>>1091668 Shut up, child. You picked Vanguard because -- for at least a small moment -- you understood that your best results would come from diversified low-cost investing over a multi-decade timeframe, providing you with the best opportunity to grow your wealth over a lifetime.
No one wants to hear you bitch about the short-term performance of your retirement portfolio. Stop being an attention-whore, acknowledge that short-term fluctuations are meaningless to long-term returns, and stay the course.
Or bail out and sit on the sidelines. Lots of morons did exactly that in 2008, and missed the 250% market rise that followed.
I realize that makes sense, I was drawing conclusions from /biz/ people constantly calling each other out for "buying the peak". So if there's no way to know what the peak is, then it's basically just a bunch of assholes being assholes, like every other board on here.
>>1092063 >>1092079 Only 1 person or institution ever sells exactly at the top, you are right but it is a meaningless conclusion.
It is sometimes possible to tell when there is a bubble or if you are in an old bull market. An index covering mature companies doesn't double in 8 months shortly after monetary policy was laxed because the businesses listed suddenly experienced high growth.
>>1092013 >You're going to be down on your investments until 2020 at the earliest. Even if took the full brunt of the 2008 crash, you were back in the black within 16 months. And then went up another 210% in the 3.5 years after than.
The only losers are those who try to time the markets.
>>1092566 >JUST MAKE SURE UR LIQUID ENOUGH TO HOLD IT THROUGH THE DEPTHS Who's illiquid enough to not be able ride out inevitable market fluctuations? Markets are constantly in flux, with no such thing as a trend or a direction. Stop seeing patterns in the clouds.
Let me guess ... you borrow and invest on leverage?
>>1092621 >LOTS OF PEOPLE AREN'T ABLE TO STOMACH BEAR MARKETS, THEY GENERALLY CAPITULATE NEAR THE BOTTOM DURING THE EXHAUSTION SELLING AND DUMP EVERYTHING DEFEATED Lots of losers, like you. Buy-and-hold means buy-and-HOLD.
See, I can use caps too. But I use them for emphasis, not for attention.
I'm sorry that you're not making any money in the markets, but all you have to do is follow the strategy of people smarter than you. Index, and hold. Boom.
>>1092650 Meh, down years aren't fun, but to be honest we don't even know how 2016 is going to turn out. It's still February. Only a fool would predict the year's performance 1/6th of the way though.
That being said, sorry you missed the 250% bull run, retard. I honestly thought you market timers would have learned your lesson, considering that you called for a new "crash" in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 that NEVER HAPPENED. Must suck earning 0.15% on your money when everyone else tripled their net worth.
You'll never make that up. You'll always be poorer than your peers, and you're quality of life will always be lower. That's the price of trying to time the markets. Sucks to be you.
>>1092026 Yes there are. There is the law of gravity, what goes up must come down, and it's inverse, what goes down must come up. Exaggerated optimism and pessimism are real. The business cycle, booms, bubbles, busts, are real. Markets aren't totally rational. Not any price is a fair price.
If a monkey throws 50 darts to select 50 stocks, he will do better than the vast majority of managers. But what if a monkey throws one dart? What if there's no diversification?
That's what happens when you invest a lump sum in the market. You're investing at a single point in the market, like a single dart. If you don't want to time the market, invest a small fixed amount every year, so you are diversified in terms of when you buy in.
But if I was going to invest a lump sum at a single point. I'd rely on buy low sell high. I would not throw a single dart blindfolded. The market is well above its record level in 2007 (A NEW PARADIGM!!!). If there is another bust with exaggerated pessimism (Do you really fucking doubt this?), the market will is likely to fall below the 2007 record, based on past performance, and definitely won't shoot up past our 2015 record any time soon, because of the business cycle.
When trying to predict the whole stock market, things like "when" or "how high" or "how low" really is impossible to predict with consistent success. But "the market index is too expensive" or "the market index is cheap enough" is fucking easy, and if it isn't easy, it's still superior than buying in on record highs and hoping the market never goes below that point again. We've hit a plateau, everyone is pessimistic and a bear market is a self fulfilling prophecy. Is it unreasonable to bet that the market will fall for around 2 years? Is the business cycle an unpredictable pattern?
