5 ms·

"Savings accounts are stupid! They offer fractions of percent interest. Look at exchange-traded funds that track an index such as the S&P 500 or Nasdaq Composit

by rsync 10y ago

"Savings accounts are stupid! They offer fractions of percent interest. Look at exchange-traded funds that track an index such as the S&P 500 or Nasdaq Composite. My personal favorite ETFs ... (and on and on)" Question. Be honest. How old were you in 2008 ?

imgabe 10y ago
If you had had your savings in the market in 2008 and didn't sell it, it would still be worth more now. Moreover if you were investing regularly then you would have been buying the super cheap stocks available in 2009.
- dukeluke 10y ago
  If you used your stocks as a savings account in 2008, then you would have seen most of your savings disappear right before you got fired.
nodesocket 10y ago
Mid 30's. Also you really don't know what you are talking about. If you bought nearly anything after Nov 21st 2008 and held, you'd be way in the green since then. Let me give you a even more conservative example. SPY which tracks the S&P and it is very conservative (in terms of stocks), is up 151% since Nov 21st 2008 way above pre-2008 levels. Not to mention all those beautiful dividend payments you received. https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=0&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1489294575254&chddm=990794&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSEARCA:SPY&ntsp=0&ei=6NTEWLnhEYKJ2Aboj7WICw https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=0&...
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Also you really don't know what you are talking about. If you bought nearly anything after Nov 21st 2008 and held, you'd be way in the green since then." Apparently it's likely you who 'doesn't know what he is talking about' given that you displayed as much to us in your rebuttal. ---> Stating that 'the market is up' since a historical low is more than meaningless. You should know that if you're offering advice on stocks via a blog. I believe that a retail trader can 'make money' on ETrade about as much as the average joe (or even intelligent joe) can beat Deep Blue at chess - which is not. This is not some deep insight, it's fairly well known.
  - nodesocket 10y ago
    Did you even look at the graph? Let's assume you bought SPY (very conservative ETF index) right before the crash at its high of 156.33 (Oct. 12th 2007 ). If you just held and did nothing, you'd be up a hefty 81%. This is not including dividends or even better a DRIP which would compound dividends and automatically bought more on the way down lowering your dollar cost average. https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=0&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1489297476800&chddm=933311&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSEARCA:SPY&&fct=big&ei=Ut_EWPilENPTjAHDn6_wDQ https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=0&...
    - nodesocket 10y ago
      Funny how my evidence that directly refutes your claim is getting down-voted. > I believe that a retail trader can 'make money' on ETrade about as much as the average joe (or even intelligent joe) can beat Deep Blue at chess - which is not. If you bought at the worst time possible right before the crash and just held SPY, you'd be up 81% not including dividends. I'd say an "average joe" can manage that.
      - narrowrail 10y ago
        I think you make a good point, and I wish I'd taken advantage. My brother, who makes $12/hr, took his entire savings in March '09 and invested in commodities. He saw massive growth, while I bought toys and had fun. I made no money, and learned a good lesson.
      - edblarney 10y ago
        What you are saying is 'all you have to do is buy low and sell high' and you can make money on the market. Do you understand the fallacy in that logic?
        icedchai 10y ago
        The logic is more like this: You buy broad-based index funds and hold long term. Long term, the "when" doesn't matter.
- rsync 10y ago
  "Also you really don't know what you are talking about." Savings account (and other) rates are not low like they are because of chance or happenstance or a computer bug ... they are that low for a reason. People are terrified. Smart, big money is terrified. Policymakers (at least thoughtful, informed ones) are terrified. Nobody has any idea how all of this turns out. The 8 year melt-up in stocks is the result of hot, hot money dancing in and out of the market, desperately trying to eke out a return - all the while knowing that there will be a terrible, desperate scramble for seats when the music stops. In your model of the markets that you are sketching out for us ... who is the sucker ? Who is it ? Not quite sure ? The sucker is you.
  - icedchai 10y ago
    It seems to me that the suckers are all the people who were too "terrified" to invest over the past 10 years.
- justicezyx 10y ago
  > If you bought nearly anything after Nov 21st 2008 and held, you'd be way in the green since then. You can always pick a crisis, and say that hold equity after crisis or before crisis, and wait for years, everything is green. Just pick a correct time period. The chart is obvious to naked eye, and an elementary schooler can make that argument correctly. You ignored the fact that who caused the crisis and who are hurt the most. Whatever you said is an camouflage over a much more profound issue. The fact that less rich or powerful can still grow matters much less than the relative ratio and wealth and power distribution. The fact is obviously that the world's current market structure make rich become richer, powerful become more powerful. And let's pray that does not eventual causes society and economy breakdown.

