3 ms·

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.

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.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      The suggestion is for people who don't invest because of whatever reason they come up with to stay out.

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.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    The suggestion is for people who don't invest because of whatever reason they come up with to stay out.