Ran its course, now in the weeds.

[Nick87]

When you need the cash and need to sell, the guy who says he will buy them gives you an offer of 50% what the market says it’s worth. Every person who buys a good bar from Costco will soon figure out that Costco doesn’t buy them back.

For the little I have into them might be a day when you trade them for something other than cash. Doubtful and probably laughable i know, but it does cross my mind.

 

[SAJ-99]

For the little I have into them might be a day when you trade them for something other than cash. Doubtful and probably laughable i know, but it does cross my mind.

Isn’t that how you ended up with them.

 

[Nick87]

Isn’t that how you ended up with them.

Well when you put it like that.

 

[Irrelevant]

In 2007 you could have posted the same thing on using Value instead of Growth. You are overweighting the most recent history. This is why the SEC makes them put “past performance is not a predictor of future performance” on every marketing doc.

?

 

[SAJ-99]

?
View attachment 397490

Although dated, I like the chart below better as it doesn’t overweight recent performance. Th reason is simple. Good things happen to cheap assets. You just might have to wait a long time and suffer through trying times to reap the rewards.

 

[Irrelevant]

1. I have a hard time believing that we're in the same economic setting as pre-1990, let alone the 1920s-1950s.
2. At what point do you have to evaluate something on the scale over which you are/can be involved? I can't own value for 100 years. I will own growth for 20-40.

Another way to say it. Is 2025-2030 going to be more like 1920-1925 or 2020-2025? I don't want to use irrelevant data to make my decisions.

 

[MTGomer]

I have a handful of index funds/ETFs I buy monthly via Fidelity.

Up about 20% this year.

I spend about 10 minutes a month thinking about it.

Could probably make more doing something different, thinking about it more but I keep it very simple and so far, so good.

 

[Treeshark]

Those are all very fair questions, @Irrelevant. I guess the main question then becomes what is a better investment?

That’s where I get stuck on low cost, S&P 500 index tracking-type investments.

 

[SAJ-99]

1. I have a hard time believing that we're in the same economic setting as pre-1990, let alone the 1920s-1950s.
2. At what point do you have to evaluate something on the scale over which you are/can be involved? I can't own value for 100 years. I will own growth for 20-40.

Another way to say it. Is 2025-2030 going to be more like 1920-1925 or 2020-2025? I don't want to use irrelevant data to make my decisions.

Great question. Who knows. The post war era was the second Industrial Revolution. So probably not going to get that again. But I hear arguments about AI doing something similar. The question is do you buy the AI infrastructure companies (growth) or do you buy the companies that will benefit from the coming increase in productivity from implementing AI, which are probably value stocks right now?

Ar some point that shift will take place. Change is constant, it just happens slower and runs longer than we anticipate. Mostly just another reason to index and not overthink it.

 

[Ballistic]

In 2007 you could have posted the same thing on using Value instead of Growth. You are overweighting the most recent history. This is why the SEC makes them put “past performance is not a predictor of future performance” on every marketing doc.

Yup, but Even if you lost the full 31% on 2007-8, you were whole by 2010 and extremely wealthy by 2015. I'm looking at the market since it's inception

 

[Ballistic]

I’m a medically retired Soldier. You’re welcome for my service and injuries defending your freedom to post ignorant stuff

I’m a medically retired Soldier. You’re welcome for my service and injuries defending your freedom to post ignorant stuff.

There was nothing ignorant about my response. The fact you responded to it the way you did proves you should pay down the house.

There were many thousands us over there, not all required the pity once we got home.

 

[Ballistic]

1. I have a hard time believing that we're in the same economic setting as pre-1990, let alone the 1920s-1950s.
2. At what point do you have to evaluate something on the scale over which you are/can be involved? I can't own value for 100 years. I will own growth for 20-40.

Another way to say it. Is 2025-2030 going to be more like 1920-1925 or 2020-2025? I don't want to use irrelevant data to make my decisions.

I didn't see the other responses, fair enough. I think the next 3 will be down, but I have for the last 7. If the time horizon is 10+years, I'm still in. If we're trying to flip a few bucks, heck no!

Some really thoughtful responses here.

 

[SAJ-99]

Yup, but Even if you lost the full 31% on 2007-8, you were whole by 2010 and extremely wealthy by 2015. I'm looking at the market since it's inception

not the point.
This reports says 90% of LCG funds underperform their pu$$y passive benchmarks over 10yrs. Your advice to a 16yo 10years ago would be hard to justify today. This is why explaining away underperformance is the true art of investing.

https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/spiva/spiva-us-mid-year-2025.pdf

 

[Ballistic]

not the point.
This reports says 90% of LCG funds underperform their pu$$y passive benchmarks over 10yrs. Your advice to a 16yo 10years ago would be hard to justify today. This is why explaining away underperformance is the true art of investing.

View attachment 397549

https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/spiva/spiva-us-mid-year-2025.pdf

The advice to a 16 year old is based on a 50 year timeframe, not 10. I'm not familiar with this source so I'll have to take a look at how to find relevant data over a lifetime of investing of Index funds VS. Large Cap growth.

Edit: after brief research you still may be correct