by Outcast_Searcher » Sun 06 Sep 2020, 16:02:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'I')'m looking out at next winter for signs of trouble.
The Covid virus is mutating all the time and if we get a more deadly variant and another big China virus outbreak in China.....or in Europe or the US........and if you have the China virus infecting people at the same time the flu virus is giving people flu......then I could see the market doing another nose-dive.
Not to mention the election risk. Biden's economic plans call for huge tax increases and massive re-organisations of the health care system, limiting fracking and fossil fuel extraction in the US, passing the Green new deal etc.....all things that could hurt the economy. And if the Ds do these things and then try to pack to Supreme Court or make Washington DC a state or give citizenship to 22 million illegal aliens or any number of things they are talking about doing, then Mr. Market is going to be very very unhappy.
Cheers!
Yup. And really, big picture re investments, the wildly varying outcomes of various scenarios you mention above, re investing in the short term, aren't all that unusual, when trying to invest aggressively in the short term ANY time.
Being in the stock market (in a diversified way) is great for the LONG term, re overall performance. HOWEVER, to stick with it through thick and thin, investors have to put up with a LOT of volatility. Essentially, they're getting paid fairly well over the long run, to grit their teeth (or ignore it) and just stick with it.
It's a very interesting, fairly counter-intuitive reality, but I think a good 90 years of data proves it, providing one is willing to stick with it for at least 3 decades.
When helping my sister with the "problem" in the 90's that her active stock funds were causing she and her husband to pay a LOT of taxes because of high returns, was when I happened upon stock index funds, when trying to find a tax efficient solution (I'd never worried about that "problem" before). Index funds were much less popular then and weren't all over the news. They don't spend tons of money marketing, after all, unlike active funds.
...
And even though I KNOW this intellectually, like almost everyone else, I don't want to just decide on a basic asset allocation, dump it various places and ignore it. So my discipline is I do that (the "right" thing, per math and data and experts like Buffett and Bogle) with about 90% of my investments, and only "play" actively with about 10%. At least that way if I screw up badly, I don't mess up my retirement, and it gives me an interesting hobby to swear at.
Overall, the active investment is a LOT more work, and over time, the overall returns are about the same as if I just had it all in index funds and used that time elsewhere, after 3 decades of good and bad results playing the active game.
I think most people won't admit to themselves that over time, for every time they get great results with FB or some other FAANG stock (for example), they do poorly in some other stock due to unlucky or unknown factor X.
Oh, also, as the overall predictions on this site re timing and specifics show, it's REALLY, REALLY hard to predict the future accurately at ALL consistently, which would be needed to really trounce (or even meaningfully beat) the stock market over time.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.