---

Sally Vix wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Some people are perfectly fine with their country or personally being fiscally irresponsible. To believe it continues without severe payback is neither rational or supported by market history. The mentality that it continues infinitely is necessary to create the greatest asset bubble ever. Everyone here is free to bet their investment dollars anyway they like. It is interesting that on the same day the TLT is up 1% while the SPY 1,18%.

---

yeah.

the problem I have these days is separating my age from the investment analysis.
I'm in my 50s now and I'm more concerned with preserving my wealth than building it up. So I get more worried about things, and more conservative. So my returns have been worse than they should have been the last few years.
I wonder if I were 30 and in this same economic environment I'd feel differently, less worried. Would I be more optimistic? I don't know.
Just seems that as we get older we get more worried, more pessimistic, and that makes us worse investors.
Talking about me specifically here.

---

There’s nothing wrong with being more conservative as you age. But the problem is too many investors get too conservative. The old adage of getting out of stocks in retirement is now considered folly. If you’re going to live to 85, or beyond, you’d be silly not to be at least 50%, and probably more, in the stock market in your 60s and early 70s. Buckets.

---

agip - the other day when you said you were close to retiring, I was thinking you are in your 60s. But you are in your 50s?!!! You are still young. Peter Lynch might have been one of the most well-regarded investors of all time and he said something like equities was the only way to go up until you are really getting close to retiring. agip - you are still young at 50-ish! I am 58 and have some target retirement funds with Vanguard but for the most part I am all in with equity mutual funds and ETFs. I really won't dial back until my late 60s or early70s.

---

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

And because the market has done so well in recent years, selling at 20-30-40% down still means you come out ahead.

---

---

agip wrote:

---

Sally Vix wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Some people are perfectly fine with their country or personally being fiscally irresponsible. To believe it continues without severe payback is neither rational or supported by market history. The mentality that it continues infinitely is necessary to create the greatest asset bubble ever. Everyone here is free to bet their investment dollars anyway they like. It is interesting that on the same day the TLT is up 1% while the SPY 1,18%.

---

yeah.

the problem I have these days is separating my age from the investment analysis.
I'm in my 50s now and I'm more concerned with preserving my wealth than building it up. So I get more worried about things, and more conservative. So my returns have been worse than they should have been the last few years.
I wonder if I were 30 and in this same economic environment I'd feel differently, less worried. Would I be more optimistic? I don't know.
Just seems that as we get older we get more worried, more pessimistic, and that makes us worse investors.
Talking about me specifically here.

---

There’s nothing wrong with being more conservative as you age. But the problem is too many investors get too conservative. The old adage of getting out of stocks in retirement is now considered folly. If you’re going to live to 85, or beyond, you’d be silly not to be at least 50%, and probably more, in the stock market in your 60s and early 70s. Buckets.

---

agip - the other day when you said you were close to retiring, I was thinking you are in your 60s. But you are in your 50s?!!! You are still young. Peter Lynch might have been one of the most well-regarded investors of all time and he said something like equities was the only way to go up until you are really getting close to retiring. agip - you are still young at 50-ish! I am 58 and have some target retirement funds with Vanguard but for the most part I am all in with equity mutual funds and ETFs. I really won't dial back until my late 60s or early70s.

---

Look, I'm still 63% in stocks. I haven't gone completely conservative yet. And I have enough money. I won. I don't want to have to work to pay the bills. I want to work if I want to work. So I can post on LRC without too much guilt of wasting time.

But here's the better reason for me to be more conservative...I just know that if the market falls 30% or 40% I won't wait it out. I'll sell some at 20% and then a whole lot more at 30% down. I'll not want to risk losing my nest egg. So better not to be in the situation where a bear market in stocks can do that kind of damage to me. I'll take the lower return if it keeps me from 30% and 40% drawdowns.

---

---

agip wrote:

I suppose the counter argument to that is how pessimistic millennials and Gen Zs are. They really don't like to invest, from my experience. They think the world is ending.

---

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

And because the market has done so well in recent years, selling at 20-30-40% down still means you come out ahead.

---

Not sure if that is true since you have to go back up 40-60-80% to get back to even. Most investors will keep waiting for an optimum time to sell and it drops further. I have been in this business long enough to see financial advisors freak in a bad market....no difference, human nature.

