Investments

[TMat184]

I'd hate to take such a complicated issue and give a simple answer but.....

Different strokes for different folks.....

Their are tons of different approaches to investing, to recommend anything to anyone without full knowledge of their entire financial situation is a terrible mistake IMO. You determine the proper type of investments and develop a strategy based on a case by case basis using full disclosure. Anybody running on here saying "invest in this or that" without knowing your financial status/goals in full detail is somebody I'd be second guessing.

[PeterMP]

Cute. I seem to recall you citing a paper or two from time to time, so I'll take this comment in that spirit.

Well, it was supposed to be a joke/complement.

It's pretty simple. From time to time, an inefficiency in the market will spring up, i.e. an exploitable effect like what you're talking about. To use an example you mention later, let's say that every time Cramer says "sell", the stock drops.

At first, that might help you make money. The problem is that the market has all available public information, so they figure it out pretty quickly. They arbitrage the effect away by acting quickly. No one wants to lose money. The effect disappears.

Google "Dogs of the Dow" for a strategy that used to work (at least according to back-testing), but has now disappeared, arbitraged away.

This isn't just theory... the data backs it up. Active managers just aren't adding value (and in many cases, they're losing it). If strategies such as affecting the market with one's own predictions, or whatever, worked, that wouldn't be the case. Some of them would add value.

1. Hey, I actually know what Dogs of the Dow is.

2. I think you over estimate how fast such things disappear, especially if nobody publishes books outlining not just the idea, but practical tips to using the idea to make money.

3. Your whole argument essentially makes this point. Active investors are a bad way to invest money, right? But that affect hasn't disappeared. People continue to use them. They (active investors) continue to make money. The market hasn't taken that into account. People are continually losing money (by using them). If I could find somebody to take the "investment", I could make money by continually shorting actively managed accounts (or if I found a more subtle way to make money from active investor moves). How long has active investing been going on?

To quote one of your quotes from earlier in the thread:

"Finally, always remember what your father told you about playing poker: If you look around the table and don't see a patsy, then you're the patsy."

It is even better when the patsy thinks somebody else is the patsy (or worse if you are the patsy).

[techboy]

If you are in your mid fifties....and you just lost 50%, you can just about guarantee that you will never see that level again.

I just wanted to come back to this, because this is totally wrong.

The properly diversified buy and hold investor does not hold any money he needs in less than 10 or 20 years in stocks. He holds it in something like bonds, or maybe even CDs or a money market.

Thus, your doomsday scenario isn't. The deepest Bear Markets are generally 50%, so the only way your average mid-fifties investor loses 50% of his total assets is if he is 100% in stocks, which he shouldn't be.

And so, since our propspective soon to be retiree knows that he will need to draw down some of his money in the next ten years or so, he has that money in bonds. If he's smart, TIPS and Treasuries. The market downturn shouldn't affect him as much, because he can sell bonds while he waits for it to go back up.

Further, you act like a person dies right after he retires. Our mid-fifties guy is likely to live at least another 30 years. He does have time to wait for the markets to go back up. And, of course, if he does die right away, he doesn't need the money anyway, right?

The numbers bear it up. Those buy and hold numbers from the last paper I cited included the DEEP 1973-1974 Bear and the two or three smaller Bears that came after, including the tech bubble. That's only 30 years (which our mid-fifties guy has, remember, at least for part of his portfolio), and if he bought and held, he came out sitting pretty (with the NYSE/Amex, 9.9% annual, a full 1.3% better), even though our time frame started right before one of the absolute worst markets in our history, your supposed doomsday scenario.

The numbers say you're wrong.

Sorry.

Well, it was supposed to be a joke/complement.

I know.

3. Your whole argument essentially makes this point. Active investors are a bad way to invest money, right? But that affect hasn't disappeared. People continue to use them. They (active investors) continue to make money. The market hasn't taken that into account. People are continually losing money (by using them). If I could find somebody to take the "investment", I could make money by continually shorting actively managed accounts (or if I found a more subtle way to make money from active investor moves). How long has active investing been going on?

If your point is that Wall Street is very good at seperating investors from their money, I wholly agree. I suppose the advisors and money managers could consider that "investing" of a sort.

As far as strategies to beat the market investing in actual stocks, not so much.

[PeterMP]

If your point is that Wall Street is very good at seperating investors from their money, I wholly agree. I suppose the advisors and money managers could consider that "investing" of a sort.

As far as strategies to beat the market investing in actual stocks, not so much.

I've said enough in this thread as is, but will add one more thing.

If you are trying to predict the future of a complex system that has a stochastic component, you should try reading the "real" literature (not things that make it into the popular press or the NYT top 20 list) about predicting/modeling complex systems, including things that are not the stock market.

When that literature uses words like, neural networks, machine learning, stochastic differential equations, Markov models, and Bayesian statistics, and if you don't know what those things are much less how to use them, then you should worry about how much you actually know.

You can search the literature related to modeling biological systems (which are complex and have a stochastic component) at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez. Some of the papers you should even be able to get for free.

(Actually, I'll say one more thing. Use your imagination. )

[techboy]

If you are trying to predict the future of a complex system that has a stochastic component, you should try reading the "real" literature (not things that make it into the popular press or the NYT top 20 list) about predicting/modeling complex systems, including things that are not the stock market.

Well, to be fair, I tend to read a lot of articles that aren't in the popular press. The FPA Journal (the article was The Difficulty of Selecting Mutual Fund Performance), for instance, is hardly popular, I wouldn't think, nor are Burton Malkiel's working papers at Princeton.

I do try to reference more popular sources when I can, but that's largely because my purpose here is to share the results of my research with others, and I am well aware that most people (including me, if it's not a subject I'm interested in) would rather read a quick article from NPR news or CNNmoney than a doctoral dissertation. I'm trying to help here, so I gear my presentation to my audience (or at least I try to).

I will admit that I have not done much reading on the predicting and modeling of complex systems, but I can tell you that from the end-result research, if it's possible to predict market movements with it, it seems to be effectively impossible to turn that into a succesful strategy that consistently outperforms the proper index on a risk adjusted basis, and there have been a number of "quant funds" that have tried (for a while there, hard science PhDs were being snapped up like hot cakes by the Street, though I think this is settling down now). Either way, since I am interested in investing and not in prediction methodology, it's the practical end result I care about. Right now, all the data shows that buy and hold outperforms market timing, in all its various forms.

[PeterMP]

Well, to be fair, I tend to read a lot of articles that aren't in the popular press. The FPA Journal (the article was The Difficulty of Selecting Mutual Fund Performance), for instance, is hardly popular, I wouldn't think, nor are Burton Malkiel's working papers at Princeton.

I do try to reference more popular sources when I can, but that's largely because my purpose here is to share the results of my research with others, and I am well aware that most people (including me, if it's not a subject I'm interested in) would rather read a quick article from NPR news or CNNmoney than a doctoral dissertation. I'm trying to help here, so I gear my presentation to my audience (or at least I try to).

I will admit that I have not done much reading on the predicting and modeling of complex systems, but I can tell you that from the end-result research, if it's possible to predict market movements with it, it seems to be effectively impossible to turn that into a succesful strategy that consistently outperforms the proper index on a risk adjusted basis, and there have been a number of "quant funds" that have tried (for a while there, hard science PhDs were being snapped up like hot cakes by the Street, though I think this is settling down now). Either way, since I am interested in investing and not in prediction methodology, it's the practical end result I care about. Right now, all the data shows that buy and hold outperforms market timing, in all its various forms.

I'm sorry. I probably shouldn't have quoted you. It was more of a general comment.

I'm not sure if there is a way to move large sums of money through the market in a manner that would be advantageous. which I presume is what the "Street" would be interested in. Of course, that was never something I looked at.

[McD5]

The properly diversified buy and hold investor does not hold any money he needs in less than 10 or 20 years in stocks. He holds it in something like bonds, or maybe even CDs or a money market.

