We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Time to retreat to cash?
Comments
-
one of the biggest lessons I learnt as a trader was - which is more important to you, your pride or your pocket ? pride = heart, pocket = head
not selling at a loss even though you think cash will outperform equities - thats your pride talking
I don't think it's pride. Because of my long standing aversion to equities I don't have enough in them, and therefore have not 'lost' enough recently for it to be a big deal. I can afford to leave it there indefinitely and hope that eventually I get it back. Although I do believe that cash will outperform equities for the foreseeable future, leaving the relatively small amount that I have in equities there is a sort of hedge against being wrong about that. Making a 'rational' decision between the two and effectively putting all the eggs in one basket or the other assumes that ones prediction are necessarily correct in a very uncertain environment. That to me is not rational.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
George
It comes down to what you consider your neutral stance to be. To me, neutral is 100% in cash, and having anything in equities as risky. Others consider that extreme - if you believe that, say, a 50:50 split between equities and cash is neutral, then you having say 25% in equities and believing cash will outperform equities is also rational, which is what I understand your last post to say.0 -
George
It comes down to what you consider your neutral stance to be. To me, neutral is 100% in cash, and having anything in equities as risky. Others consider that extreme - if you believe that, say, a 50:50 split between equities and cash is neutral, then you having say 25% in equities and believing cash will outperform equities is also rational, which is what I understand your last post to say.
That is essentially my point, yes.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
in that case you are smarter than the average bear (pun intended) :-)0
-
in that case you are smarter than the average bear (pun intended) :-)
Thanks. No bull from you either I notice.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
its either right or it isn't
Coming from the same background I can understand what you mean..
Buy when the market is rising, and sell when it's falling is another phrase that I have often quoted on this site.
Buy and Hold is a stategy, that to anyone coming from a background as a Trader, is nonsensical.'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'0 -
Buy and Hold is a stategy, that to anyone coming from a background as a Trader, is nonsensical.
actually I have no problem with a buy and hold strategy, as long as its drip fed in and drip fed out, its done in a diversified manner, and for a sufficiently long time period. Whats important is consistency of approach.0 -
Yes I agree
Probably what I meant was 'Buy and Hope' which is a strategy adopted by many investors.'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'0 -
that makes sense
0 -
Isn't 'buy and hold' what fund managers are essentially trying to persuade small investors to do ? Much of the promotion talks about the need to think long-term, and points out the merits of equities over other forms of saving and investments during the 20th century when viewed in moving 10 year periods, or longer.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards