3 ms·
If you're a normal person, who had a decently sized/exposed market retirement account in 2007, it took you about a decade to get back to the same level, inflati
by cinquemb 9y ago
If you're a normal person, who had a decently sized/exposed market retirement account in 2007, it took you about a decade to get back to the same level, inflation adjusted.
That's a lot of risk for chasing inflation adjusted returns…
Not to mention, there are a couple short volitilty ETFs that will be terminated soon, hope some long term ETF buyers won't be exposed to them or any big names they are holding who were exposed, because we're not done yet…
- refurb 9y agoIf you're a normal person, who had a decently sized/exposed market retirement account in 2007, it took you about a decade to get back to the same level, inflation adjusted. Jesus! What was this average person invested in? From the bottom of the market to back to the prior peak was 3 years for me. And I was so heavy in equities I lost 1/3 of my portfolio's value. Where does this "decade" come from? The DJIA is nearly 90% higher than the peak pre-2008. And I know you said inflation, but that has been 1-2% per year since then.
- cinquemb 9y agoI had in mind the ^RUA, which only started to break out from the previous top after 5 years, nominally, so you're right, not a decade, but not good for someone trying to retire within that time frame (which doesn't seem like you were). Still, I worked for a fund that swing traded futures for better returns and less risk than holding the market during this period…
- valuearb 9y agoIf you're a normal person, the market crash in 2007 meant that you got almost a decade to buy additional shares of stock super cheap, and increase your eventual retirement portfolio substantially. Volatility is not risk.