5 ms·

I hate being such a sook about the markets. I want to sell now and buy when it's lower, but I'm worried we're at bottom. That said, I thought we'd hit bottom

I hate being such a sook about the markets. I want to sell now and buy when it's lower, but I'm worried we're at bottom. That said, I thought we'd hit bottom yesterday. And the day before that. And the day before that.

steveplace 18y ago
If you didn't have a risk management plan in place, for shame. Anyways, here's some stuff that will take the fear out of you. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/10-bullish-sign.html http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/10-bullish-si...
- timcederman 18y ago
  I have risk management in place, of course. I'm not concerned about my losses, just wish I had the balls to capitalize on the falling market. Good link, thanks. So perhaps time to start buying soon...
  - steveplace 18y ago
    It's been tough. I've been trading in this market and I've caught a couple pretty good moves.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Trying to accurately time the market isn't ballsy, it's stupid. It's the modern day alchemy.
    - steveplace 18y ago
      Well I've been stupidly printing money in this market.
  - njharman 18y ago
    Balls? I don't understand. The simplest tenant is "buy low, sell high". Most stocks are low, way low now. No need to time the bottom. Buy and hold. Buy quality companies whose business/products you personally understand. If you already have stock, it's a nobrainer perfect time to buy more of the same. Dollar cost averaging. Bought a stock at $20, now it's at $15? buy another. Your cost is now $17.50. Stock has to go up half as far for you to be making return.
    - timcederman 18y ago
      Yes yes, buy and hold, blah blah. But you're missing the sell part. Monday was when I should've sold high, but I don't want to mistime the bottom, so I do the lazy investor's approach and leave my stocks alone until a bottom has been established and I start buying back in.
- alecco 18y ago
  What? That is hocus pocus. And based on what? Zero analysis of what were the measures taken. And many other things unaccounted like shadow finances, global trade block, insurance chaos, etc. Their anecdotal analysis is bad. They didn't check recent crisis in other countries, for example. The Asian crisis and the Japanese stagflation are certainly more similar to the current situation than US 1929, 1973 or even 2002. It all depends on the next steps. Bailouts failed, inter-bank credit is still dead. There wasn't yet deleveraging. I can do many [better] things with my cash than put in stupidly risky stocks at the moment.
- fauigerzigerk 18y ago
  The problem is that the credit fueled series of booms and busts that started in the 1980s might end here. At the end of the day growth of credit and money supply must be backed by productivity growth. I don't have the numbers right now, but be assured that credit and money supply growth hugely outpaced productivity growth since the 80s. So basically that means we've been financing bubbles. In my view, it's up for debate whether a succession of booms and busts is necessarily worse than a more steady development. But since this latest bust turns out to be rather violent there will be a political reaction. If that reaction is to end the boom and bust economy then stock markets might not rise much for the next 10 or 20 years. I'm not saying they won't snap back some from the current very low levels, but after that I wouldn't bet on the next huge upswing.
  - kirse 18y ago
    The problem is that the credit fueled series of booms and busts that started in the 1980s might end here...credit and money supply growth hugely outpaced productivity growth since the 80s. Bingo. This is more than just another downswing in the economy. We've reached our limit for credit and leverage-fueled growth and it will NOT be the same level of growth as experienced the past 20-30 years. The U.S. is in debt up to its eyeballs and the bills are starting to come due. Just looking at this basic chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Federal_Debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Federal_Debt(gross).JPG Shows that since 1980 most of our growth has been on the back of an insane amount of growing debt, which is now to the tune of $32k per PERSON! The bills are coming due, this is a fundamental correction in the economy and it's not going to be a quick little recovery back to growth of the 90s.
    - fauigerzigerk 18y ago
      That's right, and the chart doesn't even show the whole problem because it shows just the federal dept. Consumer dept and dept of financial institutions is where the biggest growth has been: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a09b317e-898d-11dd-8371-0000779fd18c.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a09b317e-898d-11dd-8371-0000779fd1... (scroll down for the charts) Another interesting question is of course who owns this dept and how much of it is owed to foreigners, because that points to possible ways of silent default ;-)

steveplace 18y ago

If you didn't have a risk management plan in place, for shame. Anyways, here's some stuff that will take the fear out of you. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/10-bullish-sign.html http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/10-bullish-si...

