3 ms·

You should see the volume of the last 24 hours. No one is sitting on cash unless they are hobbyists.

zmgsabst 4y ago
That’s ironic. If you’d sold your S&P500 on Monday and bought back on Friday, you’d have gained 2.7 shares per 100 sold. If you’d sold your S&P500 a month prior and bought back on Friday, you’d have gained a 8 shares per 100 sold. If you’d sold your S&P500 six months prior and bought back on Friday, you’d have gained 14 shares per 100 sold.
- gabereiser 4y ago
  You just described a hobbyist. Institutions don’t sit on cash for that long, nor do they buy S&P in any significance. [0] Berkshire Hathaway - https://www.dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=BRK https://www.dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=BRK
  - carnitine 4y ago
    Interesting that you cite BRK, who famously have been sitting on ~150bn in cash recently. Professional investors absolutely sit on cash all the time.
    - gabereiser 4y ago
      Yeah, they did, and within a month or two it was reinvested elsewhere. Whether it was pulling out of American Airlines in favor of more shares of Chevron, or doubling down on tech stocks. BRK doesn’t just sit on 150bn in cash for longer than they have to. Not saying they don’t sit on cash but they definitely don’t sit on it for a year or more.
    - gabereiser 4y ago
      Show me a hedge fund that sat on more than 1% of their holdings for more than a year. I’ll wait.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Yes — I called it ironic because a hobbyist sitting on cash out performed the market over the past six months. Institutions “making moves” aren’t magic — and often fail to beat indexes, which in turn failed to beat cash over the past six months. Sometimes the hobbyist mindset wins.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - gabereiser 4y ago
      >sometimes the hobbyist mindset wins. In this case, you’re absolutely right. Had they just sat on it they wouldn’t have the losses they do today, furthering the panic selling.

That’s ironic. If you’d sold your S&P500 on Monday and bought back on Friday, you’d have gained 2.7 shares per 100 sold. If you’d sold your S&P500 a month prior and bought back on Friday, you’d have gained a 8 shares per 100 sold. If you’d sold your S&P500 six months prior and bought back on Friday, you’d have gained 14 shares per 100 sold.

gabereiser 4y ago
You just described a hobbyist. Institutions don’t sit on cash for that long, nor do they buy S&P in any significance. [0] Berkshire Hathaway - https://www.dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=BRK https://www.dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=BRK
- carnitine 4y ago
  Interesting that you cite BRK, who famously have been sitting on ~150bn in cash recently. Professional investors absolutely sit on cash all the time.
  - gabereiser 4y ago
    Yeah, they did, and within a month or two it was reinvested elsewhere. Whether it was pulling out of American Airlines in favor of more shares of Chevron, or doubling down on tech stocks. BRK doesn’t just sit on 150bn in cash for longer than they have to. Not saying they don’t sit on cash but they definitely don’t sit on it for a year or more.
  - gabereiser 4y ago
    Show me a hedge fund that sat on more than 1% of their holdings for more than a year. I’ll wait.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Yes — I called it ironic because a hobbyist sitting on cash out performed the market over the past six months. Institutions “making moves” aren’t magic — and often fail to beat indexes, which in turn failed to beat cash over the past six months. Sometimes the hobbyist mindset wins.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - gabereiser 4y ago
    >sometimes the hobbyist mindset wins. In this case, you’re absolutely right. Had they just sat on it they wouldn’t have the losses they do today, furthering the panic selling.