The Active Stock Market Trader, or Traders of Other (Crypto ect.) Market's Thing's Thread.

[Danoff]

So the stimulus money has been going to, for lack of a better term, ordinary people - it's widely distributed. Lots of consumers with spare cash is what drives inflation rather than a few consumers with massive amounts of cash. What I think will happen, if the stock market crashes, is that a lot of lower income consumers will effectively lose their shirt and the stimulus money they exchanged for now worthless stocks will invariably end up in fewer hands. Basically, any stock market crash on the horizon is probably going to increase wealth inequality. If you have 100 people with 100 dollars split between them, chances are that all of that money is going to be liquid - potentially driving inflation. If you have 1 person with 100 dollars, its far more likely that some portion of that 100 dollars will not be liquid.

Inequality does not reduce money in circulation. It can if it's saved (which currently your plot showed that money is being saved), but as confidence increases, that savings is dropping.

Currency is liquid. If you exchange it for something illiquid, it's no longer currency held.

Japan has been stimulating its economy with enormous amounts of easy money for decades now and inflation still has not occurred.

Because of the US.

Goods keep on getting cheaper to make...

Some goods.

 

[ryzno]

So the stimulus money has been going to, for lack of a better term, ordinary people

I ain't trying start nothing between us but "ordinary people" aren't getting $14M PPP(or whatever they're called) bailouts and buying houses and Lamborghini's. We spent the measly $1200 the same week we received it catching up on bills.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I ain't trying start nothing between us but "ordinary people" aren't getting $14M PPP(or whatever they're called) bailouts and buying houses and Lamborghini's. We spent the measly $1200 the same week we received it catching up on bills.

Trust me, I include myself in that ordinary people bit.

The whole first wave of stimulus money was used to prevent sharp deflation from happening. It seems to have worked (many people did spend the money like @ryzno here) but its evident that a lot of people did not. The fed basically has their foot to the floor to encourage inflation and it really isn't budging yet. If it does pick up before another round of fiscal stimulus occurs...then I would think it would be clear to congress that further stimulus isn't necessary. I think you could argue that such a broad shot of stimulus clearly isn't necessary based on the savings rate alone. If the original round was to reinforce people's confidence in the economy...I don't know what to make of the result.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

To make this point a little more finely, when you exchange $20 for stock. You no longer hold currency. Someone else does. When your stock goes down in value, that currency is still in circulation - and you no longer have something that it has to buy (meaning it is worth less).

I don't follow the example. In response to the bold, wasn't that the case either way?

Goods keep on getting cheaper to make...

In some cases that helps, in others it doesn't.

Cars have a ton of features now. You get a lot for the money, but maintenance and replacement costs are increasing.

Some of the other goods are cheaper to make, but the quality may also be worse. I would consider that a part of inflation or it may partially offset.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

We've barely even scratched the surface of consumer goods production automation. Most stuff is still largely hand made by human labor. When the bottom is found (that is, when you cannot find cheaper labor anywhere reasonable) I think we will see automation really take over - and prices continue to fall. I don't think it's a coincidence that the era of disinflation corresponds almost perfectly with the era of globalization. Companies keep finding cheaper labor and it keeps driving prices down. The only thing I could see causing very strong prolonged inflation is some very severe supply side disruption - Covid did not do that, I'm not sure what even could at this point. Until then, the amount of stuff produced seems to be keeping up with the amount of dollars, especially as production-heavy nations like Vietnam & Taiwan (and even China) were not nearly as impacted as consumer-heavy nations like the US and Western Europe.

 

[Biggles]

In some cases that helps, in others it doesn't.

Cars have a ton of features now. You get a lot for the money, but maintenance and replacement costs are increasing.

Some of the other goods are cheaper to make, but the quality may also be worse. I would consider that a part of inflation or it may partially offset.

Really? I would say that quality for the cost has been steadily increasing with most products. That's obviously the case with electronic products, but I think it's probably true of most other products also. An example that comes to mind is a mountain bike I bought around 1988. It was made in Canada & cost me about $500. The equivalent in 2020 dollars is around $1,083. You could get a far superior bike now for that price (most likely made in China) with a lighter frame, and far superior components.

Cars? Here's a comparison I found:

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for new cars were 22.81% higher in 2020 versus 1988 (a $3,421.79 difference in value).

Between 1988 and 2020: Cars experienced an average inflation rate of 0.64% per year. In other words, cars costing $15,000 in the year 1988 would cost $18,421.79 in 2020 for an equivalent purchase. Compared to the overall inflation rate of 2.47% during this same period, inflation for cars was lower.

