Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Cool! I maybe oughta check my brokerage for what's available: TRP. Once again, I do not recommend Israel Bonds for POLITICAL, ethical reasons. But if you can see your way past that, the rates and duration are damn good right now. Denominated in dollars.
JSpiegel say in CNBC earlier long term investors absolutely need dca /buy now Also S&P 500 down -24.8% YTD Since WWII, only 1974 and 2002 saw worse starts to a year. Sp500 good gain q4 both those yrs ( +7 8%) ... I am hopeful for better Q4, has been absolute bloodbaths last 12months
Maybe good buy more tip toes/test waters Got Tna and soxl assigned puts today.. Cover call leap Monday morning
“ … long term investors absolutely need dca /buy now.”
I suppose it depends on your definition of “long term investors” - among other things.
- If 25 years or more from retirement / needing the money one might ask why they are not already 100% in good equity funds.
- If we shorten the definition to mean 7-10 years from needing the money, I’d still argue for adding some equities at today’s levels, the degree of which dependent on the individual’s risk tolerance.
- Some folks consider only 3-5 years “long term”. With that short a time horizon the prospect of adding equities at today’s (still arguably elevated) valuations becomes much dicier. I probably would, but it’s far from a done deal.
Couple things to ponder re "stocks for the long run"...
article in Marketwatch, Statman, June 2017...
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Samuelson argued that the advocacy of time-diversification is built on framing errors that mislead investors into an illusory happy ending, as if the probability of losses over the long run is zero.
To understand the nature of these framing errors, consider an investor who invests $1,000 in a portfolio with a 50–50 chance to gain 20% or lose 10% each year, as laid out in Figure 1. The investor has a 50% probability of losing money if her horizon is one year, but she has only a 25% probability of losing money if it is two years.
If risk is framed as the probability of losing money, risk declines as the horizon increases, but if risk is framed as the amount of money that can be lost, risk increases as the horizon increases. The investor might lose $100 after one year, but she might lose more, $190, after two years.
from Wishful Thinking About the Risk of Stocks in the Long Run: Bodie, March 2020
By looking at the average rate of return rather than the amount of wealth at the end of the holding period, the impression is created that risk declines with the length of one’s time horizon. The standard deviation of the average rate of return declines with the length of the time horizon because it is an average.
The problem is that, although the principle of diversification works across securities and asset classes, it does not work over time. Even a highly diversified portfolio of stocks does not become safe in the long run. Yet here is the kind of thing customers are told on a typical website: Invest in stocks, either individually or in mutual funds, for long-term growth. While in any given year stocks can be more volatile than other investments, over time, they have typically outperformed all other types of investments while staying ahead of inflation. Stocks should be the core of a long-term investing strategy. If stocks are so great for the long run, then why don’t the same firms offering this advice offer a performance guarantee to pay at least what a customer contributes to a diversified equity portfolio adjusted for inflation? After all, the firm managing the fund is in a much better position to evaluate and manage the risk than the customer is. If the firm believes what it is saying, it ought to offer a free guarantee for its product. That’s what other industries do. Of course, option-pricing theory shows that such a guarantee is far from free.
My thoughts/questions/concerns" If stocks are "safer" in the long run why Puts cost more, the longer the strike date is? We as humans are not generally wired to hold thru large downdrafts...I saw many corporate types happlily retire in 06' then come crawling back begging for their old jobs in 09'...they weren't real happy, nor real motivated to say the least... Why sit thru the downdraft? Who cares if you leave some schekels on the table getting back in Even if I was 25 years old, I would max hold 65% stocks..first downdraft, you will sell, saw it over and over in 07', 08' with younger colleagues at work Markets since early 70s, have seen relatively political stability, rule of law, etc...things are looking kind of squirrely now at best...who knows what will happen
What is your advice for a 25 year old working individual who has a 401-K tax deferred option available at work and who does not expect to need to withdraw any funds for at least 40 years and who likely will not need all the funds for at least 50 years, assuming you would not advise investing a large portion, if any, in equities?
Where are you going with the lengthy diatribe directed towards equities? Would you advise such an individual to invest his or her retirement money instead in cash? In bonds? Divide it into cash, bonds and equities? Or to seek to time the markets? Would that all of us at 25 were so blessed with those market timing skills that we might glide easily in and out of the most “profitable” investments of the day over the next half century.
