Buy stocks right now? Market brahs gih

[sevva888]

If you have to rely on listening to the misc for financial advice then you deserve to lose your money srs.

[Mrlooker]

Markets trade within 5% of an all time high about 75% of the time.

Laughing at someone who buys in near an all time high is a market timing fallacy.

You even said it yourself; time in the market > timing the market

yeh not a perfect sitution

My advice which you ignored was akin to don't put all eggs in one basket.

If you are not in the market don't put it all in together. spread it out over time at the start

[Dan_S]

yeh not a perfect sitution

My advice which you ignored was akin to don't put all eggs in one basket.

If you are not in the market don't put it all in together. spread it out over time at the start

I actually remember reading a study about that. Time in the market still wins over dollar cost averaging. Most people prefer to DCA though due to the mental hurdle of throwing it all in at once.

Thinking that DCA is going to lessen your losses is still a form of market timing.

[PatheticPeter]

You failed to mention the massive amounts of real time proprietary data that they have access to. No ordinary trader can make anywhere near as informed decisions as they can.

who was hft?
who was algorithms?
who was inside trading (let's not pretend it doesn't happen)?
who was dark pools?
who was spread commissions?

itt phaggots think "wallstreet" makes money off buy and hold techniques, just lol.

[arn710]

If you have money in IRAs and 401ks currently, what is the best way to invest that money so that it doesn't take a big hit during a market correction?

Bonds? REIT?

[LukeS1]

Investing 10k based off misc recommendations, what could go wrong?

[Dan_S]

If you have money in IRAs and 401ks currently, what is the best way to invest that money so that it doesn't take a big hit during a market correction?

Bonds? REIT?

Asset allocations (the percentage towards different asset classes you have) are supposed to cover this. You choose an asset allocation risk that you're comfortable with, but they key is to stick with it..

Example:
In an 80/20 stock to bond portfolio, you would currently hold that allocation. If the market drops, your stock position becomes less; let's say it drops down to 75% (since its value falls) which means your bond position automatically gets higher. At this point, you need to rebalance your portfolio to meet your asset allocation. So you sell some bonds and buy more stock until you're back to 80/20. This forces you to buy when the market is down (on sale).

Likewise, if the market goes up and you're suddenly holding 85% stock to 15% bonds, you would sell some of your equity portfolio and buy more bonds. The hope is that the market is overpriced, so you liquidate some of your stocks and buy bonds.

The bonds in your portfolio are there to smooth out the volatility, but only if you're rebalancing according to your asset allocation. If you don't, those bonds are just lowering the potential gains in your equities.

As a whole, bonds will have significantly worse performance than equities. But because they won't fall as much as stock, you also end up with less down swings.

REIT's I would only recommend for someone who doesn't own a home, otherwise you end up with a portfolio severely weighted towards real estate (this doesn't include rentals, because those are a different beast than primary residence; however, you still might end up with too much riding on the housing market). REIT's will mostly follow equities with potentially less volatility, although the 2008 crash kind of proves they're not as safe as they once were.

[DrunkPanda18]

Index fund u retard.

Do you really think you can outsmart the high IQ ivy league graduates on wallstreet?

I don't think it is so much trying to outsmart those guys, as you are playing a different game than them.

I don't know much about stocks (trying to learn right now), but it seems like they are trying to make as much money as quickly as possible by trying to capitalize on extremely short term changes in various stocks.

Whereas a normal person investor should try to invest in companies that they expect to do well in the long term. I could be wrong though, I don't really know how those Wall Street traders base their decisions

[ontclone]

It's actually not all that hard to beat an index during a bull market. Do it consistently over several years, including a bear market, and then come back and post your results.

If you somehow still managed to beat the market, congratulations, you're officially the best investor on the planet. I look forward to hearing about you on the next list of billionaires.

yeah but you fail to realize that big investors are on a way bigger disadvantage than us because of how much money they have to.

[ontclone]

I don't think it is so much trying to outsmart those guys, as you are playing a different game than them.

I don't know much about stocks (trying to learn right now), but it seems like they are trying to make as much money as quickly as possible by trying to capitalize on extremely short term changes in various stocks.

Whereas a normal person investor should try to invest in companies that they expect to do well in the long term. I could be wrong though, I don't really know how those Wall Street traders base their decisions

this guy gets it. they cant/ dont hold companies for 2-3 years .

[Ochosiete]

whats in your safe op?

[Kiknskreem]

just lol at investing in an index fund right at the peak.

just lol

How many previous peaks have there been? What is OP's time horizon?

Cliffs: you're dumb.

[Kiknskreem]

it could peak higher but there's 0% chance of it going on a neverending run.

Literally nobody expects it to go on a neverending run.