I'm not buying in until the dow is under 14k, and I'd prefer 10k. If the market were a perfect random walk of coin flips, would you buy in after a high-landing streak of heads?
>>1092023 cost average your way in anon. let's say you want to invest 12 000. buy 1000 each month for one year. it doesn't matter how the market moves, you will have bought for the mean price by the end of those 12 months
when to start? now. for how long? I'd say 12 months is fine, if you are risk-averse make it 24.
>>1092767 The force that drives markets to their median performance levels isn't gravity. Authors use that term to help simple folks understand complex topics. It's called a "simile" and you really should have learned this in elementary school.
>>1092772 >YOU HAVE MORE MONEY THAN ANYONE Changing the goalposts. Classic sign that you've lost the argument. >HAVE A FUN 2016 Predicting the future. Classic sign of an autistic retard.
>>1092776 >The force that drives markets to their median performance levels isn't gravity. Authors use that term to help simple folks understand complex topics. It's called a "simile" and you really should have learned this in elementary school.
It's an abstraction. If the conclusions I draw from the abstraction are similar to the ones I would draw from complexity. It's fine.
If that's not the case you could explain why, or not.
I'm not a chartist by the way. I know stock prices are a symptom of real underlying things.
>>1092784 >MY MONEY > YOUR MONEY FYI Your autism > my money. Agreed.
>>1092788 >It's an abstraction. You say that now, because I pointed it out to you. I believe that before I posted you took the quote literally.
If I truly need to explain to you why gravity does not literally, or even figuratively, apply to the markets then we're starting back at square one. And I'm not sure I have the time or patience for that.
>>1092809 >Only when you are not scared to lose money you start to win as you buy the dips It is common for losing traders to teach new traders how to lose. The statement in green is the worst thing a new trader could ever learn.
I've been ready to invest in the market for a year but I waited because I knew the market was fucking overcooked. I timed the market using the same common sense that when I see a car coming I don't cross the road. Do you just run across the road at random and hope a car doesn't hit you feggit?
I am now in a better investing position than before. I will buy in after this market tanks more.
>>1092841 Warren has said a lot of shit in the 140 years that he's walked this Earth. He's definitely a financial genius, but he's not a retail investor. He made his money with M&A and strategic acquisitions -- something that literally NO individual investors can or will ever do.
He was also in denial about indexing for 40 years, and only came to see the light when he realized that sycophants were hanging on his every word for how to manage their 401k. Warren has never been a Boglehead, is a poor spokesman for buy-and-hold, believes that value investing outperforms despite all available evidence to the contrary, and generally serves as a really poor example for individual investors.
The only thing Warren is good for is the /biz/ version of Godwin's Law: the longer a /biz/ thread gets, the greater the chance that someone will invoke his name in support of some argument or another.
>>1092851 You literally guessed, and even today, you have no idea whether your guess was right or not. No gives a shit that you can flip a coin.
Call that coin flip correctly a hundred times in a row. Then you'll be on par with buy-and-hold.
>>1092851 If you practice dollar cost averaging it really doesn't matter when you enter the market. As anon said, even if you bought in at the peak in 2007 you still would've been profitable less than two years later (well before the market had returned to its 2007-level high, by the way).
The only problem with DCA is that some funds have a large minimum investment which can make things difficult for first-time investors when it comes to timing. In that case the best thing to do is find a fund with a lower minimum investment and reinvest when you hit the minimum for the fund you really want.
>>1092811 >If I truly need to explain to you why gravity does not literally, or even figuratively, apply to the markets then we're starting back at square one. And I'm not sure I have the time or patience for that.
If things are overvalued and inflated by those buying to sell to a greater fool, the market will eventually be corrected when the public becomes aware of the overvaluation.
If things are undervalued and investors are afraid to invest, the market will eventually be corrected when business picks up again, and the public becomes aware of the undervaluation.
It is figuratively like gravity because it's a correction of a course that cannot be sustained. I know you don't have the time or patience to be wrong.
