NoRegretsCoyote
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,766
Is this the case? I'm not so sure. Ample credit, liquidity, factors of production etc. There will be causalities but a supply side problem?
I know you'll make the same point again, but at least make it in the right context, with the right facts.
But would it not be better to opt in and out of global equities in times of volatility. For example, say your portfolio has dropped 20% in value and you cash out. The value continues to fall (near 40% like what has happened now), then you buy back in, overall you have made no loss. The market may fall further or it may recover, either way you have limited loss and have increased potential gain (seeing that you purchased stocks at lower prices)
There were stock market investment experts during the American stock market crash of 1929 who thought they could ride it out. They were wrong. The great American depression of the 1930’s followed, until QE and the commencement of WW2 kickstarted the American economy again. What would have happened if your pension based on equities had matured in 1935, you would have got nothing from all your years of investing in stocks.
The problem is that you don't have a crystal ball and can't tell if the value will continue to fall. And if it does continue to fall you don't have a crystal ball to see when to buy back in.
I understand this, but you are still limiting loss by selling and rebuying. In the unprecedented situation that we currently find ourselves in, due to the virus, it was pretty obvious that stock markets would fall.
Last Monday the NYSE automatically stopped trading due to overall market cap falls of over 6%. This should have alerted most professionals equity investors that the market was turning very bearish, institutional investor houses were selling or being instructed to sell. These investors who sold at the start of the bear run can now rebuy the same amount of stock if they wish and still have at least 30% of the overall original cashed out sum held in cash. I agree no one has a crystal ball, but common sense would have dictated that a virus that interferes with free movement of people and goods would have a detrimental impact on stocks, particularly stocks that rely on such movements.
Of course it was...it was pretty obvious that stock markets would fall
For every sale, there was a buy. So who was buying if all the investor houses were selling?institutional investor houses were selling or being instructed to sell
Of course it was...
For every sale, there was a buy. So who was buying if all the investor houses were selling?
So to be clear, you meant to say some were selling, but some were buying? So, we shouldn't infer anything from the comment?I never said all investor houses were selling
My pension fund was already 100% in equities. So no, I wasn't buying apart from the additional AVC I made last week.I hope this was not your pension fund
Well done.It was for me.
So to be clear, you meant to say some were selling, but some were buying? So, we shouldn't infer anything from the comment?
My pension fund was already 100% in equities. So no, I wasn't buying apart from the additional AVC I made last week.
Well done.
Last night I was reading an Enid Blyton book to my kids. "A book of Pixie Stories". It's about Pixies, Brownies and fairies if you're not familiar with it. I'm almost convinced she also made stuff up.
So to be clear, you meant to say some were selling, but some were buying? So, we shouldn't infer anything from the comment?
My pension fund was already 100% in equities. So no, I wasn't buying apart from the additional AVC I made last week.
Well done.
Last night I was reading an Enid Blyton book to my kids. "A book of Pixie Stories". It's about Pixies, Brownies and fairies if you're not familiar with it. I'm almost convinced she also made stuff up.
The market wants a gigantic fiscal response by governments. Monetry policy won't do it
What happens if the central bank goes bust?
This makes sense. Conventional wisdom shows markets recover eventually and volatility comes with the territory, but what if you are due to 'retire' soon (18-24 months) and your pension pot is in a mainly equity based fund with with one of the main insurance firms, would it be wise to continue to do nothing? Or is there a case for switching to a 'less risky' fund which is more bond orientated?Applying this to your personal financial situation.
If you have a pension fund, your investment horizon is long-term and you should not switch it to cash or bonds.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?