Reply With Quote
There's nothing wrong with investing in stocks, as long as you're in it for the long haul.
Well, they did read the fine print that said they could lose money too, right?
So, they willingly bet and lost. I can't really feel sorry for them, tbh.
There's nothing wrong with investing in stocks, as long as you're in it for the long haul.
Sorry, but I seem to have lost my rose-tinted specs. The has hit the fan, and the monkey ain't done flinging yet.
Not sure what to do though.......
Maybe. I could agree with that in the past. I'm not sold the same rules apply anymore though.
I mean, I'm sure the market will rebound from this race to the bottom. I'm just not sure the rebound will be enough to offset the money lost + inflation over time. Especially if the economy is contracting.
Too many bull with nanotransactions and all that crap going on now, basically unregulated and half the people don't outright now what the impact is.
This isn't your grandpa's market.
I will be honest, it would seem like these nanotransactions would do nothing but smooth out the ups and downs. I guess that is not true.
Follow the money. A lot of dough being invested in that right now. You only justify that if it's returning money. After the last flash crash, the impact is certainly measurable, and it isn't pretty, is it?
I lost about 5000 today. No big whoop. It's all the panicky s that make it worse.
For the long term, a diversified fund is still going to payoff. If your playing the market yourself do what everyone else is doing, buy gold (stocks) and wait for the bottom.
Losing 5-10% and more in a single day tends to focus one's backers. Panicky ers indeed.
Dunno, buy long term call options on blue chips?
Yep, as the idiots buy high and sell low, the wealthy buy low and sell high. Then the idiots complain about how unfair it it.
The wealthy are in on HST, which accounts now for 60%+ of all trades, a sophisticated form of pump-and-dump.
Oh really? Thats why a certain someone I know losing upwards of 250k yesterday is no big deal. He's just a panicky ?
After losing somewhere near $100k the day before.
it's the american waySelling out the country for your own greed.
tell that to the poor bas s that were due to retire in 2008,2009,2010
To be fair, he did say "as long as you are in it for the long haul". I personally agree.
the point is even in 'long haul' you have to take your money out sometime. And that sometime could be in a recession.
right, which is why it is advisable to begin transferring your retirement into less risky assets the closer you get to when you will need it.
It would be pretty dumb to keep money in the stock market up to the day that you are retiring. Unfortunately, the market had been doing relatively well up until around 2006-2007 so a lot of people were made bad financial decisions by keeping their money in the stock market in hopes that the party would continue.
This. When it rains on wallstreet it pours because of idiots who overreact to every tiny piece of news that has nothing to do with the companies they're investing in.
So you're saying that moving your retirement money from stocks to less risky assets in the past 5 years would be a bad financial decision? That's a fairly long time for people that are retiring and might need part or all their money.
Could you also define what 'relatively well' means in the context you put it?
Outpaced inflation 'well'? Made more than it lost 'well'? Made substantially more than it lost 'well'?
If you enter the storm, you are going to have to ride it out. If someone is sitting there in 2006 and plans on retiring in 2011, they should have very little exposure to the stock market. If they stayed in past 2007, then they should they have to stick it out, and make the best of things by buying low.
2002-2007 = 87% increase in S&P.Could you also define what 'relatively well' means in the context you put it?
Outpaced inflation 'well'? Made more than it lost 'well'? Made substantially more than it lost 'well'?
down triple digits again. apparantely the market isn't too happy with what the fed said today.
The Federal Reserve pledged for the first time to keep its benchmark interest rate at a record low at least through mid-2013 in a bid to revive the flagging recovery after a worldwide stock rout.
The Federal Open Market Committee discussed a range of policy tools to bolster the economy and said it is “prepared to employ these tools as appropriate,” it said in a statement today in Washington. Three members of the FOMC dissented, preferring to maintain the pledge to keep rates low for an “extended period.”
The decision represents the biggest effort since November to spark the U.S. economy and revive confidence while stopping short of initiating a third round of large-scale asset purchases. Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and his colleagues acted after reports showed the economy was slowing and an unprecedented downgrade to the U.S. credit rating sent stocks tumbling from Sydney to New York.
The Fed offered a dimmer view of the economy than it did in the last statement in late June. “Economic growth so far this year has been considerably slower than the committee had expected,” it said. The Fed also said it expects a “somewhat slower pace of recovery over coming quarters,” adding that “downside risks to the economic outlook have increased.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
