2 ms·

Those same people have trouble recognizing the bottom as well, and generally always have a reason to not invest. For them, I recommend investing after 3 years

Those same people have trouble recognizing the bottom as well, and generally always have a reason to not invest. For them, I recommend investing after 3 years of a sustained market direction from an inflection point.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> I recommend investing after 3 years of a sustained market direction from an inflection point Defining an inflection point is subjective, particularly a few years after it. Late 2008 was a crash; 2011 featured lots of hand-wringing around QE, "green shoots" and the like.
- manigandham 7y ago
  It's pretty clear 2008 was the inflection point and it went up for three years afterward. You'll find endless reasons to stay out of the market so I was offering at least one simple rule to follow.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > It's pretty clear 2008 was the inflection point It's clear now. But (a) there are lots of starts that stall and (b) it's impossible to differentiate them 3 years afterwards. At the end of the day, timing the market is incredibly difficult. When one decomposes returns of the world's top investors, timing is pretty much random.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Time in the market beats timing the market. You're describing all the rationalizations people use to stay out. 2008 was the bottom and it went up for 3 years. You would see that by 2012 so buy in. That's it. That's the entire rule/suggestion. There's no "timing the market" needed.
      - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > That's the entire rule/suggestion. There's no "timing the market" needed. “Invest 3 years after an inflection point” is an attempt at timing the market. For every 2008, there are ‘54 and ‘57; ‘70 and ‘73; ‘80 and ‘81; et cetera.
        manigandham 7y ago
        Inflection points aren't timing, you recognize them after the fact. Literally when was the last time the market changed direction and what did it do for 3 years after. It doesn't matter if it goes down again, once you invest you stay invested. The rule was a simple guide on when to get in. Or you can just stay out forever.
        JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > Inflection points aren't timing, you recognize them after the fact “Timing the market” means incorporating timing and/or peak-to-trough measures in investment decisions. When you’re not asking “which assets should I buy” and instead “when should I buy them,” you’re trying to time the market. Research is pretty consistent in showing almost all timing strategies are inferior to consistent investment, e.g. investing $X per month, regardless of your views on where the market is relative to what you believe to be an inflection point.
        manigandham 7y ago
        Obviously, if you're investing consistently then this thread doesn't apply. I don't know how to make it any clearer - some people will always have a reason to stay out and I offered a rule to follow to get in. That's all it was.
        koonsolo 7y ago
        That sounds smart, but the numbers say otherwise. "Invest it all now" is the best strategy. In your case, you just lost 3 years of nice recovery percentages.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> I recommend investing after 3 years of a sustained market direction from an inflection point Defining an inflection point is subjective, particularly a few years after it. Late 2008 was a crash; 2011 featured lots of hand-wringing around QE, "green shoots" and the like.

manigandham 7y ago
It's pretty clear 2008 was the inflection point and it went up for three years afterward. You'll find endless reasons to stay out of the market so I was offering at least one simple rule to follow.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > It's pretty clear 2008 was the inflection point It's clear now. But (a) there are lots of starts that stall and (b) it's impossible to differentiate them 3 years afterwards. At the end of the day, timing the market is incredibly difficult. When one decomposes returns of the world's top investors, timing is pretty much random.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Time in the market beats timing the market. You're describing all the rationalizations people use to stay out. 2008 was the bottom and it went up for 3 years. You would see that by 2012 so buy in. That's it. That's the entire rule/suggestion. There's no "timing the market" needed.
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > That's the entire rule/suggestion. There's no "timing the market" needed. “Invest 3 years after an inflection point” is an attempt at timing the market. For every 2008, there are ‘54 and ‘57; ‘70 and ‘73; ‘80 and ‘81; et cetera.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        Inflection points aren't timing, you recognize them after the fact. Literally when was the last time the market changed direction and what did it do for 3 years after. It doesn't matter if it goes down again, once you invest you stay invested. The rule was a simple guide on when to get in. Or you can just stay out forever.
        JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > Inflection points aren't timing, you recognize them after the fact “Timing the market” means incorporating timing and/or peak-to-trough measures in investment decisions. When you’re not asking “which assets should I buy” and instead “when should I buy them,” you’re trying to time the market. Research is pretty consistent in showing almost all timing strategies are inferior to consistent investment, e.g. investing $X per month, regardless of your views on where the market is relative to what you believe to be an inflection point.
        manigandham 7y ago
        Obviously, if you're investing consistently then this thread doesn't apply. I don't know how to make it any clearer - some people will always have a reason to stay out and I offered a rule to follow to get in. That's all it was.
        koonsolo 7y ago
        That sounds smart, but the numbers say otherwise. "Invest it all now" is the best strategy. In your case, you just lost 3 years of nice recovery percentages.