>>1093112 >I was going to reply with an explanation Don't worry anon, we know the reason you're not responding is that you don't have the facts to make whatever retarded point about market timing you wish to make. And because you're too stupid to participate in the debate on the merits, you instead resort to ad hominems, memes, and shitposting.
No biggie ... that puts you on par with 99% of the other poorfags on the board. Revel in your mediocrity and commonality.
>>1093155 >Buy and hold right Works for me and every one of the millions of investors and institutions that follow the strategy, which is based on decades of academic research and real-world experience.
You, on the other hand,can't even discuss investing without posting memes.
>>1093194 You're a troll, but in case anyone intelligent is reading the thread:
Markets don't go up because they went up in the past. Markets go up, in the long-run, because there are strong external forces that drive them with a positive bias. Nationalistic factors, such a GDP growth and population growth, positively influence local markets. Certain cultural changes also positively influence markets, such as women entering the work force, trends towards longer working hours, and less vacations. Developments in legal and regulatory structures eliminate market inefficiencies, such as corruption, price manipulation, and insider trading. And lastly, technological advancement generally contributes to both demand and efficiency gains, providing a strong positive bias in affected markets.
Now post another meme kid, and confirm for us all just how retarded you are. Thanks.
>>1093190 -15% is pretty demoralizing, considering it's just two index funds. yeah, it's not ABANDON ALL HOPE yet, but it's getting more difficult to not just stop my paycheck deductions for the next few months
>>1093206 as short-sighted as i may be, i only see two options at the moment (for th enext few months): stop putting money into my 401k until the market decides to stop eating money; or continue putting money into my 401k with the very likely chance ill lose 5% of it each month until the market shits itself.
i can always turn on my 401k deductions again. at this point, i suppose im just thinking ill try to buy enough "low" to offset my higher buys before. assuming the current lows are not the future highs.
>>1093207 >You're latching on to a failed monetary system. Oh great, a retard, a bigot, and a tinfoil nut. The real triple-threat.
>You're wrong but not for the reasons one would think. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand once again the faggot is full of spooky, ominous statements that he can't actually articulate. Must be an interesting life having such a small brain.
>>1093210 Go ahead. You're making the same mistake that everyone who failed to capitalize in 2009-2010 made. It's not going to ruin your financial future; you'll just be a lot poorer than everyone who stays the course.
It's only money. Feel free to dick around and have less of it if you want.
>>1093223 >you're not even worth the time. Admission of defeat? Hah, I won this argument an hour ago kid. I don't need you to validate what anyone reading the thread already knows.
Sorry to ruin your night. I can almost see you now, your fat fingers pressing F5 hoping for a chance to post more memes from your well-stocked folder. Your jowls shake with anger at your inability to articulate basic financial points and the grease from your chin drips onto the keyboard as you mumble "reddit" "jew" "red pill" and other comforting words to yourself.
And here, I'm literally laughing out loud at you. Great stuff man. Thanks.
>>1093227 >Thanks for the investment advice Nostradamus. said the would-be market timer. The irony is palpable.
>>1093251 >your bound to turn a profit sometime in 2030 I agree. You're also likely to turn a profit in 2029, 2028, 2027, 2026, 2024, 2023, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017 and maybe 2016. Pretty much 5 years out of every 7, historically speaking.
So lets say you buy in right at the .com bubble peak. It's 7 years before you end up seeing any kind of return and then it vanishes again so really 13+ years before the money you invested did anything for you.
>>1093290 Please, you permabulls were laying on the bantz every dead cat bounce. If you were really buy and hold forever investors, you wouldn't even be looking at the markets or trying desperately to defend your investment strategy to shitposters.
>>1093305 >Which proves your theory of "just throw money in you will always come out ahead" is idiotic bullshit. see >>1093238
Ask questions if you don;t understand it. I don't expect everyone to be as smart as me, but I do expect you to try to the best of your abilities, as limited as they may be.
>>1093305 >You said this one post after quoting an article which relies entirely on the past performance of an index as proof of your investing strategy. You really don't understand how markets work at all, do you? Or why buy-and-hold is such a powerful long-term strategy? Well, read as cited above and dig in. Your eyes are about to be opened, if your bright enough to understand it.