---

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

And because the market has done so well in recent years, selling at 20-30-40% down still means you come out ahead.

---

Not sure if that is true since you have to go back up 40-60-80% to get back to even. Most investors will keep waiting for an optimum time to sell and it drops further. I have been in this business long enough to see financial advisors freak in a bad market....no difference, human nature.

---

Of course it’s true. The markets have quadrupled since 2009. If you lost 50%, you’d still have doubled your money.

---

---

Racket wrote:

---

agip wrote:

I suppose the counter argument to that is how pessimistic millennials and Gen Zs are. They really don't like to invest, from my experience. They think the world is ending.

---

Not sure about "the world ending," but a lot of my friends are just waiting for an actual correction to buy in. Equities aren't exactly cheap these days and a bunch of people salivate at the thought of buying a 2008 style dip and then ride it up for 10 years. What does current investment promise? 2%, maybe 3% gain when we're already approaching record long expansion?

Not saying that's the right attitude, but you gotta see investing from the perspective of millennials. They either don't trust Wall Street or want what all you boomers got : the dip buying opportunity of a lifetime.

---

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

And because the market has done so well in recent years, selling at 20-30-40% down still means you come out ahead.

---

Not sure if that is true since you have to go back up 40-60-80% to get back to even. Most investors will keep waiting for an optimum time to sell and it drops further. I have been in this business long enough to see financial advisors freak in a bad market....no difference, human nature.

---

Of course it’s true. The markets have quadrupled since 2009. If you lost 50%, you’d still have doubled your money.

---

---

seattle prattle wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

Sally Vix wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Some people are perfectly fine with their country or personally being fiscally irresponsible. To believe it continues without severe payback is neither rational or supported by market history. The mentality that it continues infinitely is necessary to create the greatest asset bubble ever. Everyone here is free to bet their investment dollars anyway they like. It is interesting that on the same day the TLT is up 1% while the SPY 1,18%.

---

yeah.

the problem I have these days is separating my age from the investment analysis.
I'm in my 50s now and I'm more concerned with preserving my wealth than building it up. So I get more worried about things, and more conservative. So my returns have been worse than they should have been the last few years.
I wonder if I were 30 and in this same economic environment I'd feel differently, less worried. Would I be more optimistic? I don't know.
Just seems that as we get older we get more worried, more pessimistic, and that makes us worse investors.
Talking about me specifically here.

---

There’s nothing wrong with being more conservative as you age. But the problem is too many investors get too conservative. The old adage of getting out of stocks in retirement is now considered folly. If you’re going to live to 85, or beyond, you’d be silly not to be at least 50%, and probably more, in the stock market in your 60s and early 70s. Buckets.

---

agip - the other day when you said you were close to retiring, I was thinking you are in your 60s. But you are in your 50s?!!! You are still young. Peter Lynch might have been one of the most well-regarded investors of all time and he said something like equities was the only way to go up until you are really getting close to retiring. agip - you are still young at 50-ish! I am 58 and have some target retirement funds with Vanguard but for the most part I am all in with equity mutual funds and ETFs. I really won't dial back until my late 60s or early70s.

---

Look, I'm still 63% in stocks. I haven't gone completely conservative yet. And I have enough money. I won. I don't want to have to work to pay the bills. I want to work if I want to work. So I can post on LRC without too much guilt of wasting time.

But here's the better reason for me to be more conservative...I just know that if the market falls 30% or 40% I won't wait it out. I'll sell some at 20% and then a whole lot more at 30% down. I'll not want to risk losing my nest egg. So better not to be in the situation where a bear market in stocks can do that kind of damage to me. I'll take the lower return if it keeps me from 30% and 40% drawdowns.

---

Understood. As an alternative approach that i use, I just would sell on the way down, like you would in the theoretical above. But when it rebounds, i buy back in. Yes, I sometimes may be a little bit lagging, and hence losing a little, but i only lose a relatively little, and i write that off as insurance from a more precipitous loss.
In reality, though, it may even out (in that the first few sell orders allow ample time to buy back in on the rebound).

---

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

And because the market has done so well in recent years, selling at 20-30-40% down still means you come out ahead.

---

Not sure if that is true since you have to go back up 40-60-80% to get back to even. Most investors will keep waiting for an optimum time to sell and it drops further. I have been in this business long enough to see financial advisors freak in a bad market....no difference, human nature.

