Oh what a nasty Muppet.
Oh what a nasty Muppet.
my simple interpretation of 'cash on the sidelines' is similar to Wikipedia's.
In layman's terms, it simply means that at any given time, i am holding a higher percentage of cash than usual, or other assets that are not equities, but with the intent of using them to buy stocks when i feel the time is right. Yes, someone will have to sell them, and if other's are thinking similar to me, the demand goes up and so does the price per share of the stock.
Honestly, i am having a hard time understanding how this isn't fairly self-evident.
seattle prattle wrote:
my simple interpretation of 'cash on the sidelines' is similar to Wikipedia's.
In layman's terms, it simply means that at any given time, i am holding a higher percentage of cash than usual, or other assets that are not equities, but with the intent of using them to buy stocks when i feel the time is right. Yes, someone will have to sell them, and if other's are thinking similar to me, the demand goes up and so does the price per share of the stock.
Honestly, i am having a hard time understanding how this isn't fairly self-evident.
You are self-evidently reinforcing a myth. There is no mountain of cash the mythically moves into the market on some buy signal. It is the urgency to buy or sell that moves investors to extremes, not quantities of cash or lack there of.
I have cash on the sideline, though less than I had before the recent dip.
Big Dog Investments wrote:
I have cash on the sideline, though less than I had before the recent dip.
Have some guts and move all your sidelines cash in. Have some conviction. Buy AMZN it’s “cheap.”
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
my simple interpretation of 'cash on the sidelines' is similar to Wikipedia's.
In layman's terms, it simply means that at any given time, i am holding a higher percentage of cash than usual, or other assets that are not equities, but with the intent of using them to buy stocks when i feel the time is right. Yes, someone will have to sell them, and if other's are thinking similar to me, the demand goes up and so does the price per share of the stock.
Honestly, i am having a hard time understanding how this isn't fairly self-evident.
You are self-evidently reinforcing a myth. There is no mountain of cash the mythically moves into the market on some buy signal. It is the urgency to buy or sell that moves investors to extremes, not quantities of cash or lack there of.
I don't know what you are talking about. And no one said anything about mountains of cash. Your rush to superlatives undermines the basic assertion that cash on the sidelines simply refers to the percentage of a portfolio held in a cash position or similar non-equity asset.
OK, whatever. I presented enough evidence to prove my point.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Big Dog Investments wrote:
I have cash on the sideline, though less than I had before the recent dip.
Have some guts and move all your sidelines cash in. Have some conviction. Buy AMZN it’s “cheap.”
So says the guy that owns 0 shares of HSGFX.
My portfolio is more in-line HSGFX than your portfolio is with TNA.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
My portfolio is more in-line HSGFX than your portfolio is with TNA.
How's that working out for you?
I bet I have done better this year than you.
YTD my most of mine done well with the ETFs about flat or down a couple of percent. And by well, i mean double digit.
How about you?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
My portfolio is more in-line HSGFX than your portfolio is with TNA.
You’re bragging about that? I thought you were a financial planner or something. I guess not.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
OK, whatever. I presented enough evidence to prove my point.
It must come down to semantics as I still don’t understand.
I currently am 30% in stocks. If the market drops more than 20%, I’m going to move some of that 70% back into stocks. To me, that 70% is on the sidelines so to speak. Again, it must be some semantic argument for why that isn’t technically correct.
seattle prattle wrote:
YTD my most of mine done well with the ETFs about flat or down a couple of percent. And by well, i mean double digit.
How about you?
Seattle,
You are doing better than me, good job.
Igy
wait what wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
My portfolio is more in-line HSGFX than your portfolio is with TNA.
You’re bragging about that? I thought you were a financial planner or something. I guess not.
If your within two years to retirement you should be conservative. Hey, but believe what you wish.
Whatever ... waiting for a drop wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
OK, whatever. I presented enough evidence to prove my point.
It must come down to semantics as I still don’t understand.
I currently am 30% in stocks. If the market drops more than 20%, I’m going to move some of that 70% back into stocks. To me, that 70% is on the sidelines so to speak. Again, it must be some semantic argument for why that isn’t technically correct.
This subject is about exhausted, but one more comment. The financial media talks about “cash on the sidelines” as if there is this unusual fuel that will propell the market higher once deployed. That is simply not true. That does not mean it is not true for you and just cannnot be true generally.
People are free to believe whatever they wish.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
YTD my most of mine done well with the ETFs about flat or down a couple of percent. And by well, i mean double digit.
How about you?
Seattle,
You are doing better than me, good job.
Igy
Sorry miss read, up 2+%. Mostly CD ladder. Better days when the market is down because of short position.
Regarding the “cash on the sidelines” discussion: It seems that most of you are looking at this from the viewpoint of individual investors while Igy’s viewpoint is a comprehensive one of the markets. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
Home Depot reports earnings on Tuesday. I feel like they'll end up lowering guidance and drop 10%