Invest With An Edge Weekly ... It's Only 3.4%!

Old_Skeet

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

It’s Only 3.4%

Ron Rowland

"Yesterday, the S&P 500 closed 3.4 percent below its all-time historical high. Bears are coming out of the woodwork, and media outlets are painting a grim picture. Although the modern day S&P 500 Index didn’t come into existence until 1957, Standard & Poor’s has been calculating an index of U.S. stocks since 1923. Dow Jones began the task in 1896. Today we have more than 14,000 days of S&P 500 history. That history extends to about 23,000 days if its predecessor is included and more than 29,000 days if you believe the Dow Jones Industrial Average was a good proxy 100 years ago."

One can read more of this weeks newsletter by clicking on the link below ...

http://investwithanedge.com/newsletter-archives/080614-its-only-3-4


Editing Note:

Recently there has been some issues brought forward about posting complete article content on the board over writing a brief blurb and then providing a link to the article.

The preferred way is to write a blurb and then post the link. Poster Mark called me out on this. With this, I have edited this post to reflect the site’s preferred way in hopes of maintaing harmony and conformability going forward.

I wish all ... "Good Investing."

Old_Skeet

Dex

Well yea - it has to go down 3.4% before it goes down 75%!

Mark

Old Skeet - I might be off the mark here but how is your posting of Mr. Rowland's article here any different than Teds posting of the Barron's articles? Granted you don't show the graphics that come with Mr. Rowland's weekly emails but to me they are one and the same.

I think you should just post some relevant comment or two and then direct the reader to Mr. Rowland's blog or website in the name of consistency at the very least. Granted he encourages distribution but to me it still quacks like a duck.

Old_Skeet

Hi Mark,

Scroll down until you come to the wording ... "Distribution is encouraged. Please do not alter content." Seems Mr. Rowland does not mind if his work gets sent on to others if one so desires. I have posted this, in this form, for a good while without an issue thus far. Sould posting this become an issue with David and/or Mr. Rowland ... I'll certainly follow their wishes and discontinue doing so.

Have a grand day!

Old_Skeet

Mark

Skeet, read the last sentence of my post. I still say your posting is salty no matter how you try to justify or rationalize it. End of my participation in this matter.

Old_Skeet

Hi Mark,

FYI ... I have asked David to make a call on this since you raised it as an issue. As I write I have not yet received his answer. I'll let you know ... when, I know.

Old_Skeet

JohnChisum

Old_Skeet,

The final word will be David's but I personally do not see any transgression here. That one sentence Mr. Rowland inserted into his commentary pretty much opens the door for sharing. He does not seem to be worried about page clicks on his site as there are no advertisers.

The only suggestion I might offer would be to add a link to his site as a courtesy in case someone wanted to sign up for their own copy of the letter.

Old_Skeet

Hi John,

In the past I have linked the newsletter as well as posted it in written form. Per your suggestion, I'll edit the post and add the link.

Old_Skeet

bee

O' Skeeter,

This article seemed up your "sleeve":
Income-Investing

Old_Skeet

Thanks bee for sending this my way. I plan to repost this under a differnt heading while at the same time noting this is something that you sent my way. And, yes my sleeve approach and their sleeve approach have something in common ... flexability.

Thanks again for sending this my way.

Old_Skeet

scott

Well, when you have policy that effectively forces volatility out of the market, when the market goes down 3.4%, people act like, "What is this red color? I thought green was only allowed now."