My guess is that fierce international competition & improving technology has kept prices low & pushed the quality of cars way, way up. That's globalism for you.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

@Biggles
Cars are cheaper now at the initial cost outlay, but they may be more expensive in the long term once you factor in all the maintenance and electronics that can break. I'm not sure if that was being questioned.

For things that there may be a decrease in quality, I would bring up office chairs and certain electronics. I mentioned this in the premium section, but there are computer/office chairs with a fake covering and it's also used for other furniture. It barely lasts 2 years before it starts shredding to pieces. Also looking at some electronics online (like a stand mixer), I see a fair few comments that basically say they were looking for a replacement they bought ~10 years ago, but the current product doesn't come close.

That said I wouldn't be surprised if the data showed that quality was improving overall. I'm just probably focused on a few negatives I saw.

TVs are way cheaper, but part of that is accounted for by the data collection they use.

 

[Biggles]

@Biggles
Cars are cheaper now at the initial cost outlay, but they may be more expensive in the long term once you factor in all the maintenance and electronics that can break. I'm not sure if that was being questioned.

For things that there may be a decrease in quality, I would bring up office chairs and certain electronics. I mentioned this in the premium section, but there are computer/office chairs with a fake covering and it's also used for other furniture. It barely lasts 2 years before it starts shredding to pieces. Also looking at some electronics online (like a stand mixer), I see a fair few comments that basically say they were looking for a replacement they bought ~10 years ago, but the current product doesn't come close.

That said I wouldn't be surprised if the data showed that quality was improving overall. I'm just probably focused on a few negatives I saw.

TVs are way cheaper, but part of that is accounted for by the data collection they use.

Sure, cars have become more complex & with more things that can go wrong, but my guess is cars are way more reliable than they were 30 or 40 years ago.

I think it's possible that there are more cheap, poorly produced products ... like furniture, but the point is they're cheap - produced at a price. You get what you pay for. Overall, automation, global competition, cheap overseas labour, reduced transportation costs & lowered tariffs have made stuff cheaper than ever. What's become much more expensive is real estate.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I think it's possible that there are more cheap, poorly produced products ... like furniture, but the point is they're cheap - produced at a price. You get what you pay for.

I would say not in that case. My bigger problem is that it's not sustainable to throw chairs out every 2-3 years.

 

[Danoff]

I don't follow the example. In response to the bold, wasn't that the case either way?

No. If you held stock that was still worth $20, it is something that the cash in circulation must be able to purchase.

Ok, try to visualize all of the value in the nation (stocks, houses, cars, labor, consumer goods, artwork, and frozen concentrated orange juice). Now try to visualize all of the US currency in the nation (this is not stock, not houses, not cars, not frozen concentrated orange juice, just US dollars). The value of the dollar is, to first order, the number of dollars in circulation divided into the total amount of value it has to purchase. Now, that's a super lazy way to calculate the value of the dollar, because some of it is effectively not in circulation, and some of that stuff is not for sale, etc., but this is a thought experiment, not a science experiment.

So if your stock goes down in value, the the total value of all of the things that dollars need to buy goes down. That makes the value of the dollar go down. Because the number of dollars in circulation stayed the same, and the value it has to buy dropped. So when the stock market crashes, or housing markets crash, or the economy shrinks, there are more dollars as compared to things you might trade dollars for. Therefore, the value allocated to each dollar shrinks. Sometimes it works the other way, some other factor forces the value of the dollar to rise or fall, and commodities rise or fall in response to the rising and falling value of the dollar. So for example, pretend that there is no market crash, and value remains constant. But suddenly there is a huge influx of dollars. Now again there are more dollars to buy the same amount of value. Therefore, the value of the dollar shrinks. This translates to needing more dollars to buy something.

If stocks are overvalued, meaning they are simply not worth as much as we pretend, it means that the value of the dollar is artificially high in at least that respect (because the value of stuff it has to buy is artificially high). So if stock value evaporates, the value of the dollar is pushed down (inflation) not up (deflation).

Now if stock value evaporates for a different reason, like say, people wanting to hold a more stable investment (like dollars) instead of stock, as happened earlier this year, it puts a big demand on dollars relative to stock. If people buy and hold dollars, instead of exchanging them, the value increases. We've seen moves toward holding dollars this year because of the pandemic and because of social unrest. If we return to anything resembling stability, we should see people relax and release those dollars (this is already happening), which counteracts deflation. When that happens, we'll notice that more dollars are in circulation than used to be, which further counteracts deflation.