For some reference - 50 years ago the DJI was around 750. The hand held calculator hadn’t yet appeared on store shelves. Most of us watched black and white TV and the cassette player was about to replace the 8-track as state of the art music. A gallon of gas cost 25 cents. $3500 bought you an upscale sedan off a new car lot. A modest home in many areas sold for $20,000 - $25,000. Computers were the size of a room and generated immense heat - yet were less powerful than an iphone today. Your 1970s dollar’s buying power today? One shudders to think.
You said "We as humans are not generally wired to hold thru large downdrafts...I saw many corporate types happlily retire in 06' then come crawling back begging for their old jobs in 09'...they weren't real happy, nor real motivated to say the least...
Why sit thru the downdraft? Who cares if you leave some schekels on the table getting back in"
I believe most investors are generally wired to hold through large downdrafts in the market. Some would never admit that they might have possibly made a mistake in their investment choices while others will never accept the loss or sell at loss and will wait hopefully for the market to come back. Initially I did it myself but have readjusted my plays.
J. Zweig is smart. Thanks for that. Yes, I do believe that Buy&Hold is dead, if by that we mean "auto-pilotforever. i threw a slug into financials in 2022. I've been way too early. But why bail now? My decision is to wait for the inevitable dividends to arrive----- if not capital gains. Then I shall reassess.
Scratched an itch today, it was too hard to just watch it and do nothing. I added to two preferred shares I've held for a long time CHSCL ( 7.50%) and CHSCO ( 7.875%).
I often get up in the morning and the Market's already closed. I have a limit-order in. Might take a while to fill. NHYDY @ $5.50. Still building that position.
Scratched an itch today, it was too hard to just watch it and do nothing. I added to two preferred shares I've held for a long time CHSCL ( 7.50%) and CHSCO ( 7.875%).
Excellent holdings. I'm sorry I pulled out of them years ago, but one of them (N, I think) is sitll trading a tad below par, which has tempted me lately.
@rforno - CHSCN ( 7.10%) actually got down to $23.80 today but closed at $24.31. I'm not understanding why they're selling off when they usually trade at a premium to par.
Yeah but it’s move just started yesterday really. Still a good price I think. Giroux was recommending NXPI at $161. Earnings are coming up in next week or so so we’ll see. A lot of negativity baked in. Of course this is just my opinion … not a recommendation.
Added more SPY today major indexes trying form head-and-shoulder (little reversal) , moving above 50 days MA, maybe slow moon shots sp500 200 days MA ~4100.
I came out from under my rock long enough this morning to use a little cash to take a nibble at ORCC. The high income half (8% YOC) of the high yield sleeve (3% YOC) of the portfolio was a little underweight as of last weekend. (BDC's now make up about 5% of the portfolio.) No strong sense about where the markets might head next. So, its back into hiding for now.
Comments
Never owned a CD before. Would hope to really dive in at higher rates (over 5%) in these next few months.
Also S&P 500 down -24.8% YTD
Since WWII, only 1974 and 2002 saw worse starts to a year. Sp500 good gain q4 both those yrs ( +7 8%) ... I am hopeful for better Q4, has been absolute bloodbaths last 12months
Maybe good buy more tip toes/test waters
Got Tna and soxl assigned puts today.. Cover call leap Monday morning
“ … long term investors absolutely need dca /buy now.”
I suppose it depends on your definition of “long term investors” - among other things.
- If 25 years or more from retirement / needing the money one might ask why they are not already 100% in good equity funds.
- If we shorten the definition to mean 7-10 years from needing the money, I’d still argue for adding some equities at today’s levels, the degree of which dependent on the individual’s risk tolerance.
- Some folks consider only 3-5 years “long term”. With that short a time horizon the prospect of adding equities at today’s (still arguably elevated) valuations becomes much dicier. I probably would, but it’s far from a done deal.
(Not intended as advice)
article in Marketwatch, Statman, June 2017...
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Samuelson argued that the advocacy of time-diversification is built on framing errors that mislead investors into an illusory happy ending, as if the probability of losses over the long run is zero.
To understand the nature of these framing errors, consider an investor who invests $1,000 in a portfolio with a 50–50 chance to gain 20% or lose 10% each year, as laid out in Figure 1. The investor has a 50% probability of losing money if her horizon is one year, but she has only a 25% probability of losing money if it is two years.