Certainly you are aware of the financial planning rule of thumb, where you are to take the number 100, subtract your age from it, and that is the % of your portfolio that should be in stocks. 50 year old....50%. 70 year old, 30%. 80 year old, 20%. With people living longer, and inflation, it is imperative that people have some money in stocks well beyond retirement years now. Many of those people don't have "10 to 20 years in stocks", nor could they ever afford to lose 50%.

As far as your suggestion the they hold it in something like bonds....how about AAA rated General Electric bonds, the safest, most secure corporate bonds on earth. Those bonds were at par one year ago. They are now down 20% in just twelve months. Ouch. Anyone really feel confident about GE right now, or about their capital arm that just went to the fed for money?

Cds pay nothing right now. Certainly not nearly enough to keep up with the cost of living. Historical lows as we speak. The same with treasuries--actually returning 0% just two weeks ago. Not an option.

Thus, your doomsday scenario isn't. The deepest Bear Markets are generally 50%, so the only way your average mid-fifties investor loses 50% of his total assets is if he is 100% in stocks, which he shouldn't be.

He just lost 50% of his stock portfolio, 20% on average in his bond portfolio. His only option is to be in low interest cds, or no interest treasuries. Or, how about state of California bonds?

And so, since our propspective soon to be retiree knows that he will need to draw down some of his money in the next ten years or so, he has that money in bonds. If he's smart, TIPS and Treasuries. The market downturn shouldn't affect him as much, because he can sell bonds while he waits for it to go back up.

Again, not feasible. He is down on bonds, and gets nothing out of treasuries or cds at this point. The market downturn in all asset classes, outside of gold has just severely impacted his financial well-being. Not to mention real estate. And no mention of preferred stocks or income generating uits, also down 50% or more.

The books, and specifically the buy and hold, and dollar cost averaging strategies don't account for any of this. Nor are they prudent in a real world scenario.

What is prudent, are stop losses to protect capital above all else.

Second to that, is market timing.....to be able to recognize the signs when an asset class is about to lose value, so that you can sell. Once you can recognize these signals, and underweight underperfoming assets, and overweight in good asset classes, you will be able to know that when retirement does come, you will actually be able to retire comfortably.

To not use such safeguards as stop losses or market timing is complete gambling.

[McD5]

The properly diversified buy and hold investor does not hold any money he needs in less than 10 or 20 years in stocks. He holds it in something like bonds, or maybe even CDs or a money market.

Certainly you are aware of the financial planning rule of thumb, where you are to take the number 100, subtract your age from it, and that is the % of your portfolio that should be in stocks. 50 year old....50%. 70 year old, 30%. 80 year old, 20%. With people living longer, and inflation, it is imperative that people have some money in stocks well beyond retirement years now. Many of those people don't have "10 to 20 years in stocks", nor could they ever afford to lose 50%.

As far as your suggestion the they hold it in something like bonds....how about AAA rated General Electric bonds, the safest, most secure corporate bonds on earth. Those bonds were at par one year ago. They are now down 20% in just twelve months. Ouch. Anyone really feel confident about GE right now, or about their capital arm that just went to the fed for money?

Cds pay nothing right now. Certainly not nearly enough to keep up with the cost of living. Historical lows as we speak. The same with treasuries--actually returning 0% just two weeks ago. Not an option.

Thus, your doomsday scenario isn't. The deepest Bear Markets are generally 50%, so the only way your average mid-fifties investor loses 50% of his total assets is if he is 100% in stocks, which he shouldn't be.

He just lost 50% of his stock portfolio, 20% on average in his bond portfolio. His only option is to be in low interest cds, or no interest treasuries. Or, how about state of California bonds?

And so, since our propspective soon to be retiree knows that he will need to draw down some of his money in the next ten years or so, he has that money in bonds. If he's smart, TIPS and Treasuries. The market downturn shouldn't affect him as much, because he can sell bonds while he waits for it to go back up.

Again, not feasible. He is down on bonds, and gets nothing out of treasuries or cds at this point. The market downturn in all asset classes, outside of gold has just severely impacted his financial well-being. Not to mention real estate. And no mention of preferred stocks or income generating uits, also down 50% or more.

The books, and specifically the buy and hold, and dollar cost averaging strategies don't account for any of this. Nor are they prudent in a real world scenario.