Deflation and inflation of currency should not be confused with deflation or inflation of other commodities or goods. Lots of things have their own independent inflation or deflationary pressure on prices. And it's not the same as deflating or inflating currency. Consumer electronics, for example, perpetually deflate.

 

[Keef]

I really need y'all to go on a damn vacation so I can dump this Spirit and American stock.

 

[Biggles]

In Canada one of the major players in the charter business is a company called Airtransat. They are responsible for flying a lot of Canadians south in the winter & to Europe in the summer. In 2019 Air Canada negotiated a deal to buy Airtransat - not a positive prospect for the average Canadian traveller as it would likely drastically reduce competition in the long run. In the last quarter Airtransat's revenue dropped by 99% from the previous year. The takeover offer in 2019 was $18 a share ... it's now been reduced 70% to $5 a share.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Question for @Danoff

Do you think if inflation starts to run rampant, that the government could do anything about it? (Different question as to whether they would). Paul Volcker's Fed did to stave off inflation in the early 1980s by cranking interest rates to 20%.

 

[Danoff]

Question for @Danoff

Do you think if inflation starts to run rampant, that the government could do anything about it? (Different question as to whether they would). Paul Volcker's Fed did to stave off inflation in the early 1980s by cranking interest rates to 20%.

I think inflation is very difficult to control. I also think that the government doesn't have all of the proper incentives to control it (ie: debt). There are levers, like contracting the money supply, manipulating interest rates upward, etc. but those are very painful and would have other great costs.

The answer is I don't know. If the US were healthier economically it would help.

 

[ryzno]

I'm still lurking the stock market if y'all know what I mean.
What do y'all think about the market hitting 30K today?
Should I wait for the "crash" or "adjustment", since I'm not well invested?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm still lurking the stock market if y'all know what I mean.
What do y'all think about the market hitting 30K today?
Should I wait for the "crash" or "adjustment", since I'm not well invested?

Do you have a 401k through work? If not I'd suggest you get a Roth IRA because they have pretty great tax benefits.

It's hard for me to look at the market right now and think that future returns are gonna be great because everything is so inflated. Keep in mind that the dow jones (30k level) is just 30 companies and doesn't necessarily indicate broad performance. Idk...if you aren't invested at all, it's really hard to say to hold off, because...



This guy has a good series of videos. He's a pretty conservative investor - certainly no adderal-fueld Jim Cramer...which is probably a good place to start.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm still lurking the stock market if y'all know what I mean.
What do y'all think about the market hitting 30K today?
Should I wait for the "crash" or "adjustment", since I'm not well invested?

If you can, make an investment. Over the course of a few years time it's overwhelmingly likely that you will see a profit. I'm not really sure what else would be worth it in the short term with such low interest rates except maybe real estate.

 

[Joey D]

I'm still lurking the stock market if y'all know what I mean.
What do y'all think about the market hitting 30K today?
Should I wait for the "crash" or "adjustment", since I'm not well invested?

Will it adjust? Yes. But we don't know when that will be. The market is going to climb thanks to a Biden presidency and it has nothing to do with party affiliation either. Trump is horrendous for the market since he's very much anti-trade and promotes everything to be US-based. The market thrives on open trade since it means companies can do everything cheaper. Despite this, the market was going strong for the last four years and as long as Biden doesn't end up being anti-trade, it's going to go bonkers for a bit.

If you want to get into the market, my suggestion is to pick something you're familiar with, research the companies in that sector, and invest some money in the one that looks the most promising. I've had my biggest returns on Ferrari, Volvo AB (the heavy equipment branch, not the cars), Nvidia, and Moderna (COVID vaccine). My best of those is probably Moderna since I bought it right around 20 and it's nearly 100 now with Ferrari in a close second.

You don't even need to invest a bunch of money either. I have 10 different accounts through Fidelity, including one that I opened with $250 just to screw around with. That account is now over $1,700 in just about a year's time. I buy and sell from that all the time and use it as my gambling fund. If I think something might make a big move, I buy a few shares. All of my other accounts are more moderate in terms of risk and are mostly mutual funds. Superconductors have treated me well. .

I also have a thing for penny stocks too. They're so cheap, it's kind of fun to buy 100 shares of something and see where it goes. I bought 200 shares of Northern Dynasty Mineral for .40 a share and it's now at .80. Sure, it's not a huge gain by any means, but I doubled my money. If they ever strike it rich with their Pebble claim, then the stock should shoot up. I wouldn't recommend getting into penny stocks though since they are more often losers than winners.