---

Of course it’s true. The markets have quadrupled since 2009. If you lost 50%, you’d still have doubled your money.

---

Let’s put some perspective on your theory. $100,000 portfolio, 60% stocks, 40% bonds. Assume value of bonds stay the same. The investor has a cute plan to sell 10% of original principal when down 20%, 15% when down 30%, and 20% when down 40%. All sales can come from anywhere. Selling portfolio 20% down $100,000-$10,000 = $90,000 portfolio; 30% down $90,000-$15,000 = $75,000; 40% down $75,000-$20,000 = $55,000. Portfolio loses 45% and will require 90% return to get back to even. If the sales were from the stock bucket alone that would make getting back to even that more difficult.

---

---

agip wrote:

---

Sally Vix wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Some people are perfectly fine with their country or personally being fiscally irresponsible. To believe it continues without severe payback is neither rational or supported by market history. The mentality that it continues infinitely is necessary to create the greatest asset bubble ever. Everyone here is free to bet their investment dollars anyway they like. It is interesting that on the same day the TLT is up 1% while the SPY 1,18%.

---

yeah.

the problem I have these days is separating my age from the investment analysis.
I'm in my 50s now and I'm more concerned with preserving my wealth than building it up. So I get more worried about things, and more conservative. So my returns have been worse than they should have been the last few years.
I wonder if I were 30 and in this same economic environment I'd feel differently, less worried. Would I be more optimistic? I don't know.
Just seems that as we get older we get more worried, more pessimistic, and that makes us worse investors.
Talking about me specifically here.

---

There’s nothing wrong with being more conservative as you age. But the problem is too many investors get too conservative. The old adage of getting out of stocks in retirement is now considered folly. If you’re going to live to 85, or beyond, you’d be silly not to be at least 50%, and probably more, in the stock market in your 60s and early 70s. Buckets.

---

agip - the other day when you said you were close to retiring, I was thinking you are in your 60s. But you are in your 50s?!!! You are still young. Peter Lynch might have been one of the most well-regarded investors of all time and he said something like equities was the only way to go up until you are really getting close to retiring. agip - you are still young at 50-ish! I am 58 and have some target retirement funds with Vanguard but for the most part I am all in with equity mutual funds and ETFs. I really won't dial back until my late 60s or early70s.

---

Look, I'm still 63% in stocks. I haven't gone completely conservative yet. And I have enough money. I won. I don't want to have to work to pay the bills. I want to work if I want to work. So I can post on LRC without too much guilt of wasting time.

But here's the better reason for me to be more conservative...I just know that if the market falls 30% or 40% I won't wait it out. I'll sell some at 20% and then a whole lot more at 30% down. I'll not want to risk losing my nest egg. So better not to be in the situation where a bear market in stocks can do that kind of damage to me. I'll take the lower return if it keeps me from 30% and 40% drawdowns.

---

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

And because the market has done so well in recent years, selling at 20-30-40% down still means you come out ahead.

---

Not sure if that is true since you have to go back up 40-60-80% to get back to even. Most investors will keep waiting for an optimum time to sell and it drops further. I have been in this business long enough to see financial advisors freak in a bad market....no difference, human nature.

---

Of course it’s true. The markets have quadrupled since 2009. If you lost 50%, you’d still have doubled your money.

---

Let’s put some perspective on your theory. $100,000 portfolio, 60% stocks, 40% bonds. Assume value of bonds stay the same. The investor has a cute plan to sell 10% of original principal when down 20%, 15% when down 30%, and 20% when down 40%. All sales can come from anywhere. Selling portfolio 20% down $100,000-$10,000 = $90,000 portfolio; 30% down $90,000-$15,000 = $75,000; 40% down $75,000-$20,000 = $55,000. Portfolio loses 45% and will require 90% return to get back to even. If the sales were from the stock bucket alone that would make getting back to even that more difficult.

---

You’re the only one talking about “getting back to even”. That had nothing to do with the original premise.

Where’s that straw man guy when you need him?

---

---

agip wrote:

---

seattle prattle wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

Sally Vix wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Some people are perfectly fine with their country or personally being fiscally irresponsible. To believe it continues without severe payback is neither rational or supported by market history. The mentality that it continues infinitely is necessary to create the greatest asset bubble ever. Everyone here is free to bet their investment dollars anyway they like. It is interesting that on the same day the TLT is up 1% while the SPY 1,18%.