If risk is framed as the probability of losing money, risk declines as the horizon increases, but if risk is framed as the amount of money that can be lost, risk increases as the horizon increases. The investor might lose $100 after one year, but she might lose more, $190, after two years.
from Wishful Thinking About the Risk of Stocks in the Long Run: Bodie, March 2020
By looking at the average rate of return rather than the amount of wealth at the end of the holding period, the impression is created that risk declines with the length of one’s time horizon. The standard deviation of the average rate of return declines with the length of the time horizon because it is an average.
The problem is that, although the principle of diversification works across securities and
asset classes, it does not work over time. Even a highly diversified portfolio of stocks does not become safe in the long run. Yet here is the kind of thing customers are told on a typical website: Invest in stocks, either individually or in mutual funds, for long-term growth. While in any given year stocks can be more volatile than other investments, over time, they have typically outperformed all other types of investments while staying ahead of inflation. Stocks should be the core of a long-term investing strategy. If stocks are so great for the long run, then why don’t the same firms offering this advice offer a performance guarantee to pay at least what a customer contributes to a diversified equity portfolio adjusted for inflation? After all, the firm managing the fund is in a much better position to evaluate and manage the risk than the customer is. If the firm believes what it is saying, it ought to offer a free guarantee for its product. That’s what other industries do. Of course, option-pricing theory shows that such a guarantee is far from free.
My thoughts/questions/concerns"
If stocks are "safer" in the long run why Puts cost more, the longer the strike date is?
We as humans are not generally wired to hold thru large downdrafts...I saw many corporate types happlily retire in 06' then come crawling back begging for their old jobs in 09'...they weren't real happy, nor real motivated to say the least...
Why sit thru the downdraft? Who cares if you leave some schekels on the table getting back in
Even if I was 25 years old, I would max hold 65% stocks..first downdraft, you will sell, saw it over and over in 07', 08' with younger colleagues at work
Markets since early 70s, have seen relatively political stability, rule of law, etc...things are looking kind of squirrely now at best...who knows what will happen
What is your advice for a 25 year old working individual who has a 401-K tax deferred option available at work and who does not expect to need to withdraw any funds for at least 40 years and who likely will not need all the funds for at least 50 years, assuming you would not advise investing a large portion, if any, in equities?
Where are you going with the lengthy diatribe directed towards equities? Would you advise such an individual to invest his or her retirement money instead in cash? In bonds? Divide it into cash, bonds and equities? Or to seek to time the markets? Would that all of us at 25 were so blessed with those market timing skills that we might glide easily in and out of the most “profitable” investments of the day over the next half century.
For some reference - 50 years ago the DJI was around 750. The hand held calculator hadn’t yet appeared on store shelves. Most of us watched black and white TV and the cassette player was about to replace the 8-track as state of the art music. A gallon of gas cost 25 cents. $3500 bought you an upscale sedan off a new car lot. A modest home in many areas sold for $20,000 - $25,000. Computers were the size of a room and generated immense heat - yet were less powerful than an iphone today. Your 1970s dollar’s buying power today? One shudders to think.
FBND
Severall CD
Jnk
Couple bonds
Salivating over RY. BMO. ABB. ENGIY.
Carnage wherever you look. As I have said many times before: the Market always overreacts, both to the downside and the upside.
Forward p-e ratio IWM extremely attractive lows @ 10.8
Stocks trade normally.
You said "We as humans are not generally wired to hold thru large downdrafts...I saw many corporate types happlily retire in 06' then come crawling back begging for their old jobs in 09'...they weren't real happy, nor real motivated to say the least...
Why sit thru the downdraft? Who cares if you leave some schekels on the table getting back in"
I believe most investors are generally wired to hold through large downdrafts in the market. Some would never admit that they might have possibly made a mistake in their investment choices while others will never accept the loss or sell at loss and will wait hopefully for the market to come back. Initially I did it myself but have readjusted my plays.
Edit to add:
How to Make Peace With Your Stock Market Losses
Got mama this bond.. Ytm 5.5%
Prob buy bank of Canada bond tomorrow
For me got couple puts $ON 47$strike mature 1.23, Delta 09% good preminums.. Has more cash by then... Good solid growth semi company
Friends bought bunch Lithium and Chpt
Added more SOXL earlier
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/soxl/chart
major indexes trying form head-and-shoulder (little reversal) , moving above 50 days MA, maybe slow moon shots sp500 200 days MA ~4100.