>mfw it took 30 YEARS for the stock market to recover after

Get rich or die trying, faggot.

Buy the dip

>>1797715
Sounds like a great time to be short.

>>1797715

You forgot dividends and this is 2017 we're in a global economy.

Diversify.

>>1797715
That's only if you buy at the very very peak and not average down even once. When is that ever going to happen?

As long as you invest in dividend paying stocks that are selling for less than their intrinsic value, you can buy and hold all you want.

>>1797715
You keep buying over time so your average cost ends up being well below peak levels. Also, you're getting dividend income.

>Posts a cherry-picked historical time frame.
>Assumes investors will somehow put their entire life savings and net worth in the market, 100%, on Day 1 of his cherry-picked time frame.
>Defies people to defend this.

Son, buy-and-holders don't need to defend this -- instead we'll just punch you in the face for posting such an obvious and stupid argument.

>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/your-money/stocks-and-bonds/26stra.html

>But a careful analysis of the record shows that the picture is more complex and, ultimately, far less daunting: An investor who invested a lump sum in the average stock at the market’s 1929 high would have been back to a break-even by late 1936 — less than four and a half years after the mid-1932 market low.

truly terrifying

>>1798148
>>1798157
>>1798297

>assumes people are just magically going to live for 100 years and have the patience equivalent to watching paint dry

>>1798310
Fuck you're stupid. Take your same self-selfing fact and make the investor put all his money in the market in 1930 ... one year difference. Boom!

The length of your time period is irrelevant, dumbass. What matters is that your entire argument starts with a faulty self-serving premise that no one here is stupid enough to accept.

Leave /biz/.

File: 13ab6430823d512394e27a3df7d451e4.jpg (194KB, 645x859px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 645x859px

>>1797715
That's s&500 which is price index. S&P 500 total return looks completely different

inb4 he posts the Nikkei chart. OP is one of this board's biggest idiots and most persistent cancers.

>>1798332
>one of this board's biggest idiots and most persistent cancers
Is he the one who always posts "The stock market is gambling: prove me wrong" threads?