---

yeah.

the problem I have these days is separating my age from the investment analysis.
I'm in my 50s now and I'm more concerned with preserving my wealth than building it up. So I get more worried about things, and more conservative. So my returns have been worse than they should have been the last few years.
I wonder if I were 30 and in this same economic environment I'd feel differently, less worried. Would I be more optimistic? I don't know.
Just seems that as we get older we get more worried, more pessimistic, and that makes us worse investors.
Talking about me specifically here.

---

There’s nothing wrong with being more conservative as you age. But the problem is too many investors get too conservative. The old adage of getting out of stocks in retirement is now considered folly. If you’re going to live to 85, or beyond, you’d be silly not to be at least 50%, and probably more, in the stock market in your 60s and early 70s. Buckets.

---

agip - the other day when you said you were close to retiring, I was thinking you are in your 60s. But you are in your 50s?!!! You are still young. Peter Lynch might have been one of the most well-regarded investors of all time and he said something like equities was the only way to go up until you are really getting close to retiring. agip - you are still young at 50-ish! I am 58 and have some target retirement funds with Vanguard but for the most part I am all in with equity mutual funds and ETFs. I really won't dial back until my late 60s or early70s.

---

Look, I'm still 63% in stocks. I haven't gone completely conservative yet. And I have enough money. I won. I don't want to have to work to pay the bills. I want to work if I want to work. So I can post on LRC without too much guilt of wasting time.

But here's the better reason for me to be more conservative...I just know that if the market falls 30% or 40% I won't wait it out. I'll sell some at 20% and then a whole lot more at 30% down. I'll not want to risk losing my nest egg. So better not to be in the situation where a bear market in stocks can do that kind of damage to me. I'll take the lower return if it keeps me from 30% and 40% drawdowns.

---

Understood. As an alternative approach that i use, I just would sell on the way down, like you would in the theoretical above. But when it rebounds, i buy back in. Yes, I sometimes may be a little bit lagging, and hence losing a little, but i only lose a relatively little, and i write that off as insurance from a more precipitous loss.
In reality, though, it may even out (in that the first few sell orders allow ample time to buy back in on the rebound).

---

In theory I will sell when stocks puncture the 200 day moving average and buy back in when they rise back above.
I probably will not be disciplined enough to do that correctly.

---

---

seattle prattle wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

seattle prattle wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

Sally Vix wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Some people are perfectly fine with their country or personally being fiscally irresponsible. To believe it continues without severe payback is neither rational or supported by market history. The mentality that it continues infinitely is necessary to create the greatest asset bubble ever. Everyone here is free to bet their investment dollars anyway they like. It is interesting that on the same day the TLT is up 1% while the SPY 1,18%.

---

yeah.

the problem I have these days is separating my age from the investment analysis.
I'm in my 50s now and I'm more concerned with preserving my wealth than building it up. So I get more worried about things, and more conservative. So my returns have been worse than they should have been the last few years.
I wonder if I were 30 and in this same economic environment I'd feel differently, less worried. Would I be more optimistic? I don't know.
Just seems that as we get older we get more worried, more pessimistic, and that makes us worse investors.
Talking about me specifically here.

---

There’s nothing wrong with being more conservative as you age. But the problem is too many investors get too conservative. The old adage of getting out of stocks in retirement is now considered folly. If you’re going to live to 85, or beyond, you’d be silly not to be at least 50%, and probably more, in the stock market in your 60s and early 70s. Buckets.

---

agip - the other day when you said you were close to retiring, I was thinking you are in your 60s. But you are in your 50s?!!! You are still young. Peter Lynch might have been one of the most well-regarded investors of all time and he said something like equities was the only way to go up until you are really getting close to retiring. agip - you are still young at 50-ish! I am 58 and have some target retirement funds with Vanguard but for the most part I am all in with equity mutual funds and ETFs. I really won't dial back until my late 60s or early70s.

---

Look, I'm still 63% in stocks. I haven't gone completely conservative yet. And I have enough money. I won. I don't want to have to work to pay the bills. I want to work if I want to work. So I can post on LRC without too much guilt of wasting time.