timcederman 18y ago
I have risk management in place, of course. I'm not concerned about my losses, just wish I had the balls to capitalize on the falling market. Good link, thanks. So perhaps time to start buying soon...
- steveplace 18y ago
  It's been tough. I've been trading in this market and I've caught a couple pretty good moves.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Trying to accurately time the market isn't ballsy, it's stupid. It's the modern day alchemy.
  - steveplace 18y ago
    Well I've been stupidly printing money in this market.
- njharman 18y ago
  Balls? I don't understand. The simplest tenant is "buy low, sell high". Most stocks are low, way low now. No need to time the bottom. Buy and hold. Buy quality companies whose business/products you personally understand. If you already have stock, it's a nobrainer perfect time to buy more of the same. Dollar cost averaging. Bought a stock at $20, now it's at $15? buy another. Your cost is now $17.50. Stock has to go up half as far for you to be making return.
  - timcederman 18y ago
    Yes yes, buy and hold, blah blah. But you're missing the sell part. Monday was when I should've sold high, but I don't want to mistime the bottom, so I do the lazy investor's approach and leave my stocks alone until a bottom has been established and I start buying back in.
alecco 18y ago
What? That is hocus pocus. And based on what? Zero analysis of what were the measures taken. And many other things unaccounted like shadow finances, global trade block, insurance chaos, etc. Their anecdotal analysis is bad. They didn't check recent crisis in other countries, for example. The Asian crisis and the Japanese stagflation are certainly more similar to the current situation than US 1929, 1973 or even 2002. It all depends on the next steps. Bailouts failed, inter-bank credit is still dead. There wasn't yet deleveraging. I can do many [better] things with my cash than put in stupidly risky stocks at the moment.
fauigerzigerk 18y ago
The problem is that the credit fueled series of booms and busts that started in the 1980s might end here. At the end of the day growth of credit and money supply must be backed by productivity growth. I don't have the numbers right now, but be assured that credit and money supply growth hugely outpaced productivity growth since the 80s. So basically that means we've been financing bubbles. In my view, it's up for debate whether a succession of booms and busts is necessarily worse than a more steady development. But since this latest bust turns out to be rather violent there will be a political reaction. If that reaction is to end the boom and bust economy then stock markets might not rise much for the next 10 or 20 years. I'm not saying they won't snap back some from the current very low levels, but after that I wouldn't bet on the next huge upswing.
- kirse 18y ago
  The problem is that the credit fueled series of booms and busts that started in the 1980s might end here...credit and money supply growth hugely outpaced productivity growth since the 80s. Bingo. This is more than just another downswing in the economy. We've reached our limit for credit and leverage-fueled growth and it will NOT be the same level of growth as experienced the past 20-30 years. The U.S. is in debt up to its eyeballs and the bills are starting to come due. Just looking at this basic chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Federal_Debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Federal_Debt(gross).JPG Shows that since 1980 most of our growth has been on the back of an insane amount of growing debt, which is now to the tune of $32k per PERSON! The bills are coming due, this is a fundamental correction in the economy and it's not going to be a quick little recovery back to growth of the 90s.
  - fauigerzigerk 18y ago
    That's right, and the chart doesn't even show the whole problem because it shows just the federal dept. Consumer dept and dept of financial institutions is where the biggest growth has been: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a09b317e-898d-11dd-8371-0000779fd18c.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a09b317e-898d-11dd-8371-0000779fd1... (scroll down for the charts) Another interesting question is of course who owns this dept and how much of it is owed to foreigners, because that points to possible ways of silent default ;-)