 

[Crash]

I'm still lurking the stock market if y'all know what I mean.
What do y'all think about the market hitting 30K today?
Should I wait for the "crash" or "adjustment", since I'm not well invested?

Your answers to 3 questions will dictate whether you should get into the market or not.

1. Do you already have a rainy day fund and/or at least 6 months worth expenses saved up?
2. What are your investment expectations around risk and time horizon?
3. How much existing debt do you have and what are their interest rates?

1. If you've got emergency funds saved up, then by all means, start dabbling in the stock market, starting small to get a good understanding of how it works. Only use the money that you have above and beyond that emergency and daily expense fund. You can lose all your money in the stock market (even if it's unlikely with conservative investments), and last thing that you want is to not be able to afford food or to lose your roof because of it.

2. Investment expectations matter because generally speaking, rule of thumb is higher the risk, higher the reward, but also more likely to lose a lot of money. Even with conservative investments, your account value will fluctuate up and down on a daily basis, and some days it might fluctuate more. You will have to be able to understand at what point do the ups and down become too much, but at the same time not freak out if your account goes down by a dollar. Individual risk tolerance will determine that balance. Time horizon matters the most if anything because if you put the money in now and intend to keep it in for 10 or 20 years, it's pretty likely that you'll end up higher than where you started. The Dow hitting 30k now might be arguably inflated today, but in 10-20 years time, perhaps it won't be.

3. If you have high interest debt like consumer credit card debt, you're probably better off paying that off faster than taking the money and putting it into stocks. If debt is long term and low interest like mortgage, then the debt dragging you down isn't as much of a worry.

Do research about what you're about to put money into. S&P500, and the Russell 2000 to a even bigger degree, are better indices of overall major corporate health since they encompass significantly great number of companies and broader sectors of industry.

Don't try to time the market.

The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago. The second best time is now. It so happens that works pretty well for investing as well.

 

[Biggles]

I echo what Crash wrote. Speculating in the stock market is a form of gambling - you may win ... but more likely you will lose. It's like sitting down at a poker table with people who are more experienced, more knowledgable, better informed & better prepared than you. You may be lucky, you may guess right, but the odds are against you.

On the other hand, investing in a diversified portfolio by buying into one or more mutual funds allows you take advantage of a simple fact: over time the stock markets have been moving inexorably upwards as overall wealth increases in the world. Mutual funds allow you to make small investments that offer diversification. Choose funds that don't have buy-in & selling penalties (front or back loads) & have the lowest possible management fees. If you're looking at a long term horizon (more than 15 years), you should concentrate on equities as they have the most potential for long term growth.

Trying to time the market? Well, its's great if you happen to buy in at a good time ... & it sucks if you buy in before a crash, however, it's very hard to know what a good or bad time is. Just take the last year as an example. I (mostly) got out of the market in March because I anticipated things would continue to get worse with the pandemic & the economy. I was right ... but the markets, backed up by extraordinary measures by the Fed & the government, hesitated ... & then shot upwards. I would have been much better off if I had just stuck it out.

What will happen in the next few months? Who knows. There are always experts predicting precisely opposite scenarios. At any given moment on any given day, the markets may move up ... or down. Only hindsight reveals the longer term significance of those moves.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

3. If you have high interest debt like consumer credit card debt, you're probably better off paying that off faster than taking the money and putting it into stocks. If debt is long term and low interest like mortgage, then the debt dragging you down isn't as much of a worry.

This is a particularly good point.

Say you have $20k worth of debt at an 8% interest rate (sadly, not unusually high). It's pretty unrealistic to expect a steady 8% return from a conservative investment. Say you can get 3% with moderate risk. By putting your money into investments (at that 3%) instead of paying down debt, you are actually sitting on a -5% return on that investment ultimately.

A mortgage on the other hand, could have a rate low enough (2.7% or lower in some circumstances!) that your equity appreciation could be (though, maybe not likely in most places) actually higher than the mortgage interest. So you are borrowing money but actually making money (on paper at least, and while real estate continues to inflate into outer space). If you factor in inflation (if you borrowed $300k in 2020, that will be substantially less money at the end of a 30 year mortgage - probably) it makes even more sense. The Fed has created an environment in which borrowing a lot of money is basically the most reasonable thing to do.