What is prudent, are stop losses to protect capital above all else.

Second to that, is market timing.....to be able to recognize the signs when an asset class is about to lose value, so that you can sell. Once you can recognize these signals, and underweight underperfoming assets, and overweight in good asset classes, you will be able to know that when retirement does come, you will actually be able to retire comfortably.

To not use such safeguards as stop losses or market timing is complete gambling.

[techboy]

McD5,

1. Learn to quote. That's a mess to read.

2. Your bond example is silly. What buy and hold investor is going to put his entire bond portfolio into GE bonds? He'll be properly diversified. Perhaps something like the Vanguard Total Bond Market Fund?

A 20% loss is a joke, and the chart above doesn't even include dividends. Our properly diversified 50 year old retiree is fine.

3. Of course they should still hold some in stocks because they'll live a long time after retirement. That's what I was saying. They'll have plenty of time for the stock portion to rebound (and even benefit from rebalancing during the down portion).

Remember, our buy and hold investor that bought into the NYSE/AMEX right before the worst Bear Market of the last 80 years and went through several other Bears, up until right after the tech bubble and 9/11 crashes (1972-2002, so 30 years), earned 9.9% annually, and a full 1.3% more than the people that tried to time.

Talk all you want, use scare tactics all you want, but the numbers show you're wrong. I know I'd be very happy with 9.9% per annum.

[McD5]

McD5,

1. Learn to quote. That's a mess to read.

2. Your bond example is silly. What buy and hold investor is going to put his entire bond portfolio into GE bonds? He'll be properly diversified. Perhaps something like the Vanguard Total Bond Market Fund?

Yes...maybe he can diversify into Ford or GM, AIG and Citigroup bonds too. That has sure worked out well for people.

A 20% loss is a joke, and the chart above doesn't even include dividends. Our properly diversified 50 year old retiree is fine.

3. Of course they should still hold some in stocks because they'll live a long time after retirement. That's what I was saying. They'll have plenty of time for the stock portion to rebound (and even benefit from rebalancing during the down portion).

Plenty of time? First you said that stocks are for a 10-20 year outlook. The 80 year old may not have 10-20 years, nor can they afford a 50% loss in that portion of the port. Not to even mention demographics....or the fact that the baby boomers begin retirement this year. Hi Mr. Jones, let's sell a portion of your stocks that are down 45% from a year ago, and roll over into 1.5% cds, or nearly 0% treasuries.

Remember, our buy and hold investor that bought into the NYSE/AMEX right before the worst Bear Market of the last 80 years and went through several other Bears, up until right after the tech bubble and 9/11 crashes (1972-2002, so 30 years), earned 9.9% annually, and a full 1.3% more than the people that tried to time.

Talk all you want, use scare tactics all you want, but the numbers show you're wrong. I know I'd be very happy with 9.9% per annum.

One more thing that might be of help. You seem to be a fan of Warren B. You might want to read the book he has called "one of top one or two business books ever written." The beauty of it? You can read the entire book in about an hour. In that book, several myths of investing are debunked, and truths revealed.

One of those truths? On average, the value (buying power) of the US dollar depreciates 10% a year. This is comprised not only of inflation....but also other factors, mainly the printing of money by politicians. By locking in a fixed income return of say 3%, you are really just locking in a loss of 7% percent a year, every year, on buying power.

http://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-Explanation-Economics-Investments/dp/0942617525/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231908703&sr=1-1

So tomorrow, let's say you are a financial advisor. You call your 10 year client on the phone, one in his fifties. "Hi, Mr Jones. Your stock port is down 45%, your bond port is down 20%. Thank god we diversified into real estate investment trusts and oil too, both down like a rock from just a year ago. Let's make that move into historically low cds and lock it up. Aren't you glad we held everthing, averaged down, and that we diversified our losses across many asset classes?"

Your best bet would be to immediately dial a lawyer after that phone call.

Many of the firms that were pitching the asset allocation, just pay a fee, we have a plan for you firms are being sued silly for these practices. Not protecting investors? Not selling? Just gather assets and hold forever? No due diligence?

Firms are paying out these investors hand over fist right now. And business models are changing.