by rsync 10y ago

imgabe 10y ago

If you had had your savings in the market in 2008 and didn't sell it, it would still be worth more now. Moreover if you were investing regularly then you would have been buying the super cheap stocks available in 2009.

dukeluke 10y ago
If you used your stocks as a savings account in 2008, then you would have seen most of your savings disappear right before you got fired.

nodesocket 10y ago

Mid 30's. Also you really don't know what you are talking about. If you bought nearly anything after Nov 21st 2008 and held, you'd be way in the green since then. Let me give you a even more conservative example. SPY which tracks the S&P and it is very conservative (in terms of stocks), is up 151% since Nov 21st 2008 way above pre-2008 levels. Not to mention all those beautiful dividend payments you received. https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=0&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1489294575254&chddm=990794&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSEARCA:SPY&ntsp=0&ei=6NTEWLnhEYKJ2Aboj7WICw https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=0&...

edblarney 10y ago
"Also you really don't know what you are talking about. If you bought nearly anything after Nov 21st 2008 and held, you'd be way in the green since then." Apparently it's likely you who 'doesn't know what he is talking about' given that you displayed as much to us in your rebuttal. ---> Stating that 'the market is up' since a historical low is more than meaningless. You should know that if you're offering advice on stocks via a blog. I believe that a retail trader can 'make money' on ETrade about as much as the average joe (or even intelligent joe) can beat Deep Blue at chess - which is not. This is not some deep insight, it's fairly well known.
- nodesocket 10y ago
  Did you even look at the graph? Let's assume you bought SPY (very conservative ETF index) right before the crash at its high of 156.33 (Oct. 12th 2007 ). If you just held and did nothing, you'd be up a hefty 81%. This is not including dividends or even better a DRIP which would compound dividends and automatically bought more on the way down lowering your dollar cost average. https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=0&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1489297476800&chddm=933311&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSEARCA:SPY&&fct=big&ei=Ut_EWPilENPTjAHDn6_wDQ https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=0&...
  - nodesocket 10y ago
    Funny how my evidence that directly refutes your claim is getting down-voted. > I believe that a retail trader can 'make money' on ETrade about as much as the average joe (or even intelligent joe) can beat Deep Blue at chess - which is not. If you bought at the worst time possible right before the crash and just held SPY, you'd be up 81% not including dividends. I'd say an "average joe" can manage that.
    - narrowrail 10y ago
      I think you make a good point, and I wish I'd taken advantage. My brother, who makes $12/hr, took his entire savings in March '09 and invested in commodities. He saw massive growth, while I bought toys and had fun. I made no money, and learned a good lesson.
    - edblarney 10y ago
      What you are saying is 'all you have to do is buy low and sell high' and you can make money on the market. Do you understand the fallacy in that logic?
      - icedchai 10y ago
        The logic is more like this: You buy broad-based index funds and hold long term. Long term, the "when" doesn't matter.
rsync 10y ago
"Also you really don't know what you are talking about." Savings account (and other) rates are not low like they are because of chance or happenstance or a computer bug ... they are that low for a reason. People are terrified. Smart, big money is terrified. Policymakers (at least thoughtful, informed ones) are terrified. Nobody has any idea how all of this turns out. The 8 year melt-up in stocks is the result of hot, hot money dancing in and out of the market, desperately trying to eke out a return - all the while knowing that there will be a terrible, desperate scramble for seats when the music stops. In your model of the markets that you are sketching out for us ... who is the sucker ? Who is it ? Not quite sure ? The sucker is you.
- icedchai 10y ago
  It seems to me that the suckers are all the people who were too "terrified" to invest over the past 10 years.
justicezyx 10y ago
> If you bought nearly anything after Nov 21st 2008 and held, you'd be way in the green since then. You can always pick a crisis, and say that hold equity after crisis or before crisis, and wait for years, everything is green. Just pick a correct time period. The chart is obvious to naked eye, and an elementary schooler can make that argument correctly. You ignored the fact that who caused the crisis and who are hurt the most. Whatever you said is an camouflage over a much more profound issue. The fact that less rich or powerful can still grow matters much less than the relative ratio and wealth and power distribution. The fact is obviously that the world's current market structure make rich become richer, powerful become more powerful. And let's pray that does not eventual causes society and economy breakdown.