Markets - Minor Correction? (Edit: Question Answered)

MarkCarnage

Yeah but that logic hold for a mortality rate of 49%.

Being strictly pedantic that might be true, but 'in most cases' here refers to the elderly and immuno compromised having a higher risk.

Incubation period remains uncertain, but there appears to a lot of anecdotal speculation about it. Peak season for flu and other viruses too, which confuses matters. 

Trying to think that you can be smart and time the markets here is delusional. As I noted before, markets typically underreact initially and then overreact later to this type of event. The problem is knowing where we are in that cycle. The only fact is that if you bought risk assets today, you would be buying them about 8-10% cheaper  than a month or so ago. Unless you are very lucky, they might get cheaper still tomorrow or next week. I doubt they'll be cheaper in 10 years though, and if they are, you'll have had more to worry about in the interim. 

sparky0138

Alexland said:

sparky0138 said:

My mum was waiting on cashback from Fidelity (should be on 5th March) then was going to transfer platforms to Vanguard SIPP.

If this is cashback from their transfer offer then it's worth remembering that Fidelity's full T&Cs on recent offers require her to keep the assets with them for 18 months or they reserve the right to reclaim the cashback.

Alex

Bless you for reminding me of this, Alex. I knew this and had put it on my calendar to remind her to transfer in 18 months but I also made a note of when the £100 should have been paid by and that, along with the excitement of Vanguard finally releasing their SIPP, made me forgot about the 18 month condition.

coyrls

Moe_The_Bartender said:

In ten years time, this will be a barely visible blip on the charts.

It's a bit early to be confident of that.  In ten years time, the charts might just be back to where they are now.  Who knows?

2010

It took about16 years to get back to the 1999 7000 ftse level and now we`re below it again.

MarkCarnage

It took about16 years to get back to the 1999 7000 ftse level and now we`re below it again.

Which reflect various things including the starting point, and that it's an index of generally low growth stocks. However, you would have had the dividend yield over all these years too, which is not insubstantial. 

Bravepants

2010 said:

It took about16 years to get back to the 1999 7000 ftse level and now we`re below it again.

Wasn't it below 6000 in 2016?

MarkCarnage

It's been below it significantly more often than it's been above it since 1999. 

eskbanker

MarkCarnage said:

It took about16 years to get back to the 1999 7000 ftse level and now we`re below it again.

Which reflect various things including the starting point, and that it's an index of generally low growth stocks. However, you would have had the dividend yield over all these years too, which is not insubstantial. 

Dividend reinvestment always paints an entirely different picture whenever sluggish FTSE100 performance is cited on here!

Prism

eskbanker said:

Dividend reinvestment always paints an entirely different picture whenever sluggish FTSE100 performance is cited on here!

Agreed, however it always seems as shame that our countries biggest companies in general don't have anything much better to do than distribute their earnings back to us rather than grow a bit more.

Username999

It's not just Coronavirus, it's also the possibility that Bernie Sanders could beat Donald Trump.