But here's the better reason for me to be more conservative...I just know that if the market falls 30% or 40% I won't wait it out. I'll sell some at 20% and then a whole lot more at 30% down. I'll not want to risk losing my nest egg. So better not to be in the situation where a bear market in stocks can do that kind of damage to me. I'll take the lower return if it keeps me from 30% and 40% drawdowns.

---

Understood. As an alternative approach that i use, I just would sell on the way down, like you would in the theoretical above. But when it rebounds, i buy back in. Yes, I sometimes may be a little bit lagging, and hence losing a little, but i only lose a relatively little, and i write that off as insurance from a more precipitous loss.
In reality, though, it may even out (in that the first few sell orders allow ample time to buy back in on the rebound).

---

In theory I will sell when stocks puncture the 200 day moving average and buy back in when they rise back above.
I probably will not be disciplined enough to do that correctly.

---

Thanks, and I'm going to check into this. I see Simple Moving Average on my brokerage charts but will need to dig a little deeper...

---

---

Maserati wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

Sally Vix wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Some people are perfectly fine with their country or personally being fiscally irresponsible. To believe it continues without severe payback is neither rational or supported by market history. The mentality that it continues infinitely is necessary to create the greatest asset bubble ever. Everyone here is free to bet their investment dollars anyway they like. It is interesting that on the same day the TLT is up 1% while the SPY 1,18%.

---

yeah.

the problem I have these days is separating my age from the investment analysis.
I'm in my 50s now and I'm more concerned with preserving my wealth than building it up. So I get more worried about things, and more conservative. So my returns have been worse than they should have been the last few years.
I wonder if I were 30 and in this same economic environment I'd feel differently, less worried. Would I be more optimistic? I don't know.
Just seems that as we get older we get more worried, more pessimistic, and that makes us worse investors.
Talking about me specifically here.

---

There’s nothing wrong with being more conservative as you age. But the problem is too many investors get too conservative. The old adage of getting out of stocks in retirement is now considered folly. If you’re going to live to 85, or beyond, you’d be silly not to be at least 50%, and probably more, in the stock market in your 60s and early 70s. Buckets.

---

agip - the other day when you said you were close to retiring, I was thinking you are in your 60s. But you are in your 50s?!!! You are still young. Peter Lynch might have been one of the most well-regarded investors of all time and he said something like equities was the only way to go up until you are really getting close to retiring. agip - you are still young at 50-ish! I am 58 and have some target retirement funds with Vanguard but for the most part I am all in with equity mutual funds and ETFs. I really won't dial back until my late 60s or early70s.

---

Look, I'm still 63% in stocks. I haven't gone completely conservative yet. And I have enough money. I won. I don't want to have to work to pay the bills. I want to work if I want to work. So I can post on LRC without too much guilt of wasting time.

But here's the better reason for me to be more conservative...I just know that if the market falls 30% or 40% I won't wait it out. I'll sell some at 20% and then a whole lot more at 30% down. I'll not want to risk losing my nest egg. So better not to be in the situation where a bear market in stocks can do that kind of damage to me. I'll take the lower return if it keeps me from 30% and 40% drawdowns.

---

I’m the same way, only more responsive because I’ve never been a b&h guy. I too have won, but I also have seen others who won go down the tubes in ‘00 and ‘08. So easy to do. You can survive even if you are only in 50%, but who the heck wants that? Old guy thinking, indeed. I think we’re the same age agip, and I’m in only a bit north of 3%—and nothing fancy at the moment, just straight mega-cap equities, overwhelmingly US. No futures, no shorts, no options, no forex, nothing.

I YEARN for a 50% drop and am ready for it, but I know it won’t happen any time soon. Millennials will have a long wait on their hands. Many of them plan to inherit, lol. I am 52 and not a boomer, but I have a boomer father-in-law with money, who will no doubt burn through it and end up living with us. Incredible burn rate, living in Hawaiian beach penthouses at height of season, a real a-hole. Inheritance is, unfortunately, not the option that many might believe.

I continue to ask what will drive markets to good returns in the future. Organic growth? Yes some in Africa and maybe Asia, but not really. A new sector? Cannabis? Beats me what it will be. Inflation of a new asset class? Which one?

It will be a stock picker’s game, for those wanting alpha. In that environment, setting up and running your own business starts to make sense. I have toyed with making private loans as a business, and it showed some promise, but I didn’t want to continue. Markets are just so easy in comparison.

