Down goes the Dow

Actually not, since your TBF position is leveraged to duration. If interest rates ever move up you are screwed two ways. But OK, whatever you think.

I'm not holding any TBF.

If interest rates goes up, I won't be screwed. If interest rates goes up, that will mean my equity will be performing well. Fed won't raise the interest rates unless the stock market is performing well.

Earnings Scorecard: For Q3 2020 (with 4 of the companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results), 4 S&P 500 companies have reported a positive EPS surprise and 4 have reported a positive revenue surprise.

Strange, for some reason no one is interested in posting about stock investing. Who could have figured?

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Strange, for some reason no one is interested in posting about stock investing. Who could have figured?

This entire thread is about stock investing. Try to keep up.

agip wrote:

[quote]David Wowie wrote:

[quote]agip wrote:

Just took my stock exposure to 59% - that's the lowest ever for me.

Which is not crazy since I've never been this old before , but feels significant.

I am at 15% in equities.

All Tesla.

heh that's ah not a statistically probable success.

Why not?

I am protecting 85% of my liquid assets as I am near retirement.

And with that 15% I am taking a flyer.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

My career as a financial advisor ends October 1st. I will have to suffer driving my Porsche Cayman well into my 80s. The good thing is, I am still flexible enough to get in and out of it. I hope you are able to do the same at my age, young whipper snapper.

Honest question - why not just get the 911? The Boxster makes sense to me since that's significantly less than a 911 but the Caymen is in a weird spot where it just seems like you'd be way happier if you just go for the real deal - on a used one of course. New 911s have become stupid expensive. But I bet a 996 could be had for good price

Racket wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

My career as a financial advisor ends October 1st. I will have to suffer driving my Porsche Cayman well into my 80s. The good thing is, I am still flexible enough to get in and out of it. I hope you are able to do the same at my age, young whipper snapper.

Honest question - why not just get the 911? The Boxster makes sense to me since that's significantly less than a 911 but the Caymen is in a weird spot where it just seems like you'd be way happier if you just go for the real deal - on a used one of course. New 911s have become stupid expensive. But I bet a 996 could be had for good price

I like to give Ghost of Igloi with hard time on the Cayman, but it’s a great sports car. Cayman and Boxster are similar so I’m not sure why cayman is in a weird sport but Boxster is significantly less than 911. Cayman is a sports car and 911 is a grand tourer. Especially, today’s 911, they have grown to be big which makes it a great all arounder where it can drive fast but comfortable on long drives.

Cayman is a dedicated sports car, better handling.

First edition Cayman and 996 are comparable in price and it depends on which you prefer. 996 will be more dated but some may prefer that. Some don’t like the headlights. There’s the IMS scare but probably overblown.

I am not a Porsche aficionado, but here is my experience and opinion. Around the time I graduated high school (1968) the gymnastic coach had a new red Porsche 911. I fell in love with that car. In the fall of 2015 a friend was selling a low mileage Mercedes, and offered it to me at a very good price. It was his father’s car, immaculate. My wife said, rather than that car, “buy what you want.” So I began shopping, locally and throughout the United States. When you buy out of state, even new, you run into a host of problems, licensing, financing, and transportation. Working through my local dealer proved to be a savings, avoiding several mistakes, and coordinating with local lenders.

The Boxster is the entry level sports car ($55k), and is a convertible Cayman. The Cayman starts at about $10k more, and goes above $100k for GTS. Both the Boxter and Cayman are mid-engine cars, where the motor is behind the seats. Access to check oil and fluids is behind the rear hatch-back. The cornering in my Cayman is exceptional, and some prefer for that reason to the 911. The body style of the Cayman is superior to the 911, in my opinion. For that reason alone, I never considered a 911. I purchased my Cayman in the fall of 2015, a 2016 model year. I ordered a manual transmission because I wanted a tradition sports car experience. For interior tan, black exterior, and PCS package with navigation. The black exterior typically comes with silver interior, and the manual transmission is more of a rarity these days, most preferring the paddle shifters with launch automatic. Model year 2016 was the last year of the in-line six cylinder engine. Subsequent years are four cylinder overhead cams. That also factored in my decision, my 2016 arrived in February of that year.

On new versus used, Porsche considers demos, or USA headquarters cars with fewer than 4,500 miles as new. You can see these cars at Porsche dealerships discounted several thousand dollars. A true pre-owned car depreciates, but less than which lenders consider. Therefore financing is both at a lower loan to value, and higher interest. I financed at 2.875%, and the vehicle will be paid off early in 2021.

My wife’s name is Portia, and that was available for a vanity plate. My family nixed the idea, but I have to admit I considered it. The car gets glances from women and compliments from men, and often. It does sit low to the ground so you need to watch corners, dips, and stay flexible. Not for the physically challenged. A man’s car.

