4 ms·

That's a question of asset allocation. A well-diversified portfolio should have assets that produce income even when stock-trading isn't. (i.e. bonds, dividen

That's a question of asset allocation. A well-diversified portfolio should have assets that produce income even when stock-trading isn't. (i.e. bonds, dividend-producing stocks.) It's also crucial to understand that it takes time. Stocks are still doing well, were absolutely roaring for the past 10 years. This is a blip in a single investor's timeframe. You need to invest a percentage year in, year out. Through high markets and lows. Keep plowing that percentage in. Every great investor from Buffet to Bogle to Dalio will tell you this is a known formula for success. The 'current time' is irrelevant. In every timeframe (even times of rising inflation, crashing stocks, etc.) there are assets that are appropriate. That's where education becomes important-- understanding what your levels of risk and comfort should play in allocating your assets. Don't believe nobody will make money over any extended time period. Some people certainly will. Education can help you do well in many environments (including the current one. Many people are doing very well.)

FabHK 7y ago
First, your theory that 'current time' is irrelevant is predicated on the broad market still producing relatively high real returns. This is by no means certain, and "secular stagnation" asserts precisely that the high returns are over for now. Second, how about some division of labour? Instead of every individual learning about the optimal allocation of assets and the CAPM and so on, how about everyone just pays into a central pot while working, and a few specialists invest it optimally. (Different risk aversion can easily be incorporated in that framework.) Just like you and I don't build our own cars, and don't need to know about how it works and how to repair it to use it. That's how it should be done in the civilised world: you pay into a pension pot, and then when you retire you get a pension. And there's another benefit: instead of everyone having to save to cover their maximal possible remaining lifetime (with expected waste being maximal possible total pension minus expected total pension) everyone only needs to save to cover their expected remaining lifetime (with expected waste being zero).
- RickJWagner 7y ago
  In short, because every-man-for-himself has a long history of great success. It simply works. Ignore it at your peril.

FabHK 7y ago

First, your theory that 'current time' is irrelevant is predicated on the broad market still producing relatively high real returns. This is by no means certain, and "secular stagnation" asserts precisely that the high returns are over for now. Second, how about some division of labour? Instead of every individual learning about the optimal allocation of assets and the CAPM and so on, how about everyone just pays into a central pot while working, and a few specialists invest it optimally. (Different risk aversion can easily be incorporated in that framework.) Just like you and I don't build our own cars, and don't need to know about how it works and how to repair it to use it. That's how it should be done in the civilised world: you pay into a pension pot, and then when you retire you get a pension. And there's another benefit: instead of everyone having to save to cover their maximal possible remaining lifetime (with expected waste being maximal possible total pension minus expected total pension) everyone only needs to save to cover their expected remaining lifetime (with expected waste being zero).

RickJWagner 7y ago
In short, because every-man-for-himself has a long history of great success. It simply works. Ignore it at your peril.