So....April 6th

j_netprofit

Linton said:

 But one must assume that the global economy will continue to grow

This in a nutshell is how I've always invested, thanks for giving me the wake up call I needed!

Hoenir

j_netprofit said:

Maybe you think it is a good time to buy equities since prices are low?

Low is a relative term. Low in what context ?  Which equities are you referring too. There's a huge range of companies to invest in out in the big wide world. 

InvesterJones

Trying to time the market is fools errand for 99.9% of us - as such, decide your investment strategy first, then apply it. Don't change it due to short term factors.

Ivkoto

Some statistics ⬇️ for you. This is what would have been your portfolio worth, if you invested 10k for 20 years at the very first day of the period and what would have been, if you tried to be smarter, than Mr Market.

eskbanker

Ivkoto said:

Some statistics ⬇️ for you. This is what would have been your portfolio worth, if you invested 10k for 20 years at the very first day of the period and what would have been, if you tried to be smarter, than Mr Market.

Not sure those stats say what you think they do - they just model the specific impact of omitting the best growth days (with hindsight), rather than comparing realistic styles of investor behaviour, such as drip-feeding versus lump sum?

Ivkoto

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

Some statistics ⬇️ for you. This is what would have been your portfolio worth, if you invested 10k for 20 years at the very first day of the period and what would have been, if you tried to be smarter, than Mr Market.

Not sure those stats say what you think they do - they just model the specific impact of omitting the best growth days (with hindsight), rather than comparing realistic styles of investor behaviour, such as drip-feeding versus lump sum?

Well the OP is talking, about lump sum investment.
So let's say he or she decided to wait another 6 months, before investing for the market to calm down. How do you know, that during the next 6 months the best 10 or 20 or even more best green days won't be missed for the financial year ( assuming we are talking, about lump sum investment at the beginning of every financial year. The point of the statistic is to show you, if you have the money available, it needs to be invested straight away.

j_netprofit

Hoenir said:

j_netprofit said:

Maybe you think it is a good time to buy equities since prices are low?

Low is a relative term. Low in what context ?  Which equities are you referring too. There's a huge range of companies to invest in out in the big wide world. 

Sorry I wasn't specific at all!

I guess I meant that golbal and US index funds in equities are lower (by lower I mean cost less to buy) today than when Trump was inaugurated.

Johnjdc

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

Some statistics ⬇️ for you. This is what would have been your portfolio worth, if you invested 10k for 20 years at the very first day of the period and what would have been, if you tried to be smarter, than Mr Market.

Not sure those stats say what you think they do - they just model the specific impact of omitting the best growth days (with hindsight), rather than comparing realistic styles of investor behaviour, such as drip-feeding versus lump sum?

Yes this kind of marketing guff infuriates me. They don't show what happens if you miss the worst days, do they! Of course not because "always have as much invested as possible for as long as possible" = "always pay us the largest total amount of management fees possible".

In reality since the best and worst days tend to cluster into high volatility periods, it's quite hard to miss a lot of one but not also miss a lot of the other.

Ivkoto

Johnjdc said:

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

Some statistics ⬇️ for you. This is what would have been your portfolio worth, if you invested 10k for 20 years at the very first day of the period and what would have been, if you tried to be smarter, than Mr Market.

Not sure those stats say what you think they do - they just model the specific impact of omitting the best growth days (with hindsight), rather than comparing realistic styles of investor behaviour, such as drip-feeding versus lump sum?

Yes this kind of marketing guff infuriates me. They don't show what happens if you miss the worst days, do they! Of course not because "always have as much invested as possible for as long as possible" = "always pay us the largest total amount of management fees possible".

In reality since the best and worst days tend to cluster into high volatility periods, it's quite hard to miss a lot of one but not also miss a lot of the other.

By your logic, it means we need to time the market!?
And if possible with little money to make big money!? Sorry, but doesn't make any sense for me.

eskbanker

Ivkoto said:

eskbanker said:

Ivkoto said:

Some statistics ⬇️ for you. This is what would have been your portfolio worth, if you invested 10k for 20 years at the very first day of the period and what would have been, if you tried to be smarter, than Mr Market.

Not sure those stats say what you think they do - they just model the specific impact of omitting the best growth days (with hindsight), rather than comparing realistic styles of investor behaviour, such as drip-feeding versus lump sum?

Well the OP is talking, about lump sum investment.
So let's say he or she decided to wait another 6 months, before investing for the market to calm down. How do you know, that during the next 6 months the best 10 or 20 or even more best green days won't be missed for the financial year ( assuming we are talking, about lump sum investment at the beginning of every financial year. The point of the statistic is to show you, if you have the money available, it needs to be invested straight away.

But that's not what those stats show!  The point I'm making is that if choosing statistics to illustrate lump sum versus drip-feeding, then those are the two models that relevant stats should compare, rather than an arbitrary omission of specific days that are only visible with hindsight, especially when, as above, the equivalent analysis of omitting the worst days isn't shown!