Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it should be more illegal for those talking heads in the media with their superior predicting ability to give their typical bad advice.
even bearish bill gross is now in the equities camp after making one poor call after another mostly predicting poor returns the past few years. .in the mean time his flag ship fund had investors jumping ship. pimco total return had so much in out flow that the s&p 500 index at vanguard is now the top fund in dollars.
I actually moved my 401K out of stocks and into the stable fund in 2007.
Gold was acting funny compared to the Dow and I had just read about Roubini.
Made the move based on that..figured sitting on the sidelines for 6 months to a year wasn't going to be a big hit. Talk about pure stinking luck. I got hit hard with the dot com bust because I wasn't paying attention.
But this last crash...I lucked out pure and simple.
Out in 2007 and started to get back in late 2009.
Currently I'm cautious and conservative....right now it's all about preservation of capital.
In 2006 I assumed my most defensive investment posture since I began investing in the late '70's. Late 90's I was defensive, but not full on real doom and gloom as in 2006/7. Yes I missed predicting the '87 crash and 9/11.
Right now I'm closer to the late '90's in my posture. But no where close to broad doom and gloom. I anticipate a good pull back 10-20% in the markets, and will then look for more buy low opportunities.
In 2006 I assumed my most defensive investment posture since I began investing in the late '70's. Late 90's I was defensive, but not full on real doom and gloom as in 2006/7. Yes I missed predicting the '87 crash and 9/11.
Right now I'm closer to the late '90's in my posture. But no where close to broad doom and gloom. I anticipate a good pull back 10-20% in the markets, and will then look for more buy low opportunities.
I'm kinda in the same boat as you are right now.
Not as worried as back in 2007 and on the sidelines.
But I am being cautious in what I invest in.
And, like you, I'm looking for good buy opportunities.
Then the market would have dropped. That's how it works. If people buy the market goes up. If people sell the market goes down. The issue is figuring out what others are going to do. Because most don't pay any attention to the fundamentals of a business.
It should be illegal for amateurs to give bad advice. What if people had listened to the OP?
Darwin Theory.... the weak/stupid will die off... if someone is stupid enough to follow blindly the op's one sentence recommendation, they should only blame themselves.
Long term holding of good stocks will always win if you can live long enough to see it. That is not always the case. This is why anyone who knows S from Shinola knows at 60 you don't hold more than 35 percent in stocks.
That portfolio recommendation is as outdated as that saying. For many years now, financial advisors have been recommending 110 minus your age or 120 minus your age as a general rule for how much one should have in equities. I, myself, am 58 with 61% in equities.
Using age is one of the worst ways ever to allocate. More damage has been done by telling young folks to go high equity positions when they have no pucker factor for it then helped.
no reason seniors can't have high equity positions either as long as they can take the volatility and use money they are not going to eat with for 15 years or longer.
talk about a myth , age based investing is about as bad as you can get.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.