It shouldn't come as a surprise really. These same firms were pitching cmos, and a ton of other exotic products that turned out to harm investors.

Stop losses my friend. The single most important thing out there.

You can never lose 50% in a stock portfolio, and have to be prepared to protect your capital.

Have a good night...off to bed.

[techboy]

Yes...maybe he can diversify into Ford or GM, AIG and Citigroup bonds too. That has sure worked out well for people.

Right. Because diversification means picking 3 or 4 bonds, all of which just happened to be the worst performers. Are you for real?

Proper buy and hold diversification means holding broad market indexes, precisely because individual company risk (such as you bring up here) can be diversified away, and so is uncompensated. It is the stock picker that has to worry about Citigroup collapsing, if that's one of the stocks he picked. The broad market index holder barely notices, because it's only a tiny part of his portfolio, and there are other parts that do well.

Proper diversification such as Vanguard's Total Bond Fund, which samples the total bond market. Why don't you tell the class what that fund's 1, 3, and 5 year returns are, please? (Hint: It's not -20%)

Or, better yet, our hypothetical mid-50's investor (let's call him Joe from now on) could fill out the bond portion of his portfolio by buying individual TIPS at the appropriate maturities (say 10 years, when he starts to retire), guaranteeing a real return over inflation. This strategy can't lose money, unless the Federal Government collapses, in which case Joe has a lot more to worry about than retirement.

Plenty of time? First you said that stocks are for a 10-20 year outlook. The 80year old may not have 10-20 years, nor can they afford a 50% loss in that portion of the port. Not to even mention demographics....or the fact that the baby boomers begin retirement this year. Hi Mr. Jones, let's sell a portion of your stocks that are down 45% from a year ago, and roll over into 1.5% cds, or nearly 0% treasuries.

What are you talking about? Joe Jones is in his midfifties, so perhaps he holds 50% stocks, and 50% individual TIPS. When he retires into a Bear Market, he simply sells the TIPS as they mature, allowing the stock portion to recover (since, as I said, he's probably got 30 more years at least, to live).

When Joe is 80, he still (through rebalancing) might have 50% in stocks, but if so, he's keeping them for his heirs, and can still live off the 50% bonds (remember, he's rebalancing).

Rebalancing means you don't sell stocks when they're down to buy bonds when they're up. You do exactly the opposite. As bonds surge and stocks fall, the bond percentage grows and the stock percentage falls. You rebalance back by buying stocks and selling bonds (or perhaps, in Joe's case, just selling bonds). This causes one to buy low and sell high, which is a pretty good strategy.

The only reason an investor would be forced to sell stocks as you say would be if he didn't have enough in fixed income to cover his goals, and good planning handles that to a large extent.

So tomorrow, let's say you are a financial advisor. You call your 10 year client on the phone, one in his fifties. "Hi, Mr Jones. Your stock port is down 45%, your bond port is down 20%. Thank god we diversified into real estate investment trusts and oil too, both down like a rock from just a year ago. Let's make that move into historically low cds and lock it up. Aren't you glad we held everthing, averaged down, and that we diversified our losses across many asset classes?"

Yes, your scenario is very convincing when you use made up numbers.

Why don't you try addressing for once the real world numbers, which show that buying and holding returned 9.9%, even in the worst possible scenario (buying right before a terrible Bear, selling right after one). You know, the strategy that beat timing by 1.3%?

You know timing, right? The one that lost 9.5 TRILLION dollars over that time period vs. buy and hold?

[Hubbs]

I am just recommending that people don't gamble their hard earned investment money away Hubbs.

Instead of just buying the market, a strategy flawed in and of itself as illustrated in the oil/airline example, people can take much less risk, and actually improve market returns.

I can't find the example you're speaking of here, but I'm gonna assume that you're saying that the airline industry has never recovered from its downward spiral of economic death, thereby proving that anyone who bought and held a bunch of airline stock is now probably homeless.

The problem is, anyone who uses their entire investing bankroll to buy and hold within a single industry is a complete and utter moron. And you know that.

