actually, after thinking about it...you rarely do use facts in your arguments, and this is an example of why.

The market took a solid 17 months to fall 50%. the sp500 hit a high in oct 2007 and hit 50% down in March of 2009. At no time could there have been a one month fall of 50%. look at chart. oh sorry - you don't do factual things.

well, if you were interested in facts, then you would agree, after some research, that you are wrong here.

But the likelihood of you doing that is approaching zero.

K5 wrote:

No. The market went down 50% in about a month in the 2008 meltdown. I was not in the market. Ergo, I lost nothing.

You're not too sharp are you?

here - the worst months ever in the markets took place in the great depression and the 87 crash. and none of them was near 50%. And remember '87 was an up year in the end.

Five worst months in the stock market

09/1931, -30.7%

04/1932, -23.7%

03/1938, -23.7%

10/1987, -23.2%

05/1940, -21.7%

now you may deflect.

so...what does 'you're not too sharp are you' mean now, compared to you?

so, as others have pointed out, you claimed you don't say things like 'jews run this country,"...and then you went and said things like that.

then you said you never put a clock on your prediction. then agip showed you did.

Now you claim the market fell 50% in a month, and it never did.

feel any shame there?

loopere wrote:

you get so many facts wrong....I don't know why you even try to use facts in your arguments. hmmm...Actually, after thinking about it...you rarely do use facts in your arguments, and this is an example of why.

The market took a solid 17 months to fall 50%. the sp500 hit a high in oct 2007 and hit 50% down in March of 2009. At no time could there have been a one month fall of 50%. look at chart. oh sorry - you don't do factual things.

And if you listened to certain letsrun market experts, you rode the sharpest bear market since at least the Great Depression all the way to the bottom. And it took you 5 years before the market finally cleared the point (1401 S&P) where I sold short (January 2008). It "only" took you 4 years if you were in SP 600 Small Cap, but the SP600 actually lost MORE than 50% top to bottom.

If you lose 50%, you have to double your money just to get even. That's what you get if you sit through a big bear market as a buy-and-holder.

I am NOT in agreement with K5 about the market going down. YET.

DJIA hit a market low of 6,443.27 on March 6, 2009, having lost over 54% of its value since the October 9, 2007 high.[6]

[quote]loopere wrote:

The market took a solid 17 months to fall 50%.

Gee, all of 17 months to lose 54% of the market. 54% of a lifetime of earnings gone in less than a year and a half.

I am sorry if I made that seem like it was pertinent. Clearly that is immaterial.

K5 wrote:

[quote]loopere wrote:

The market took a solid 17 months to fall 50%.

Gee, all of 17 months to lose 54% of the market. 54% of a lifetime of earnings gone in less than a year and a half.

I am sorry if I made that seem like it was pertinent. Clearly that is immaterial.

sort of a weak deflection there, since you thought it all happened in one month. You are off your game.

Does the fact that the drop took 17 months change your mind about stock market strategy? Maybe you would have time to sell if things turned down?

or, more importntly, does this change your view on your knowlege of investing?

coach d wrote:

[quote]loopere wrote:

And if you listened to certain letsrun market experts, you rode the sharpest bear market since at least the Great Depression all the way to the bottom. And it took you 5 years before the market finally cleared the point (1401 S&P) where I sold short (January 2008). It "only" took you 4 years if you were in SP 600 Small Cap, but the SP600 actually lost MORE than 50% top to bottom.

If you lose 50%, you have to double your money just to get even. That's what you get if you sit through a big bear market as a buy-and-holder.

I am NOT in agreement with K5 about the market going down. YET.

Clearly I jumped out too early this time -- I was a little late in the 2008 meltdown. I can live with missing out on a few tens of thousands that I could have earned had I stayed in; I cannot afford to lose several hundreds of thousands -- which is what I would have lost had I not bailed in 2008

These geniuses fail to understand that it requires a 100% return on assets to get back to where you were before the market fell 50%.

They have bought into the Groupthink official narrative of the investment industry and must attack anyone thinking outside of that narrative.

K5 wrote:

Clearly I jumped out too early this time

/thread

Dawn lights on Marblehead wrote:

[quote]K5 wrote:

Clearly I jumped out too early this time

Jumping out too early is not a real problem.

It is jumping out too late -- or not at all -- where you really get hurt

That is true.

Agip and Flagpole are always beating the market

Lets steer away from the K5 bashing and talk about what is going to happen in the future. Things going to change in a few months? I think K5 might have been better off by adding a few months to his prediction...

asdfasfd wrote:

Lets steer away from the K5 bashing and talk about what is going to happen in the future. Things going to change in a few months? I think K5 might have been better off by adding a few months to his prediction...

I guess that could be fun.

But, if there were a consensus of the big money as to where the market will be in a few months then the market would already be there.

And if the 'experts' here on LRC understood the market better than the big money then they wouldn't be here on LRC.

So...

Hey, K5, can you create some more aliases? It's fun watching you try to fool us. As you say....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

asdfasfd wrote:

Lets steer away from the K5 bashing and talk about what is going to happen in the future. Things going to change in a few months? I think K5 might have been better off by adding a few months to his prediction...

ok.

I am very worried about US valuations - they are getting to the level where you need to back off.

So I am moving some of my money and my clients money to cheaper countries - italy, austria, spain, argentina, israel, ireland. But most countries are matererially cheaper than the US.

Emerging markets will probably be the best place to be for 5-10 yr money. almost cheap and they are growing.

the thing is, the world economy is doing fine - the question is how much of it is artificially pumped by artificially low interest rates.

I'll be in stocks until they fall below the 200 or 300 day moving averages, then I'll sell.

I'm still overweight stocks - if you usually have a 60/40 stock/bond mix, I'll do 70/30 now or even 75/25. Bonds just stink right now.

We no hoo u r wrote:

Hey, K5, can you create some more aliases? It's fun watching you try to fool us. As you say....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

If you think that I am K5 then you are very badly mistaken.

Im not K5. Agip, who are your clients? and do you seriously think the world economy is doing well? How much of the system is pumped up by low interest rates is really the BIG question and is relatively overlooked.