It goes up. It comes down.

it's gone so high recently that probability shows when it will dip or even crash again it's going to back lower than what it is right now. when you invest in an index fund you expect a certain steady return.

Nobody who knows the first thing about stocks expects "steady" returns or for the market to never drop below their buy in price.

[mp83]

If you are in the US, create an account at Vanguard and buy VTSAX. It's total stock market index. Over time, you very likely won't beat it picking individual stocks. Professional stock traders typically underperform the market. It's the ultimate diversification

[sowilson]

OP, want a fund with fairly low expenses, that automatically rebalances, is geared towards long term growth (so you plan on holding for at least 5 years), and has an %80 stock/ %20 bond mix? Then choose Vanguard LifeStrategy Growth Fund (VASGX). It's core holdings are;

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares 48.3%
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Investor Shares 31.8%
Vanguard Total Bond Market II Index Fund Investor Shares 14.1%
Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund Investor Shares 5.8%

Dull, boring, and will beat almost everyone in the long term. Once you've invested $100K or so then take $10K and go play with a brokerage.

[arn710]

If you are in the US, create an account at Vanguard and buy VTSAX. It's total stock market index. Over time, you very likely won't beat it picking individual stocks. Professional stock traders typically underperform the market. It's the ultimate diversification

The min buy in for VTSAX is $10k

Just an FYI before miscers start scraping together their allowance to "invest"

[Dan_S]

The min buy in for VTSAX is $10k

Just an FYI before miscers start scraping together their allowance to "invest"

You can buy VTSMX, which I believe has a $3k minimum. Once it hits $10k, Vanguard will let you know that you can do an in-kind transfer to VTSAX. The fees are only slightly higher with VTSMX.

If you can't afford $3k, I'd suggest just save a few months until you get hit the minimum.

[CLIMATIC]

Ask your broker to maximize your Sharpe Ratio between the stocks you chose and an index fund. Then don't do anything for the next several years. Just let it sit and ride out whatever trends happen

Thank me later

[rarmata]

If you must right now, index funds

Agreed. Unless you plan to passionately study the market just invest in an index fund and get 5% yearly compounded return. $10,000 will get you $500 in a year, then then $10,500 get's you $11,025 the next year and keeps growing. It seems small, $10k is small as far as non-risky investments go...

[pelbismeasly]

^ 5% no thx jeff, think i can do better

[Letthemcome]

Literally nobody expects it to go on a neverending run.

It goes up. It comes down.




Nobody who knows the first thing about stocks expects "steady" returns or for the market to never drop below their buy in price.

Yeah so wait for it to come down genius.

Actually the reason people invest in index funds is because they want a steady return. **** me there's some low iq people on here.

And just lol at people saying you can't time the market. Yes you can. Stop repeating garbage you've read like a robot. Obviously if the market has skyrocketed far higher and longer than ever before, the probability of it continuing to do so for much longer is low. That's not to say you can time when it will crash. But you know it will go back down. You know they're starting to raise interest rates. So you time your entry for when it does go back down, especially if it's an index fund of only stocks. You don't just enter at any random moment you morons. I already gave you the example of waiting 11 years just for a return from 2000-2011 but of course you all ignored that despite it being direct proof that you're wrong because you read that 'you can't time the market' so you just repeat it mindlessly.

[Kiknskreem]

Yeah so wait for it to come down genius.

Except we have no idea when that's going to happen. Could be next week. Could be years.

Some people have been sitting on the sidelines for years now saying the market is overvalued. Not only have they missed out on all the capital appreciation over the last few years, they've missed out on dividends as well.

History has shown over and over again that time in the market is more important than timing the market.

Actually the reason people invest in index funds is because they want a steady return.

Equities don't provide 'steady returns'. They're volatile. You might be up 20% next year or down 30%.

The long term market average has very little to do with shorter term returns, which are anything but 'steady'.

And just lol at people saying you can't time the market. Yes you can. Stop repeating garbage you've read like a robot. Obviously if the market has skyrocketed far higher and longer than ever before, the probability of it continuing to do so for much longer is low. That's not to say you can time when it will crash. But you know it will go back down.

Eventually it will almost certainly go back down. We don't know when. We don't know how much. We do know that people who stay invested for the long term and let their dollars work for the continuously tend to do the best over time.

I already gave you the example of waiting 11 years just for a return from 2000-2011 but of course you all ignored that despite it being direct proof that you're wrong because you read that 'you can't time the market' so you just repeat it mindlessly.

And I pointed out in my initial post that you are retarded for thinking that means anything not having any sense of the investor's time horizon. LMAO at picking one time period and thinking that proves anything.

[ILoveTrance]

Check vanguard index funds.

[Letthemcome]

Except we have no idea when that's going to happen. Could be next week. Could be years.