Utilizing things like stop-losses to protect capital is 1000x more conservative and prudent than just putting money into a mutual fund and winging it.

Who said anything about completely throwing stop-losses out the window?

Buying things going down is another great way to lose eveything. There is never really a good reason to buy anything that is going down in price.

Wait for it to start coming up off the bottom, then get in.

And we are in an unprecendented time in the country, and in these markets. We face challenges unlike any other before, including the internet crash, 87 crash, and all others.

Do you really believe any corporate earnings reports you see now? Do you really believe the banks have come clean? Do you believe the banks have any idea what they are holding, and can you invest confidently in them?

With unemployment approaching double digits, do you believe earnings are about to improve?

Do you believe the auto industry is solid? (Another place where investors have lost nearly everything--both in stocks and bonds).

Do you feel good about municipalities and states bordering on the verge on bankruptcy?

What about Madoff and the hedge fund scandal? Do you really believe Madoff is the only one? And how is investor confidence going to improve when we hear details of the next ten Madoffs?

How about shopping malls closing? Commercial real estate tanking, and the fed printing money like it is going out of style? What does that do to the value of the dollar in your wallet?

If you want to invest in funds....go right ahead. They serve their purpose for people who either have little financial sense, or are too busy to follow the markets. But I would do it intelligently.

If you buy a fund, and it drops a significant percentage.....say 5%....I would sell immediately, and park the cash in their money market.

If, a month later, the fund is over your sell price, and you feel confident that the government isn't asleep at the wheel....then buy it back.

Pretty simple money management. Or....you can gamble wildly.......just shove it all in there, and stick your head in the sand. Or, even worse....don't sell as it drops in value....then buy even more when it is down.

These aren't normal times. Common sense dictates using even some basic, extremely easy tools of money management.

Had investors put in stop losses on their portfolios a year ago......they wouldn't find themselves in the situation they do today.

Again, the problem with your argument is that 99% of the people who have gotten into the market with a widely diversified portfolio and simply left it alone for thirty years has come out on top, and the 1% aren't confined to any specific period in history, but are simply the ones who had the incredibly bad luck of having the portfolio equivalent of flipping heads 200 times in a row when betting on tails. The long-term buy and hold strategy has never failed to win in the end. Ever.

It seems like you either can't or won't think about this in the long term, and by long term, I mean several decades. Anyone who's buying and holding right now can say with absolute certainty that, in thirty years, one of two things will be true: Either the stock market will be much, much higher than it is today, or the American economy will have utterly collapsed into something that looks like central Asia. And if the latter happens, there will be a whole lot of things more important to worry about than your 401(k).

[McD5]

You are welcome to follow my trades, and the trades of others, in the world's largest real-time daytrading website. I post them all there.

Usually 450 traders there at any given moment. I have no affiliation to the sponsor....but was approached by them years ago, and asked to participate.

Out of 450 live traders....6 have been noted with a "well respected" highlight--given out to the members that everyone else votes as most successful, and that people like to follow.

I am one of the six.

www.daytraders.org

As far as tomorrow.....I have been short the market for two days now.

I expect lower by this Friday....although with some bounce attempts in between....and then we can start to move up again as early as Friday or Monday.

I did buy some gold options today.....and started to nibble on some oil that I sold a week ago at much higher prices.

Market down another 300 points. Covered all shorts from last Thursday.

Average gain, 18.5% in four days.

Now who was questioning market timing again? And was holding onto index funds a good strategy over just the last four trading days alone?

Didn't think so.

[techboy]

Now who was questioning market timing again?

Me.

And was holding onto index funds a good strategy over just the last four trading days alone?

Yes. Try to think beyond today. Retirement's a long way off.

[McD5]

Me.

Yes. Try to think beyond today. Retirement's a long way off.

Keep your eyes open. You might learn something that can help in your career, and your personal account too.

Now long 1/4 of a position, MVV. 2x midcap index etf.

21.73 average.

Market close to a big leg up. Didn't think it would happen for another few days, but we are now low enough to dip the toes in again.

[Heisenberg]

Keep your eyes open. You might learn something that can help in your career, and your personal account too.

Now long 1/4 of a position, MVV. 2x midcap index etf.