 

[Biggles]

I'd like to point out how wrong @Danoff was in his interpretation of the market direction back in the spring. And my much maligned investment advisor was right. I take no satisfaction from this, as my own interpretation coincided more or less with Danoff's (& a number of other people on this forum). Timing the market, whether getting out or getting in, is extremely problematic. I was anticipating a "double-dip" in the markets. Even though there have been a few pull-backs in the last 8 months, the trend has been inexorably upwards. I'm now doubtful that there will be a major correction if the coming months - certainly not down below March levels.

The lesson? Who the hell knows? The markets have their own complex & often hard-to-rationalize logic. The extremely unsexy advice to "stay the course" & "look to the long term" seem like the most realistic pieces of advice for the average investor.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

One strategy to use if you feel the market is flying high is to set some cash aside and then buy the dips. Sell off some investments that have increased too quickly and too far, and then use that to buy the next opportunity at a good price. I like long-term holdings but the markets been pretty volatile even day to day.

 

[Danoff]

The lesson? Who the hell knows?

The lesson is get out. I've eaten enough losses in enough bubbles to know that when people start abandoning all reason and throwing money at something because "it seems to work" despite fundamentals, that it's fake.

I'm still happy with drawing down my stock exposure. Not putting it back in, maybe ever. I'm not completely out, not by a long shot, but I had too much.

I might be wrong, but I'll be happier on this side of wrong given the current scenario.

Edit:

The current stock market reminds me so much of the housing market leading up to 2008. Even at the time people were saying "this is out of touch with reality", "this makes no sense", "it can't keep going like this forever". And it didn't.

I still own more stock (mutual funds) than I'd like. But what I do have is in there for the very long term. I've slowed my contributions down to the level of matching.

 

[Biggles]

One strategy to use if you feel the market is flying high is to set some cash aside and then buy the dips. Sell off some investments that have increased too quickly and too far, and then use that to buy the next opportunity at a good price. I like long-term holdings but the markets been pretty volatile even day to day.

Actually, the market hasn't been that volatile for the last couple of months. And there haven't been too many dips to buy on. The idea of holding on for the long term is the the long term trend over many decades has been reliably up. Once you get out, you have the problem of when to get back in. I can tell you from experience, it's a very challenging problem.

The lesson is get out. I've eaten enough losses in enough bubbles to know that when people start abandoning all reason and throwing money at something because "it seems to work" despite fundamentals, that it's fake.

I'm still happy with drawing down my stock exposure. Not putting it back in, maybe ever. I'm not completely out, not by a long shot, but I had too much.

I might be wrong, but I'll be happier on this side of wrong given the current scenario.

Edit:

The current stock market reminds me so much of the housing market leading up to 2008. Even at the time people were saying "this is out of touch with reality", "this makes no sense", "it can't keep going like this forever". And it didn't.

I still own more stock (mutual funds) than I'd like. But what I do have is in there for the very long term. I've slowed my contributions down to the level of matching.

Nobody wants to "buy high" & "sell low". The question is how do you avoid doing that? In the end you have to invest in something for your retirement. Overall, I have been broadly invested & haven't paid much attention to the markets on a daily basis. On the occasions where I have - usually moments of market crisis, I haven't ended up making particularly good decisions. It seems this is pretty typical of the average retail investor.

When things started going to **** in March I read through the financial websites in some detail ... but the take away was always (& has continued to be for the following months): the markets will go a lot lower ... or, they will go back up to record highs. As it has turned out, the predictors of a 30,000 Dow have proved right ... so far. I really have no idea what will happen from this point, however, I can say with some confidence, that it is likely that I would be better off if I had just stayed invested throughout. Even if there is another big drop coming, I would most likely still be better off if I had just stayed invested throughout. That is the wisdom behind the saying: "it's not timing the market, it's time in the market." In other words: "what I have is in there for the very long term".

I would be pretty bullish on the future of Denver real estate.

 

[Danoff]

Actually, the market hasn't been that volatile for the last couple of months. And there haven't been too many dips to buy on. The idea of holding on for the long term is the the long term trend over many decades has been reliably up. Once you get out, you have the problem of when to get back in. I can tell you from experience, it's a very challenging problem.



Nobody wants to "buy high" & "sell low". The question is how do you avoid doing that? In the end you have to invest in something for your retirement. Overall, I have been broadly invested & haven't paid much attention to the markets on a daily basis. On the occasions where I have - usually moments of market crisis, I haven't ended up making particularly good decisions. It seems this is pretty typical of the average retail investor.