>comment section Every question is answered by the author. There's no overstatement of returns or dividends -- just a lot of bad math by the critics. Which is fine; it's always good to be skeptical. Just do your math correctly next time, okay?
>>1093317 >If you were really buy and hold forever investors I weathered the 2008 storm unfazed, and rode the bull all the way back up ... tripling my net worth in the process. I've earned my buy-and-hold merit badge.
Just as you've earned your shit posting merit badge.
Funny thing is ... my accomplishments come with massive financial rewards. And yours?
>>1093319 I was a teenager with no money back when the GFC hit. Now that I have a decent inheritance I'd rather wait for a while before buying in. This market has much further to drop, and I'd rather get a better bargain. But go ahead and pretend that the only option is to buy blindly. Just because you didn't properly time the last crisis doesn't mean no one can.
>>1093404 >Mom they don't know I'm shitposting Yeah, whatever
The objection was to the claim that it didn't matter when you buy in. The evidence you're ignoring shows that you can possibly buy in at a time where it takes over a decade to make 1 dime. That's reality.
You refuted this with the fact that you will still make money in the long term even if you bought at peaks. But it's a smaller return, and if you have to liquidate in the red, you're fucked.
>>1093414 >The objection was to the claim that it didn't matter when you buy in. Of course it matters when you buy in. Don;t be retarded, kid.
The point is that you can't tell when to buy in and when not to. You're more likely to be wrong than right. You can't tell a low from a point on a slope, or a peak from a point. It's academically proven that trying to time the market is a coin flip with losing odds.
So the only winning play in time in market.
>if you have to liquidate in the red This just shows how stupid you are. The entire premise of long-term investing is not to liquidate your investments. It's called buy-and-HOLD, not buy-and-get-cold-feet-and-panic-sell-like-a-pussy.
Why do you think having an emergency fund is a key element of a sound financial plan? So that you don't have to liquidate your investments prematurely. Only a punk allows his circumstances to make his investment decisions for him. Stop being a punk.
So now that yet ANOTHER of your stupid strawman arguments has been debunked, what bullshit will you invent next.
>>1093342 If its for retirement, you should consider a tax-sheltered account like a roth IRA or some shit. That way you don't get hit with capital gains taxes when you cash out.The catch is you can only contribute a limited amount per year, so you can't dump in everything while the market is low. Contributions will be made as the market is falling, rising, or both. But because the new paradigm record levels are behind us, the years ahead are a good time to start.
>>1093426 >You're more likely to be wrong than right. The question is more or less wrong, than ignoring everything and buying at any one time.
>You can't tell a low from a point on a slope, or a peak from a point. I can tell above or below the median of performance. And I know the market will outperform and underperform the median.
>Of course it matters when you buy in. Don;t be retarded, kid. Then don't dispute it.
>This just shows how stupid you are. The entire premise of long-term investing is not to liquidate your investments. It's called buy-and-HOLD, not buy-and-get-cold-feet-and-panic-sell-like-a-pussy.
Reality doesn't care about your premise. Shit happens to people, and given no other choice, you might have to sell your stock. Buying high carries more risk than buying low.
>Why do you think having an emergency fund is a key element of a sound financial plan? This doesn't make buying high any safer compared to buying low
>Only a punk allows his circumstances to make his investment decisions for him. Stop being a punk. We invest exactly because of circumstances. Like getting old and breaking. What are you talking about?
>So now that yet ANOTHER of your stupid strawman arguments has been debunked, what bullshit will you invent next. Hard to misrepresent a moron
>>1093475 >So if we have a typical bear market or a crash, I guess I'll just be lucky and I should never attempt that again, right? You haven't succeeded at anything. Market timing requires TWO correct guesses: an entry point and an exit point. Even if you get one right, you'll still underperform by missing the other.
>When someone says markets invariably trend upwards over generations, it's the obvious truth More strawman bullshit. You don't need generations to realize the benefits of the inherent positive bias of the markets. The fact that markets rise in 5 of 7 years means you start to realize those benefits almost immediately, by all reasonable probabilities.
