Is the stock market even real anymore?

steampowered

It's a shame that the Op has missed out on 5 years of investment returns. Time to accept that you cannot time the market, bite the bullet and invest.

The total return generated each year by the S&P 500 has been as follows:

December 31, 2020	18.40%
December 31, 2019	31.49%
December 31, 2018	-4.38%
December 31, 2017	21.83%
December 31, 2016	11.96%

Type_45

VLS100 has gone up 76.25% in the last 5 years. 


OP: I would advise you take a risk tolerance test online and see where you're at. And if you do decide to invest keep a healthy sum of money in cash (in a premium bonds, or whatever you fancy).

csgohan4

Type_45 said:

VLS100 has gone up 76.25% in the last 5 years. 


OP: I would advise you take a risk tolerance test online and see where you're at. And if you do decide to invest keep a healthy sum of money in cash (in a premium bonds, or whatever you fancy).

Ouch OP could be sitting on 176k instead of 100k

As with investing, invest wisely and iron out the loses with the gains. My passive portfolio is up about 10% YTD, not stellar, but better than in PB

MaxiRobriguez

Some quality UK stocks lost 4%+ today. I bought, did the OP?

Tolteca87

I'm 53% up on this time last year. All equities, no crypto. But I did not sell my long standing holdings and did lump in a load of cash last April. Picked some very solid companies at very nice yields A couple stopped paying divs but are back up and running and providing divs for me to reinvest. The 2 that have not yet restarted divs should restart soon and one has more than doubled in price anyway so I am being patient.

Will be picking up some of the stocks I want to add more to when they're a bit lower. Not quite enough blood on the streets yet to hit my target prices on them.

I am not a passive investor though. I like to structure my portfolio for my needs myself.

sevenhills

Prism said:

Just a little note on the dilution of currency. If QE is done properly then no new money is created permanently. The central banks don't give money away, they buy government debt from the banks which then gets paid back on a regular basis until repaid. Unless of course the government defaults or QE never stops.

Had the central banks not stepped in then we would probably be in a full economic crisis right now with no furlough, no bank loans to businesses and mass unemployment so at the risk of creating a bit of an asset bubble I am glad they did.

Furlough is different and minor compared to QE. Furlough was just copied from the Germans, except theirs is better.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/may/12/how-the-uk-furlough-scheme-compares-with-other-countries

aroominyork

graeme16 said:

Tolteca87 said:

If you didn't buy when the markets crashed or even when they started to recover why would you think you would do it next time?

Its not as if you have to lump the whole amount in at once. Chose some funds/ETFs/ITs and suitable platforms be it ISAs, SIPPs and pound cost average into them monthly so you buy more when prices are lower and less when they are higher. Then you will benefit from actually being in the market not sitting back and losing the value of your cash to inflation.

Good question. At the time the S&P had dropped only approx. 25-30% but given the recent bull run this still did not seem a good discount. the FTSE 250 had dropped closer to 40% and yes I should have invested then.

If an "only 25-30%" fall did not seem like a good enough time to invest, then you seem to be waiting for a crash of epic proportions at which point you will probably think "I was wise to stay out of the markets - they have gone to pot and I am not going to risk my hard earned money in them".

Type_45

grumiofoundation said:

graeme16 said:

It is easy to say that you have the better strategy over me because the markets have rebounded and everyone who was stood on the side-lines have been left with there jaws on the floor in a puddle of regret, 

No people with a better strategy than you would have invested as and when the money comes in, rather than sitting in cash waiting for 'the' crash (and then not investing when 'a' crash came).

You picked a strategy in 2015 which backfired. You have to decide if you are going to continue with the same and potentially miss out on the next 5 years of returns or change tack now and potentially see your investment drop (or middle ground as suggested above).

We haven't historically had this level of intervention outside of war time, let alone over a bad round of the flu. 

Well with this level of analytical thinking why do you need us? Your interpretation of figures and graphs is clearly superior to the 'experts'. Where did you do your PhD and postdoctoral research out of interest?  And did you specialise in epidemiology, virology, statistics etc?

You think the "experts" all agree with each other?

If not, which ones are right?


And how do you know that the "experts" you are listening to aren't corrupt and are a pure as the driven snow and have no self interest or pressure put on them or anything else which sways them?


It is all of our duty to think for ourselves and hold the "expert's" feet to the fire. 

But that's not what happens.

What happens is that the powers that be have an outcome they desire. And they put the experts that concur with their agenda on TV and they omit the ones that don't. And not only that but they deride and assassinate the dissenting experts' opinions.

God gave you a brain. Use it.

eskbanker

Type_45 said:

It is all of our duty to think for ourselves

[...]

God gave you a brain. Use it.

Use it while believing in some sort of invisible omnipotent being perhaps?  Many would assert that such believers aren't exactly renowned for thinking for themselves....

GeordieGeorge

Type_45 said:

grumiofoundation said:

graeme16 said:

It is easy to say that you have the better strategy over me because the markets have rebounded and everyone who was stood on the side-lines have been left with there jaws on the floor in a puddle of regret, 

No people with a better strategy than you would have invested as and when the money comes in, rather than sitting in cash waiting for 'the' crash (and then not investing when 'a' crash came).

You picked a strategy in 2015 which backfired. You have to decide if you are going to continue with the same and potentially miss out on the next 5 years of returns or change tack now and potentially see your investment drop (or middle ground as suggested above).

We haven't historically had this level of intervention outside of war time, let alone over a bad round of the flu. 

Well with this level of analytical thinking why do you need us? Your interpretation of figures and graphs is clearly superior to the 'experts'. Where did you do your PhD and postdoctoral research out of interest?  And did you specialise in epidemiology, virology, statistics etc?

You think the "experts" all agree with each other?

If not, which ones are right?


And how do you know that the "experts" you are listening to aren't corrupt and are a pure as the driven snow and have no self interest or pressure put on them or anything else which sways them?


It is all of our duty to think for ourselves and hold the "expert's" feet to the fire. 

But that's not what happens.

What happens is that the powers that be have an outcome they desire. And they put the experts that concur with their agenda on TV and they omit the ones that don't. And not only that but they deride and assassinate the dissenting experts' opinions.

God gave you a brain. Use it.

That’s quite some conspiracy theory. It’s all rubbish of course, you’ve joined dots to make your own picture, and are now insulting the intelligence of people who are better informed than you.

The government doesn’t choose which economists get on television, for one thing. Ours is often invited on, goes when he has something interesting to say, and isn’t either told what that view is by anyone or is asked what it is before he appears.