I find myself considering CD ladders just to stay even. Elsewhere in the world there are profitable REIT’s, and even the equivalent of structured investment vehicles.

I might just stick to utilities, CD’s, alcohol, and tobacco. Old man stuff😁👍

---

---

seattle prattle wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

seattle prattle wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

Sally Vix wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Some people are perfectly fine with their country or personally being fiscally irresponsible. To believe it continues without severe payback is neither rational or supported by market history. The mentality that it continues infinitely is necessary to create the greatest asset bubble ever. Everyone here is free to bet their investment dollars anyway they like. It is interesting that on the same day the TLT is up 1% while the SPY 1,18%.

---

yeah.

the problem I have these days is separating my age from the investment analysis.
I'm in my 50s now and I'm more concerned with preserving my wealth than building it up. So I get more worried about things, and more conservative. So my returns have been worse than they should have been the last few years.
I wonder if I were 30 and in this same economic environment I'd feel differently, less worried. Would I be more optimistic? I don't know.
Just seems that as we get older we get more worried, more pessimistic, and that makes us worse investors.
Talking about me specifically here.

---

There’s nothing wrong with being more conservative as you age. But the problem is too many investors get too conservative. The old adage of getting out of stocks in retirement is now considered folly. If you’re going to live to 85, or beyond, you’d be silly not to be at least 50%, and probably more, in the stock market in your 60s and early 70s. Buckets.

---

agip - the other day when you said you were close to retiring, I was thinking you are in your 60s. But you are in your 50s?!!! You are still young. Peter Lynch might have been one of the most well-regarded investors of all time and he said something like equities was the only way to go up until you are really getting close to retiring. agip - you are still young at 50-ish! I am 58 and have some target retirement funds with Vanguard but for the most part I am all in with equity mutual funds and ETFs. I really won't dial back until my late 60s or early70s.

---

Look, I'm still 63% in stocks. I haven't gone completely conservative yet. And I have enough money. I won. I don't want to have to work to pay the bills. I want to work if I want to work. So I can post on LRC without too much guilt of wasting time.

But here's the better reason for me to be more conservative...I just know that if the market falls 30% or 40% I won't wait it out. I'll sell some at 20% and then a whole lot more at 30% down. I'll not want to risk losing my nest egg. So better not to be in the situation where a bear market in stocks can do that kind of damage to me. I'll take the lower return if it keeps me from 30% and 40% drawdowns.

---

Understood. As an alternative approach that i use, I just would sell on the way down, like you would in the theoretical above. But when it rebounds, i buy back in. Yes, I sometimes may be a little bit lagging, and hence losing a little, but i only lose a relatively little, and i write that off as insurance from a more precipitous loss.
In reality, though, it may even out (in that the first few sell orders allow ample time to buy back in on the rebound).

---

In theory I will sell when stocks puncture the 200 day moving average and buy back in when they rise back above.
I probably will not be disciplined enough to do that correctly.

---

Thanks, and I'm going to check into this. I see Simple Moving Average on my brokerage charts but will need to dig a little deeper...

---

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

---

Financial Advisor wrote:

And because the market has done so well in recent years, selling at 20-30-40% down still means you come out ahead.

---

Not sure if that is true since you have to go back up 40-60-80% to get back to even. Most investors will keep waiting for an optimum time to sell and it drops further. I have been in this business long enough to see financial advisors freak in a bad market....no difference, human nature.

---

Of course it’s true. The markets have quadrupled since 2009. If you lost 50%, you’d still have doubled your money.

---

Let’s put some perspective on your theory. $100,000 portfolio, 60% stocks, 40% bonds. Assume value of bonds stay the same. The investor has a cute plan to sell 10% of original principal when down 20%, 15% when down 30%, and 20% when down 40%. All sales can come from anywhere. Selling portfolio 20% down $100,000-$10,000 = $90,000 portfolio; 30% down $90,000-$15,000 = $75,000; 40% down $75,000-$20,000 = $55,000. Portfolio loses 45% and will require 90% return to get back to even. If the sales were from the stock bucket alone that would make getting back to even that more difficult.

---

You’re the only one talking about “getting back to even”. That had nothing to do with the original premise.

Where’s that straw man guy when you need him?

---

As I pointed out to you and you ignored, if the starting point is March 9, 2000 S&P 500 666, you are taking the index back to something like June 1995. So you can’t have it both ways.

---