It would be nice if either (a) you made an argument that you're capable of supporting with evidence, and (b) you'd stop changing my arguments simply because you're too stupid and too foolish to respond to them directly.
>>1093483 >You haven't succeeded at anything. Market timing requires TWO correct guesses: an entry point and an exit point. Even if you get one right, you'll still underperform by missing the other.
Don't sell when the market is down? Oops that's market "timing" even though it's a procedural reaction and not really a prediction.
Just how do you not market time when selling off anyway? Sell off in increments? Let's say you were 70 years old and ready to retire right now. We just rode a bull to new paradigm levels, and there's a really pronounced plateau and everyone has cold feet and is expecting a bear market. Do you sell off now or do you sell off in increments?
I would only sell off in increments if I was certain that the market is always just as likely to go down as it is to go up. But that's not true. The higher the market is, the more likely, and the more punishing, a correction is to be coming in the near future. But you don't believe in the law of gravity.
>More strawman bullshit. You don't need generations to realize the benefits of the inherent positive bias of the markets. The fact that markets rise in 5 of 7 years means you start to realize those benefits almost immediately, by all reasonable probabilities.
Yes. Those aren't mutually exclusive. All I did was speak a truth we can both agree on as an example of market predictability, and your pussy bleeds strawman.
>it would be nice if either (a) you made an argument that you're capable of supporting with evidence, and (b) you'd stop changing my arguments simply because you're too stupid and too foolish to respond to them directly.
All my evidence is "obvious" yet my claims are still wrong. I don't misrepresent you. Sad to know buy-and-holding attracts shitposters.
>>1093505 >Don't sell when the market is down? Oops that's market "timing" No, investment discipline is NOT market timing. Stop changing the definitions.
>Let's say you were 70 years old and ready to retire right now. If I was 70 and ready to retire now, my allocations in equity would already be minimal. Do you not understand that market allocations change over time?
Jesus, I'm not going to spend my time giving you elementary information.
>All my evidence is "obvious" Citation needed.
You're a shit poster. And by that, I literally mean you're a shitty poster. Even your "attempts" at serious responses are so full of crap that you're a joke.
>>1093518 >buying below the median and selling above the median There's no such thing, considering the daily movements of the market. All you've done is construct an arbitrary buy and sell point and fooled yourself into thinking you're applying some objective criteria.
Those of us who understand who markets work are laughing at your little attempts at wizardry.
>anything you want to not answer the question It is the answer to the question, as inconvenient as that may be for you. It's not my fault that you don;t understand allocation theory or that you posed a stupid hypothetical, which you're now scrambling to revise.
>You've refuted my reasoning with citations to articles, studies, and other academic analysis. It's not my fault you came to the thread late and failed to read its entire contents. You're not worthy to have me repeat myself.
>I'm trying to get in as much sound advice No, you're trying to reenforce the bubble of denial and ignorance that allows you to believe you have some magic stock picking skills that allow you to defy all know academic study of how investing works.
You're a deluded mess of Dunning-Kruger, denial, and general dumbassery. You're incapable of engaging in serious debate with me because that would expose you to the possibility that the entire premise of your investing philosophy is wrong.
Therefore, you're left to avoid my questions, change the subject, move the goalposts, throw out strawmen, change the definitions, and otherwise do ANYTHING to avoid serious debate about the perils of market timing. As such, there's no purpose to continuing this dialogue. You're incapable of changing your mind, and everyone reading this thread already has all the information they could get to help them make an informed decision. You have nothing new to offer, and haven't for the last two hours.
Thanks for the diversion, and good luck with your coin flipping adventures, poorfag.
>>1093535 >There's no such thing, considering the daily movements of the market.
No. I don't day trade and nothing I've said would apply to a single stock or a short period of time.
>All you've done is construct an arbitrary buy and sell point and fooled yourself into thinking you're applying some objective criteria.
I said above or below, not on. Some part of buying or selling is going to be arbitrary. That goes with everything we can't predict. But just because part of a decision is arbitrary doesn't mean that some decisions aren't fucking retarded. Like buying when you know the market is high and selling when you know the market is low.