Some people have been sitting on the sidelines for years now saying the market is overvalued. Not only have they missed out on all the capital appreciation over the last few years, they've missed out on dividends as well.

History has shown over and over again that time in the market is more important than timing the market.




Equities don't provide 'steady returns'. They're volatile. You might be up 20% next year or down 30%.

The long term market average has very little to do with shorter term returns, which are anything but 'steady'.




Eventually it will almost certainly go back down. We don't know when. We don't know how much. We do know that people who stay invested for the long term and let their dollars work for the continuously tend to do the best over time.




And I pointed out in my initial post that you are retarded for thinking that means anything not having any sense of the investor's time horizon. LMAO at picking one time period and thinking that proves anything.

Omfg. Obviously you wait years. We're talking about investing not daytrading. Patience is more important than anything. If you can't even wait just a couple of years then you are a ****ing moron. Why are you even bothering to comment? It's obvious you are completely clueless, you're making me have to state basic facts like I'm teaching a toddler.

People invest in index funds because they're expecting a steady return OVER TIME. Again your little mind is too impatient.

Actually no people who invest at the right time and then let their dollars work continuously do the best. The only time your theory works is if you're 30, finally making a steady paycheck, and deposit x amount every week without thought so that when you're 60 AFTER 30 YEARS you have made a steady amount (this theory is based on a time period of good success for America. It won't always be around if America begins to fall and takes the global economy with it, but probability suggests that it will most likely work out for you). When you are talking about injecting lump sums you do not do this. Is this really so hard to understand? Lump sums require thought into timing. Saying you can't predict exactly the timing does not mean you can't figure out the probability of a good time for entry.

And ****ing lol at your last comment. You have no counter argument at all.

[Kiknskreem]

Omfg. Obviously you wait years. We're talking about investing not daytrading. Patience is more important than anything. If you can't even wait just a couple of years then you are a ****ing moron.

Again, people have been saying the markets are at a high for years. Those who sat in cash have missed out on lots of growth and dividends. We've had plenty of "highs" before.

People invest in index funds because they're expecting a steady return OVER TIME. Again your little mind is too impatient.

Over time. Exactly. Because they accrue years of dividends and benefit from long term capital growth. Dividends and growth that you'll miss if you aren't actually in the market because you're trying to time it.

Thanks for making my point for me.

[Letthemcome]

Again, people have been saying the markets are at a high for years. Those who sat in cash have missed out on lots of growth and dividends. We've had plenty of "highs" before.



Over time. Exactly. Because they accrue years of dividends and benefit from long term capital growth. Dividends and growth that you'll miss if you aren't actually in the market because you're trying to time it.

Thanks for making my point for me.

why are you so dumb? your purposely didn't quote the paragraph which answers all that. you are talking injections over 30 years, not a lump sum. dividends aren't going to add up to **** if you chuck it in near a peak and have to wait a possible 11 years just for it to break even. you are witnessing an extreme bull run and you have the arrogance to point out some people were wrong? nobody is right 100% of the time. people saying it was too high at 17,000 would have been right 80% of the time. they have been wrong (for the present), that doesn't mean your theory is always correct moron, just like mine isn't. but mine is right more often than yours is.

Even in the best scenario when you are right again and the market goes all the way to 25,000 before falling back down to 20,000, and OP gets in after it bottoms out and starts rising again at 22,000, he only misses out on a little bit. Meanwhile the worst case scenario is horrendous. Why on earth would you take such a risk? It's better to wait and be wrong a little bit than to just willy nilly chuck it in 'because you can't time the market!' and then having it crash to 13,000 and waiting 10 years just for it to get back to 21,000 when you could've got in at 15,000 because you patiently waited a few years for a more ideal time. Like you said, it's not going to rise endlessly and it's already risen quite a bit, so the PROBABILITY is not in your favour.

[KramericaInd]

like anyone would actually tell you

[lockdev]

Index funds OP, but I would wait it out for now. Sure, the whole "time in market beats timing the market" holds up for 5+ years of investing, but why invest when you know it will eventually come down?

Buy low, sell high.

Think about it. Throughout history, there has typically been a bear market every 5 years. We haven't had one in 8.

Stock market has been propped up since 2009 by federal manipulation. Only a matter of time before the house of cards topples.

[Kiknskreem]

why are you so dumb? your purposely didn't quote the paragraph which answers all that. you are talking injections over 30 years, not a lump sum.

I'm not talking about dollar cost averaging at all, and it has literally nothing to do with anything I've said so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.

But since you did, for the record, lump sum investing outperforms DCA in about two thirds of cases. Once again proving... time in the market is the most important thing.

[The Abomination]

everybody knows the misc is the best place for investing advice