When things started going to **** in March I read through the financial websites in some detail ... but the take away was always (& has continued to be for the following months): the markets will go a lot lower ... or, they will go back up to record highs. As it has turned out, the predictors of a 30,000 Dow have proved right ... so far. I really have no idea what will happen from this point, however, I can say with some confidence, that it is likely that I would be better off if I had just stayed invested throughout. Even if there is another big drop coming, I would most likely still be better off if I had just stayed invested throughout. That is the wisdom behind the saying: "it's not timing the market, it's time in the market." In other words: "what I have is in there for the very long term".

I would be pretty bullish on the future of Denver real estate.

Return is not the only metric in the market. Risk exposure is as well. It's not just how much $$ you have, it's how much risk you expose yourself getting it. You probably would have been better off if you had converted to 100% bitcoin. Bitcoin was ~$6500 in march. Today it's $19000. That's a return of nearly 300%. Better than anything you had in mind (probably). But your risk exposure would have been high to chase that return. Likewise your risk exposure would have been higher for riding out that market with no change to your positions, and that strategy would have relied on the US political system going in a very specific way, which it has, but that was not guaranteed.

I'm very comfortable with my decision to further limit my risk exposure back in April even at the cost of some of the upside. I just took a sneak peek at the numbers (which I won't tally till the end of the year), but what I left in the market did quite well (naturally), and made lots of money compared to my last check at June. My wife had urged more drastic measures, so by talking her out of that, I can argue that we made lots of $$ at the cost of some risk.

We've moved what we took out of the stock market into real-estate for the most part.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Actually, the market hasn't been that volatile for the last couple of months. And there haven't been too many dips to buy on. The idea of holding on for the long term is the the long term trend over many decades has been reliably up. Once you get out, you have the problem of when to get back in. I can tell you from experience, it's a very challenging problem.

Yeah it makes more sense if you own individual stocks or possibly sector index funds. At one point Amazon doubled in price from 1,700 in March to 3,400 at the end of August. If something comes along, I can't see that holding up. Would've been a decent time to get out of that. There were still some opportunities in REITs even ones where collections weren't affected as much by COVID. Now those are going up as well including commercial real estate REITs.

 

[Biggles]

Return is not the only metric in the market. Risk exposure is as well. It's not just how much $$ you have, it's how much risk you expose yourself getting it. You probably would have been better off if you had converted to 100% bitcoin. Bitcoin was ~$6500 in march. Today it's $19000. That's a return of nearly 300%. Better than anything you had in mind (probably). But your risk exposure would have been high to chase that return. Likewise your risk exposure would have been higher for riding out that market with no change to your positions, and that strategy would have relied on the US political system going in a very specific way, which it has, but that was not guaranteed.

I'm very comfortable with my decision to further limit my risk exposure back in April even at the cost of some of the upside. I just took a sneak peek at the numbers (which I won't tally till the end of the year), but what I left in the market did quite well (naturally), and made lots of money compared to my last check at June. My wife had urged more drastic measures, so by talking her out of that, I can argue that we made lots of $$ at the cost of some risk.

We've moved what we took out of the stock market into real-estate for the most part.

Again, I'm not talking about chasing high returns with particular stocks - it's not about what happens over the course of a few months, it's about what happens over the course of years, perhaps decades. This is not about being a brilliant investor, it's just about taking advantage of long term trends.

 

[Danoff]

Again, I'm not talking about chasing high returns with particular stocks - it's not about what happens over the course of a few months, it's about what happens over the course of years, perhaps decades. This is not about being a brilliant investor, it's just about taking advantage of long term trends.

...and still what I wrote applies. The long term trend of the stock market is based in part on the trajectory of the US (since stock trading). In march, not only were we facing a pandemic, we were facing an aspiring dictator - each of which had characteristics that were unique in the history of the US stock market. I think that calls for some diversification of assets to account for risk.

The outlook is better now than it was in March for long term interest in market, but we're still clearly at a very... inflated... valuation.

 

[Biggles]

The outlook is better now than it was in March for long term interest in market, but we're still clearly at a very... inflated... valuation.

It would seem to be that way ... but it's certainly seemed that way for the last few months, with the market close to all time highs, a global pandemic raging & large parts of the economy shut down. How do you decide when it's the right time to go back in? That's the problem. Of course, if you decide not to go back in at all, no problem. You've just got to figure where else you can make a reasonable, low risk investment. It's never easy ... if it were, we'd all be rich!