>It is the answer to the question, as inconvenient as that may be for you.
The question was would you sell off or sell in increments given a scenario. Not liking the scenario is not an answer. It's obvious you know what you would do, but you're not telling me because you would have to accept you hold a prediction.
>with citations to articles, studies, and other academic analysis. It's not my fault you came to the thread late and failed to read its entire contents. You're not worthy to have me repeat myself.
>with citations to articles, studies, and other academic analysis. It's not my fault you came to the thread late and failed to read its entire contents. You're not worthy to have me repeat myself.
I'll read dalbar studies later. The worlds worst market timer article is not a refutation. You typed a lot of shit dismissing me and going off subject, you could have used that time for real arguments all the same.
>No, you're trying to reenforce the bubble of denial and ignorance that allows you to believe you have some magic stock picking skills that allow you to defy all know academic study of how investing works.
The dismissals have piled on to the point that you're falling apart and have no idea what positions I hold. Eventually you have to listen to the person you're arguing with. I buy index funds.
>You're a deluded mess of Dunning-Kruger, denial, and general dumbassery. You're incapable of engaging in serious debate with me because that would expose you to the possibility that the entire premise of your investing philosophy is wrong. Therefore, you're left to avoid my questions, change the subject, move the goalposts, throw out strawmen, change the definitions, and otherwise do ANYTHING to avoid serious debate about the perils of market timing. As such, there's no purpose to continuing this dialogue. You're incapable of changing your mind, and everyone reading this thread already has all the information they could get to help them make an informed decision. You have nothing new to offer, and haven't for the last two hours.
I thought projection was a gag, but you're really doing it. I hope you're self-aware because this level of trolling is inspiring.
You haven't asked questions. You change the subject. You've exaggerated my claims, I didn't move them. I haven't straw-manned you. I haven't changed definitions, in fact, you're the one who has chosen the words market timing to describe my positions, not me.
"But Senpai should I invest all my wealth in the market for retirement, I am worried that with our aging population and asset inflation we could be in for a long period of deflation and negative growth"
"Do not worry Anon-san, I am investing expert. Do you not understand buy and hold? The market always goes up. You can invest all of your savings and be rich by old age. Do not try to time the market. Just look at the previous performance, it always goes up"
>Aging population >Asset price bubbles everywhere >Decreasing birth rate >Spiralling private debt >ZIRP going into NIRP >Deflation ahead
will you two retarded niggers stop reiterating the same arguments?
anon 1 never claimed that it "doesn't matter when you buy in" but that THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY TO PREDICT WHAT A GOOD TIME TO BUY IN IS AND THEREFORE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS FUCKING RETARDED BECAUSE THAT'S A FACT AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT YOU NEED TO PUT ON YOUR TINFOIL HAT AND SHUT THE FUCK UP
>>1093259 This assumes you're entering once in 2000, and then just watching your portfolio up and down. How does it remotely make sense to invests lump sums in composite indexes? Dollar averaging over the same time frame would put you at a profit.
>>1093703 >anon 1 never claimed that it "doesn't matter when you buy in"
depends on why he called this anon stupid. If he thought timing mattered, why dismiss decade long losses as a risk?
>but that THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY TO PREDICT WHAT A GOOD TIME TO BUY IN IS AND THEREFORE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS FUCKING RETARDED BECAUSE THAT'S A FACT AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT YOU NEED TO PUT ON YOUR TINFOIL HAT AND SHUT THE FUCK UP
So far as i understand it:
Refusing to sell after markets have fallen is investor discipline.
Refusing to buy in after markets have risen is kidding yourself, no one can time the market.
If it was dividend paying, and if they kept paying it you would see some sort of return sooner.
I still stand by the absolute fact that throwing money at a sinking ship is NOT a better strategy than waiting for said ship to start rising again. We are not talking about timing minute ups and downs but huge accepted trends. We are in a bear market, we all know this. Why would you throw your money into it?
Actually I give up trying to help you all. Do as you like you damned fools.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.