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.
As long as the Fed policies and extremely low interest rates remain in place, the markets should hold up reasonably well. Dow 20K is certainly possible as that would only mean one more strong year of stock returns. That doesn't mean that we aren't due for a correction --- we are. So it wouldn't surprise me at all to see a 2500 point haircut, especially if DJT wins election and starts throwing out some new (read: no status quo) ideas. The only ? is when that correction happens.
yep , he made a poor decision .. another useless article written by another useless writer
The post was written by Auren Hoffman, who's actually a pretty successful entrepreneur and VC. However, I don't think he gives enough weight to the risks involved, or the additional amount of effort required to do what he suggests.
but not a successful investor in our markets which is what at they are writing about . heck i can write an article as to why i would invest in our markets .
not sure where it will be in 20 years but odds are it will still do better then anything else except for the pro's in real estate who know how that game is played and are privy to the deals others are not
I just wanted to see what you thought about the points he made. I make a lot of good points but he lined out a lot of the points I've made but added additional commentary.
I would really love a QUALITY discussion on this forum about the next 30 years of stocks (until 2046 - 2047). I get tired of financial advisers (btw, what in the hell is a financial adviser) showing these 100-year-old charts of what stocks have done. I want a quality discussion on what's ABOUT to happen
Nearly all of his arguments have nothing to do with business fundamentals... sales, earnings, assets, dividends. These are really what's important in the long run. The only point he made that's relevant to fundamentals is the potential for more competition from global companies. That is a valid point, but here in the U.S. we are still creating plenty of competitive corporations.
Supply and demand for stocks can distort valuations over relatively short periods of time, typically for no more than a few years. We saw this on the up side during 1998-2000, when the prices of many stocks got bid up to unreasonably high levels. We also saw this is 2009-2011, when prices were lower than they should have been according to the fundamentals. The trick is to have a long enough time horizon so you can weather any of these periods, so if you are going to need access to your money in, say, five years or less you should not have it invested in stocks. Prices do not stay depressed for 20-30 years without some underlying fundamental problem.
If earnings continue to grow faster than inflation, as they have in the past, then over 30 years we will see much higher earnings and much higher dividends than we have today. In that case there's no way the DJIA will still be at 18K. It will be much higher.
Now if you think the U.S. is done for, that none of the 1/3 billion people within will come up with new inventions or better ways of doing what we already do today, then by all means you should avoid the stock market like the plague. I don't know if the future will be as rosy as the past, but I'm optimistic enough to be invested in U.S. stocks even though I cannot guess what these new ideas will bring us.
The great mistake is to assume that the near-future will inevitably resemble the near-past. I made this very same mistake circa 2000, suspecting that if stocks decline after the dot-com frenzy, then the decline will be brief (like 1987 or 1998), followed by resurgent growth. I was wrong. Instead, we had 16 years of vapid oscillation. Should the next 16 years resemble that prior 16 years? Why should they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99
Tell me what you stock boys, bond freaks and real estate heads think
Stocks aren't necessarily a ceaseless panacea. But if we're going to dismiss stocks, AND bonds, AND real estate - what's left? Canned food?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jotucker99
I would really love a QUALITY discussion on this forum about the next 30 years of stocks (until 2046 - 2047). I get tired of financial advisers (btw, what in the hell is a financial adviser) showing these 100-year-old charts of what stocks have done. I want a quality discussion on what's ABOUT to happen.
If we had any reliable inkling of where markets would be in 2046, there would be no grounds for discussion. And if I knew that I'd die of Alzheimer's at age 90, instead of a massive heart-attack at age 65, I'd probably stop dieting and exercising right now - because I'd much rather take the heart-attack.
Financial advisors are inveterately optimistic. Save money, invest in the stock market, wait for 40 years, and you too will become the next Andrew Carnegie. Yeah. But just because they're pushy and obnoxious and biased, doesn't mean that their entire message is rubbish. Just because my doctor wants to prescribe all sorts of fluffy and irrelevant medical tests that generate profit and protect him from malpractice lawsuits, doesn't mean that his basic advice on diet and exercise is all bunk and baloney.
If I wanted to take the time, I could find where his points have been discussed by other people. Like the retirees selling their stocks and bonds to live and no one to buy them. I've seen other "experts" give their reasons why they don't feel it is anything to worry about. Reading all that stuff could drive anyone nuts with all the differing points of view. And none of them know for sure what will happen. Sometimes the professionals do the same dumb stuff as anyone else.
Here is an example. After the 9/11 attack the market was closed for several days. All the talking heads on TV kept saying that people shouldn't panic and sell their stocks. So what happened when the market reopened? Everyone, including the professionals, ran for the exits at the same time. Airline stocks really cratered as if no one would ever fly again. It just seemed logical to me that airline travel was not going to disappear overnight due to this tragedy. It would slump but it would come back and probably reasonably quickly. I scraped together what ever I could along with borrowing and when the market opened, I started buying airline stocks from those who just wanted out. Southwest, Frontier, SkyWest and Atlantic Coast. That is what really jumpstarted my investments as I made a very nice profit.
That is why I just smile when I see articles by experts/professionals telling other people how they should invest. There is no one size fits everyone. People just have to figure it out on their own. And some never will.
Airlines have been absolutely horrible investments. Great trades but horrible investments. Of your list half (Frontier and Atlantic Coast aka ACA) went bankrupt. ACA ceased operations completely.
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.
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.
