Shall we sell the stock?

Notepad_Phil

Roselondon_2 said:

"If you have money it is probably better to drip-feed it, buy in a smaller chunk in the red day to improve your cost average." I really like this particular piece of advice... I've seen a comparison of different investment scenarios. The outcome was regular small amount investment wins in the long term.  But your advice gives it a more precise timing. Makes sense.

I dare say it depends on your risk profile and costs. If regular small amount investment was a definite winner over lump sum investment then surely once you've built up a decent sum shouldn't you then sell it so that you can reinvest it back into the market in regular small amounts again?

tebbins

If you are seriously considering withdrawing, after a 5% loss, perhaps you ought not be investing in the first place?

adindas

Notepad_Phil said:

Roselondon_2 said:

"If you have money it is probably better to drip-feed it, buy in a smaller chunk in the red day to improve your cost average." I really like this particular piece of advice... I've seen a comparison of different investment scenarios. The outcome was regular small amount investment wins in the long term.  But your advice gives it a more precise timing. Makes sense.

I dare say it depends on your risk profile and costs. If regular small amount investment was a definite winner over lump sum investment then surely once you've built up a decent sum shouldn't you then sell it so that you can reinvest it back into the market in regular small amounts again?

She is investing in fund "Vanguard for a total of £40k", not individual stock. Presumably a relatively good diversifies fund, such as VLS not individual stocks. Historical data show that this fund has only gone up in the long term.

If it is individual  high growth stock especially, especially penny stock, it depends on the stock in question, selling it might be a better option. This is especially true if you have not done a good DDs when you bought the stock.

Also it might be applicable if you are a trader. A trader do sell for a loss almost every single day as they will need to money to make money for more lucrative opportunities. But many traders know what they are doing, otherwise they should not be becoming a trader just to lose money.

Roselondon_2

tebbins said:

If you are seriously considering withdrawing, after a 5% loss, perhaps you ought not be investing in the first place?

I was not panicking about the £2k loss. The biggest worry since I put cash in was that I started when the market was too high. I fear for the 50% drop from now onwards...

Thrugelmir

adindas said:

Notepad_Phil said:

Roselondon_2 said:

"If you have money it is probably better to drip-feed it, buy in a smaller chunk in the red day to improve your cost average." I really like this particular piece of advice... I've seen a comparison of different investment scenarios. The outcome was regular small amount investment wins in the long term.  But your advice gives it a more precise timing. Makes sense.

I dare say it depends on your risk profile and costs. If regular small amount investment was a definite winner over lump sum investment then surely once you've built up a decent sum shouldn't you then sell it so that you can reinvest it back into the market in regular small amounts again?

She is investing in fund "Vanguard for a total of £40k", not individual stock. Presumably a relatively good diversifies fund, such as VLS not individual stocks. Historical data show that this fund has only gone up in the long term.

As far as VLS is concerned it's only ever been accessible to retail investors in the UK during a bull market. 

adindas

Thrugelmir said:

adindas said:

Notepad_Phil said:

Roselondon_2 said:

"If you have money it is probably better to drip-feed it, buy in a smaller chunk in the red day to improve your cost average." I really like this particular piece of advice... I've seen a comparison of different investment scenarios. The outcome was regular small amount investment wins in the long term.  But your advice gives it a more precise timing. Makes sense.

I dare say it depends on your risk profile and costs. If regular small amount investment was a definite winner over lump sum investment then surely once you've built up a decent sum shouldn't you then sell it so that you can reinvest it back into the market in regular small amounts again?

She is investing in fund "Vanguard for a total of £40k", not individual stock. Presumably a relatively good diversifies fund, such as VLS not individual stocks. Historical data show that this fund has only gone up in the long term.

As far as VLS is concerned it's only ever been accessible to retail investors in the UK during a bull market. 

True but majority of VLS holding are weighted heavily on US & UK indexes. So you just need to see the performance of FTSE & US Indexes such as S&P500, DJIA, NASDAQ composite to see performance for a longer period

Hexane

Roselondon_2 said:

tebbins said:

If you are seriously considering withdrawing, after a 5% loss, perhaps you ought not be investing in the first place?

I fear for the 50% drop from now onwards...

You're fearful, you say? That just made me greedy.

adindas

Geopolitical Event, Calender days to reach the Bottom and Days to Recovery.

In average, it takes about 22 Days after the event to reach the bottom and take another 47 days to recover.

RoseLondon

adindas said:

Geopolitical Event, Calender days to reach the Bottom and Days to Recovery.

In average, it takes about 22 Days after the event to reach the bottom and take another 47 days to recover.

It's a bit overly generalised, no? Probably need to take into account if the event is one-off or a small puzzle of the larger picture. Like the war in Ukraine, nobody knows how big it can grow or how long it could last. The scale of drawdown could be limited or globally massive. 

The drawdown for Pearl Harbour Attack would have lasted much longer than a year if the world didn't finish with an atomic bomb...

steampowered

RoseLondon said:

The drawdown for Pearl Harbour Attack would have lasted much longer than a year if the world didn't finish with an atomic bomb...

Off topic, but couldn't let this one past. That simply is not true. The war was over by the time the bomb was dropped.