4 ms·

FWIW, I've been an investor through three market meltdowns: - .COM bubble - Subprime mortgage crisis - COVID All three were nervewracking, but I held. In on

FWIW, I've been an investor through three market meltdowns: - .COM bubble - Subprime mortgage crisis - COVID All three were nervewracking, but I held. In one case, I lost 101% on an Internet stock (CMTN for those who enjoy gloating). Total investments dropped 40% in the subprime crisis. COVID happened so fast, in both directions, that I really coudn't decide what to do. In each case, not selling was the right thing to do. Yes, I could have done far better by selling early in the event and the buying at the bottom. But timing is not what investing is about. This algorithm, if it's correct, can make a great deal of profit for the users: "major buying opportunity coming", at least until it's well known, at which point it might simply become a self-fulfiling prophecy.

yazantapuz 5y ago
As allways, time in the market beats timing the market.
godelski 5y ago
There's the old saying: time in the market is better than timing the market. If you're really not into doing tons of research to pick individual stocks then just buy ETFs and index funds. You'll do well. Even if you're into the research and stuff, it's probably good to hedge some that way. And for all those conservative investors I offer a new saying: buy low, buy high, sell even you're 65.
bern4444 5y ago
> at least until it's well known, at which point it might simply become a self-fulfiling prophecy. Exactly. Markets are extremely efficient. As soon as this becomes known as reliable, markets will begin pricing these possibilities in as investors make decisions around it.
zz865 5y ago
Not selling was the right thing to do (since 87 & LTCM) because the Fed came in and bailed everyone out. This has led to the huge inequality problem and the biggest asset bubble in history, and now everyone assumes the Fed will bail out everyone next time as well. The problem is one day it wont happen and a lot of people will get burned. Maybe it'll be next year, maybe it'll be generations following you.
- TuringNYC 5y ago
  All great points, but one things is for darn sure -- the best course now is to assume a bailout from the Fed. Not doing so means you miss out on the upside. In the chance event they dont bail out [rich folks and asset holders], we're all in trouble anyway, so whats the point being right in that case?
omarhaneef 5y ago
Speaking of how brief the market response to COVID was: I think that is a symptom of at least an algo (the fed will bail us out and the market will recover) being well known. There is surely a study out there that demonstrates how each successive crisis has been shorter than the last. In the next crisis during which the fed has dry powder left, I fully expect the market to go directly up.
rufus_foreman 5y ago
Dotcom bubble was nervewracking for me, even though I had pulled my tiny amount of assets out of stocks months before. I was a rookie. Mortgage crisis and COVID barely register. I love watching people freak out when stocks are down 3 or 4% in one day. It's my happy place. 1987 was 20% down in one day. If you're going to freak out about that, do something else with your money. It's disaster porn for me.

yazantapuz 5y ago

As allways, time in the market beats timing the market.

godelski 5y ago

There's the old saying: time in the market is better than timing the market. If you're really not into doing tons of research to pick individual stocks then just buy ETFs and index funds. You'll do well. Even if you're into the research and stuff, it's probably good to hedge some that way. And for all those conservative investors I offer a new saying: buy low, buy high, sell even you're 65.

bern4444 5y ago

> at least until it's well known, at which point it might simply become a self-fulfiling prophecy. Exactly. Markets are extremely efficient. As soon as this becomes known as reliable, markets will begin pricing these possibilities in as investors make decisions around it.

zz865 5y ago

Not selling was the right thing to do (since 87 & LTCM) because the Fed came in and bailed everyone out. This has led to the huge inequality problem and the biggest asset bubble in history, and now everyone assumes the Fed will bail out everyone next time as well. The problem is one day it wont happen and a lot of people will get burned. Maybe it'll be next year, maybe it'll be generations following you.

TuringNYC 5y ago
All great points, but one things is for darn sure -- the best course now is to assume a bailout from the Fed. Not doing so means you miss out on the upside. In the chance event they dont bail out [rich folks and asset holders], we're all in trouble anyway, so whats the point being right in that case?

omarhaneef 5y ago

Speaking of how brief the market response to COVID was: I think that is a symptom of at least an algo (the fed will bail us out and the market will recover) being well known. There is surely a study out there that demonstrates how each successive crisis has been shorter than the last. In the next crisis during which the fed has dry powder left, I fully expect the market to go directly up.

rufus_foreman 5y ago

Dotcom bubble was nervewracking for me, even though I had pulled my tiny amount of assets out of stocks months before. I was a rookie. Mortgage crisis and COVID barely register. I love watching people freak out when stocks are down 3 or 4% in one day. It's my happy place. 1987 was 20% down in one day. If you're going to freak out about that, do something else with your money. It's disaster porn for me.