Maintenance is expensive at the dealer, odd years about $750 and even years $2,000. If you need body repair, do it at Porsche certified shops. It preserves value for Porsche particular owners.

Fun car. I’ll probably keep until I croak, or can’t get in or out of it. Here it is days after I brought it home.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

https://twitter.com/jessefelder/status/1307386377907171331

The same could have been said 10 years ago. How did that work out?

sweet ride, Igy.

I'm thinking of splurging on a car...probably a vintage something or other, if it happens.

David Wowie wrote:

agip wrote:

[quote]David Wowie wrote:

[quote]agip wrote:

Just took my stock exposure to 59% - that's the lowest ever for me.

Which is not crazy since I've never been this old before , but feels significant.

I am at 15% in equities.

All Tesla.

heh that's ah not a statistically probable success.

Why not?

I am protecting 85% of my liquid assets as I am near retirement.

And with that 15% I am taking a flyer.

because putting 15% of your portfolio into a single, highly volatile, barely profitable company with a PE of over 100 usually won't work.

Basic diversification skills and avoidance of crowded trades.

Punter wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

https://twitter.com/jessefelder/status/1307386377907171331

The same could have been said 10 years ago. How did that work out?

nah there is a core difference - bonds have hit near 0 yields. Unless we have severe deflation and highly negative interest rates, the 60/40 portfolio won't have as high returns in the future.

Not that the 60/40 is useless...the bonds will still protect your capital, but they won't provide returns necessary to match historical returns of the 60/40.

In my clients' portfolios I'm cutting back on their recommended spending totals because of this. Bonds are paying less than inflation. That's not how this is supposed to work.

agip wrote:

sweet ride, Igy.

I'm thinking of splurging on a car...probably a vintage something or other, if it happens.

agip,

Thanks. My son and I restored a 59 Chevy when he was in high school. It was a fun project. I also rebuilt a couple of engines on personal vehicles when I was coaching. I had my years as a shade tree mechanic. I wanted something that would not be a garage queen, at the same time enjoy the comforts of a late model, but drove vintage. I think I came close to that. My wife and I have taken it on two road trips, and plan to do more when life returns to normal.

Igy

agip wrote:

Punter wrote:

The same could have been said 10 years ago. How did that work out?

nah there is a core difference - bonds have hit near 0 yields. Unless we have severe deflation and highly negative interest rates, the 60/40 portfolio won't have as high returns in the future.

Not that the 60/40 is useless...the bonds will still protect your capital, but they won't provide returns necessary to match historical returns of the 60/40.

In my clients' portfolios I'm cutting back on their recommended spending totals because of this. Bonds are paying less than inflation. That's not how this is supposed to work.

agip,

I see that all as a risk to portfolio construction. Some advocate the heavy use of alternatives, and I went to as much as 15%. However, in tough times, correlations go 1-1. Therefore, unfortunately went to higher levels of short term bonds.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

agip wrote:

nah there is a core difference - bonds have hit near 0 yields. Unless we have severe deflation and highly negative interest rates, the 60/40 portfolio won't have as high returns in the future.

Not that the 60/40 is useless...the bonds will still protect your capital, but they won't provide returns necessary to match historical returns of the 60/40.

In my clients' portfolios I'm cutting back on their recommended spending totals because of this. Bonds are paying less than inflation. That's not how this is supposed to work.

agip,

I see that all as a risk to portfolio construction. Some advocate the heavy use of alternatives, and I went to as much as 15%. However, in tough times, correlations go 1-1. Therefore, unfortunately went to higher levels of short term bonds.

Igy

My sympathies.

agip wrote:

David Wowie wrote:

heh that's ah not a statistically probable success.

Why not?

I am protecting 85% of my liquid assets as I am near retirement.

And with that 15% I am taking a flyer.

because putting 15% of your portfolio into a single, highly volatile, barely profitable company with a PE of over 100 usually won't work.

Basic diversification skills and avoidance of crowded trades.

But it has worked very nicely.

Totally protected from a market collapse with 85% of my assets in govt bonds and govt insured cds. Plus my return on Tesla is equal to what my return would have been had I put 60% of my assets into diversified equities.

Diversification don't do shite when the market goes into free fall.

David Wowie wrote:

agip wrote:

because putting 15% of your portfolio into a single, highly volatile, barely profitable company with a PE of over 100 usually won't work.

Basic diversification skills and avoidance of crowded trades.

But it has worked very nicely.

Totally protected from a market collapse with 85% of my assets in govt bonds and govt insured cds. Plus my return on Tesla is equal to what my return would have been had I put 60% of my assets into diversified equities.

Diversification don't do shite when the market goes into free fall.

well that's why I used terms like 'usually won't work' and 'not a statistically probable success'

but good on ya for making some money.