21.73 average.

Market close to a big leg up. Didn't think it would happen for another few days, but we are now low enough to dip the toes in again.

Your avatar should also have a disclaimer for "No New Financial Advice" to add to your "No New Threads" tag.

Your arguments have been butchered 100x already in this thread by various posters and you just won't quit.

[McD5]

Your avatar should also have a disclaimer for "No New Financial Advice" to add to your "No New Threads" tag.

Your arguments have been butchered 100x already in this thread by various posters and you just won't quit.

The proof is in the pudding.

You either haven't read this thread.....seen trade results...or you are just learning challenged.

Bad eyes over there?

[techboy]

The proof is in the pudding.

9.5 trillion dollars could have bought a lot of pudding.

[McD5]

9.5 trillion dollars could have bought a lot of pudding.

Index fund holders using a stop loss 40% higher could have bought entire pudding companies.

[McD5]

Dow pulls off support, and closes down 248 pts for the day.

SPX down another 3.5% today.

But hey.....who is counting pennies?

When people have held the SPX down 40% already, what is another 3.5% in a day?

Financial stocks crushed today. Citigroup down another 23% alone.

Hope it was profitable for everyone.

[McD5]

Steve Jobs now leaving AAPL for five months due to health reasons.

Hope he gets better......and what does that do to index funds tomorrow?

Down another 5%?

[Heisenberg]

McD5 again - you fail to recognize the financial success of a portfolio in the LONG TERM.

Giving day by day analysis proves nothing - and the fact that everyone here knows you would never post when you lose a substantial amount of money from your short trading.

You seem capable of understanding the concept of long-term investments but you continually ignore.

Losing money in my portfolio right now means very little when history shows that the market will rebound well before I'm ready to retire - and if the whole market crashes it won't really matter what I had saved up anyway.

You're not proving anything with your comments.

[McD5]

McD5 again - you fail to recognize the financial success of a portfolio in the LONG TERM.

Giving day by day analysis proves nothing - and the fact that everyone here knows you would never post when you lose a substantial amount of money from your short trading.

You seem capable of understanding the concept of long-term investments but you continually ignore.

Losing money in my portfolio right now means very little when history shows that the market will rebound well before I'm ready to retire - and if the whole market crashes it won't really matter what I had saved up anyway.

You're not proving anything with your comments.

Sure...keep thinking that way. Your mutual fund is down another 10% in the week...and likely another 5% tomorrow.

You only have to get it back up 20% to get back to where you were 5 days ago.

Nice strategy. Is that a JMU thing? Did your professor come up with that bright idea?

Do you wonder why he is teaching?

[Heisenberg]

Sure...keep thinking that way. Your mutual fund is down another 10% in the last four days....and likely another 5% tomorrow.

You only have to get it back up 20% to get back to where you were 4 days ago.

Nice strategy. Is that a JMU thing? Did your professor come up with that bright idea?

Do you wonder why he is teaching?

If you were half as smart as you think you are you'd be doing something besides gambling and short trading to make your money.

The numbers and statitistics prove you wrong - there is countless evidence throughout this thread that prove you are wrong.

Unless the entire world economy collapses there is little to worry about in my portfolio at this point - and if it does collapse even a super smart day trader such as yourself is going to be ****ed so it really makes no difference.

[McD5]

If you were half as smart as you think you are you'd be doing something besides gambling and short trading to make your money.

The numbers and statitistics prove you wrong - there is countless evidence throughout this thread that prove you are wrong.

Unless the entire world economy collapses there is little to worry about in my portfolio at this point - and if it does collapse even a super smart day trader such as yourself is going to be ****ed so it really makes no difference.

Wrong bro. This trader uses stop losses and market timing, on all assets.

And don't believe 1/10th of the nonsense you see posted in here about professors giving speeches.

Ever hear of William O'Neill, or the Investors Business Daily newsapaper? Pretty successful guy, I think you would agree.

His number one rule is a 7% stop loss on any stock or mutual fund....and believes dollar cost averaging is for the birds.

But who is he, to question the buy and hold guys, now down nearly 50% from the market top?