Has the dead cat finished bouncing?

Sailtheworld

blue_max_3 said:

Sailtheworld said:

I can understand why people might be predicting market falls but if you were saying the same thing 6 weeks ago then a dead cat bounce is simple code for 'I called it wrong'. Or is the prediction right if the market falls at any time from when it's made?

The dead cat bounce is not unusual, hence the fact that it has a name! The mantra is buy in the troughs.
I think this unique situation redefines the historical model, which states keep investing and it will all work out in the end.
Does that mean a crash? Who knows. But I do think that businesses need a market to make money and I'm struggling to see that being a reality for some time. Long term, it probably won't matter too much, but not everyone has that time.

6 weeks ago when predictions were being made of a crash it sounded quite imminent to me. Nobody warned me that the falls would come after a completely expected 7 week dead cat bounce. Yes of course we should buy in the troughs but it turns out that we were in a big trough when these predictions were being made.

If the people making these predictions were any good at predicting why didn't they predict the preceding dead cat bounce and make a ton more money. It's as if they're not very good at predicting and are inventing special buzz words as cover. i.e. I would've gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling kids and stupid dog - the Scooby Doo defence - just swap 'kids' and 'dog' with the excuse of the day.

blue_max_3

Sailtheworld said:

6 weeks ago when predictions were being made of a crash it sounded quite imminent to me. Nobody warned me that the falls would come after a completely expected 7 week dead cat bounce. Yes of course we should buy in the troughs but it turns out that we were in a big trough when these predictions were being made.

If the people making these predictions were any good at predicting why didn't they predict the preceding dead cat bounce and make a ton more money. It's as if they're not very good at predicting and are inventing special buzz words as cover. i.e. I would've gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling kids and stupid dog - the Scooby Doo defence - just swap 'kids' and 'dog' with the excuse of the day.

If the stock market was predictable, it would be a money machine! All anyone can do is give a perspective. Some will be more accurate than others. Some may have blind luck. I defy anyone to have all the answers. 
Does normal service resume? Is anyone thinking that the worst figures for GDP in 300 years coming in for Q2 is going to be brushed off, with scant regard?
I'm not saying it won't, of course. But this is now gambling.

port_of_spain

blue_max_3 said:

If the stock market was predictable, it would be a money machine! All anyone can do is give a perspective. Some will be more accurate than others. Some may have blind luck. I defy anyone to have all the answers. 
Does normal service resume? Is anyone thinking that the worst figures for GDP in 300 years coming in for Q2 is going to be brushed off, with scant regard?
I'm not saying it won't, of course. But this is now gambling.

Make your mind up!

Either the stock market is always unpredictable, and it's not obvious that it will fall when some bad "news" which it is already known will be bad (but could turn out to be better or worse than expected), and which should therefore already be reflected in current market prices, is released. Or it used to be predictable, but it's suddenly become predictable.

You give the impression that you know it's still unpredictable, but you want to hint that it's suddenly become predictable anyway.

What do you mean by "gambling"? It's often used to mean an operation which on average tends to lose money, as distinguished from "investing", which on averages tends to gain money (gambling and investing are similar, in that both involve an element of chance). If that's what you mean, what is you evidence?

Eco_Miser

Prism said:

blue_max_3 said: Long term, it probably won't matter too much, but not everyone has that time.

People who don't have time to wait shouldn't really be invested at all. Minimum 10 years they say

But if they invested 9 or more years ago, and this happened just before they switched to something safer?

blue_max_3

port_of_spain said:

Make your mind up!

Either the stock market is always unpredictable, and it's not obvious that it will fall when some bad "news" which it is already known will be bad (but could turn out to be better or worse than expected), and which should therefore already be reflected in current market prices, is released. Or it used to be predictable, but it's suddenly become predictable.

You give the impression that you know it's still unpredictable, but you want to hint that it's suddenly become predictable anyway.

What do you mean by "gambling"? It's often used to mean an operation which on average tends to used to lose money, as distinguished from "investing", which on averages tends to gain money (gambling and investing are similar, in that both involve an element of chance). If that's what you mean, what is you evidence?

Are you trying to make the opposite view?
I'm consistent in that it is assumed that over time, things will be as they always have. Many are backing that position.
My assertion and that of the person giving their perspective in the youtube video (who makes a better case of the situation), suggest that we are entering uncharted territories. Maybe you think it's a blip, but it's a market that I for one, don't feel comfortable dipping into at this point.
I'm interested in why you believe it will power through without a blink. I am just interested in your perspective, not wanting to pick an argument. You have an equal chance of being right as me.

Prism

Eco_Miser said:

Prism said:

blue_max_3 said: Long term, it probably won't matter too much, but not everyone has that time.

People who don't have time to wait shouldn't really be invested at all. Minimum 10 years they say

But if they invested 9 or more years ago, and this happened just before they switched to something safer?

