That makes sense, you didn't want to be as exposed to the volatility of the markets and wanted some more security. 2020 was one heck of a year in terms of rapid falls in stock prices, the fastest fall in stock market history and then the rapid recovery after march 2020. It seems to be forgotten about now but 2020 hit me much harder than 2008 and 2009 although it was very temporary as I just sat the whole thing out. There is no agony aunt for investors, you are on your own when the markets go crazy.Hi Joe
I remember at the time that I felt that the level of uncertainty was such that it was possible that there was one of the very unusual situations where the market was way out of synch. So I took 25% of my money off the table. I still stayed 75% invested. it was a sort of hedging.
I don't think that I would ever go 100% out of the market.
As it happens, I had later uses for the money outside the market, so no, I did not go back in. In fact, I have needed further money since, and sold a small bit more.
Brendan
It's hard to take someone seriously when they say...Only a daft gimp accuses someone who is beating the market of “ beating themselves to a pulp with a bat “ , that or it’s someone engaging in sensationalism designed to gain attention from their bar buddies , either way they are spouting blather but sure that’s how it is round here , the tiny permanent clique sit around making snide comments at anyone not in their little circle jerk and any sort of turd comment apparently smells of roses by their fellow inner clique members
Take you’re pick ?
Are you this guy?I’m up 16.02% YTD
Why is stating I’m up 16% a big deal ? , by the way, as of today im up 16.9%It's hard to take someone seriously when they say...
Are you this guy?
Man sprints to the start of the London Marathon to lead the race for a memorable 10 seconds
A marathon runner was spotted in the lead ahead of the professional athletes.www.ladbible.com
Of course there would.There wouldn't be a market if nobody tried to beat it.
Agreed , my opening thread was about far more than my YTD , it’s unfortunate the house regulars felt the need to light on this small noteBeing up 16.9% ytd is great for you, but in reality the gain measured over a 9 months is completely immaterial.
Investing is a long term activity and it's the gain over 5, 10 or more years that matters not the short term gains or losses
I hold my hands up, I do have a small shareholding in a Brazilian brewery, Ambev, its down 25% so far this year but that goes with investing in emerging markets. Somebody has to own those stocks, if everyone was to invest in the S&P500 etf surely that creates distortions and mispricing in that those stocks become over owned. That's actually one of the criticisms of etfs that if everyone is just blindly buying the etf well then those stocks in that index become over boughtno one here is describing having stuck everything in a Brazilian Brewery or a South African diamond company
But that is what we like most about you!I’m not trying to be argumentative-
We don’t allow discussion of individual shares.Can I respectfully ask what is the point of this thread?
Are you as equally puzzled by the contributors who claimed that my strategy was akin to “ beating oneself to a pulp with a bat “ ?Can I respectfully ask what is the point of this thread?
I’m not trying to be argumentative- I genuinely don’t know what the OP wanted to achieve in starting this thread.
Not really.Are you as equally puzzled by the contributors who claimed that my strategy was akin to “ beating oneself to a pulp with a bat “ ?
The chief investment officer of any major investment bank has more training and experience than you do.My view or Joe Sod’s view is not as valid or valuable as, say, the Chief Investment Officer at Goldman Sachs.
You make great points here, there is alot of political and societal pressure on these investment banks and funds to have the "right" kind of stocks and they are essentially not allowed to buy many stocks out there that might make perfect financial sense but don't pass the ESG scores. The universe of stocks that these guys are allowed to buy is actually getting smaller. That inevitably creates a positive feedback loop because they are driving up the prices of the same stocks , I think an extreme example of this phenomenon was Cathy Wood.The chief investment officer of any major investment bank has more training and experience than you do.
He is responsible for investing other peoples money, you are responsible for investing your own money.
He is answerable to a range of people with a range of views some quite ridiculous (ESG for example) some with merit in themselves but no contribution to investment return, (diversity policy, climate investing for example). You are responsible to no one but yourself.
He is a victim of his own prejudices, just as you are of yours, but you don't get be the chief investment officer of any major investment bank with out a bullish aggressive predisposition. A random investor is entitled to believe that they are less exposed to the latest fad, or pressure to follow the herd.
heart surgery is not equivalent to an "investment manager" because its not based on technical skill but on your reputation, many of these guys did not study to be an "investment manager" like for example a doctor or an engineer does, many studied arts or classics like Boris Johnson and then fell in with an investment bank. Just read the backrounds and education of these guys.You’re right. Some guy down in the pub buying UK equities and avoiding US tech firms has a better chance of managing a portfolio effectively than the Chief Investment Officer at a major investment bank.
The guy down in the pub also does a little heart surgery on the side and drafts legal agreements for aircraft leasing firms.
The public has had enough of experts.
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?