Maybe but that would only be the case if they needed all of the money in 9 years and that time period wasn't flexible whereas I would imagine most people might only need a small % of their investments at that point, with the majority staying invested for a much longer period. Drops like this should have very little effect on such a long term strategy.

bowlhead99

Eco_Miser said:

Prism said:

blue_max_3 said: Long term, it probably won't matter too much, but not everyone has that time.

People who don't have time to wait shouldn't really be invested at all. Minimum 10 years they say

But if they invested 9 or more years ago, and this happened just before they switched to something safer?

Most people investing in the equity markets 9 or more years ago will have had plenty of returns or value growth to be able to afford the recent falls.  People talk about 10+ years because they know that economies and markets can be cyclical and if you only invest in part of a cycle you don't know if you will get the up years or the down years or the nothing years, and it would perhaps be painful if you got a bunch of down and nothing years without some up years too.

If you're lucky, you might get a whole ten years of it all being generally rosy (you could have just about squeezed that in from mid 2009 to mid 2019) but people shouldn't have that expectation. They should expect bad times to be out there, and expect that they might catch some of those bad times if they just dip a toe in for a short period, while not expecting to get the good times if they aren't in for long enough. If you are drip-feeding over 10 years, some of your money gets 10 years in the market and some of your money gets 10 minutes in the market and on average your money only gets five years exposure which isn't long enough for a good result, so it could be annoying to have just finished investing on that 10-year program and finally get all your money in the market planning to move it to something safer, and then get hit with a crash.

Whether you get the bad years at the beginning of the investing journey or towards the end or somewhere in the middle, it's not unexpected for regional or global equity markets to drop 25-60% at some point in a 10-15 year investing journey, because you can see it a few times on any 20-30 year chart. So, it 'goes with the territory' of investing in market - linked investments.

blue_max_3

So, shares went up 4% because the US fed said they will print much more money. Pumps more cash into the stock market. What can possibly go wrong!

port_of_spain

blue_max_3 said:

Are you trying to make the opposite view?
I'm consistent in that it is assumed that over time, things will be as they always have. Many are backing that position.
My assertion and that of the person giving their perspective in the youtube video (who makes a better case of the situation), suggest that we are entering uncharted territories. Maybe you think it's a blip, but it's a market that I for one, don't feel comfortable dipping into at this point.
I'm interested in why you believe it will power through without a blink. I am just interested in your perspective, not wanting to pick an argument. You have an equal chance of being right as me.

My perspective is that I have no idea what stock markets will do in the short term. But that I still think they are the best place I know to keep most of the capital that I won't be spending for at least 10 years.

I wouldn't sell my current stock market investments, with the aim of buying back at lower prices in the near future, because I have no idea whether there will be the opportunity to do that, nor (crucially) whether I'd know when to take it if it did occur. (E.g. stock markets might fall 10% from here, but I might fail to buy back in, because I was waiting for a fall of at least 20%, and then they might rise past the price I sold out at.)

Is that the opposite view? I'm not sure, because I'm still not sure what view you're putting forward.

What does "uncharted territories" actually mean? It just sounds like vague hints of doom, without saying anything precise.

You're not comfortable "dipping into" the market now, meaning what? I.e. do you have a large amount (for you) of cash? Did you sell some equities recently? Do you currently hold any equities, and if so, how much relative to your current cash holdings?

And what is your purpose for the total capital that you have that you could choose to put into, or keep in, or not put into, equities? Are you living off your capital, or off something else (e.g. earnings or pensions)? I am living off my capital, so I do have "skin in the game".

blue_max_3

port_of_spain said:

My perspective is that I have no idea what stock markets will do in the short term. But that I still think they are the best place I know to keep most of the capital that I won't be spending for at least 10 years.

I wouldn't sell my current stock market investments, with the aim of buying back at lower prices in the near future, because I have no idea whether there will be the opportunity to do that, nor (crucially) whether I'd know when to take it if it did occur. (E.g. stock markets might fall 10% from here, but I might fail to buy back in, because I was waiting for a fall of at least 20%, and then they might rise past the price I sold out at.)

Is that the opposite view? I'm not sure, because I'm still not sure what view you're putting forward.

What does "uncharted territories" actually mean? It just sounds like vague hints of doom, without saying anything precise.

You're not comfortable "dipping into" the market now, meaning what? I.e. do you have a large amount (for you) of cash? Did you sell some equities recently? Do you currently hold any equities, and if so, how much relative to your current cash holdings?

And what is your purpose for the total capital that you have that you could choose to put into, or keep in, or not put into, equities? Are you living off your capital, or off something else (e.g. earnings or pensions)? I am living off my capital, so I do have "skin in the game".

It's really hard to answer such long posts. Can't you be more succinct?
But I'll try and do what I can. You think the market is the best place to keep your cash in the next ten years. Your choice. Not questioning your decision at all.
You seem to be treating the financial situation as minor. Maybe, but what leads you to that conclusion?
My situation is not really relevant. I actually have significant funds from property sale and inheritance. I'm in the position of deciding what to do myself.
I'm probably buying a property as renting currently. But have some extra, depending on what I spend. I'm older and don't have my life ahead of me, so longer term is not really going to help me.
Hope I've answered everything.