pasadena wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:09 pm
I invested a rather large (for me) sum last Wednesday, which was the only up day since we reached ATH on 09/02. So now I'm just going to go to my bedroom and pout.
Last Monday (9/13) was also an up day. And Wednesday was more than a 1% discount to the ATH. Congrats!
bugleheadd wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:57 pm
Fact: we will reach ATH again
Not necessarily
Since the prediction has no timeline, it is guaranteed to be true.
Yeah nothing is guaranteed... Overthrow the government, and the stock market goes to zero (look at Russia's stock market in 1917 - Communists took over, it went to zero).
But probably 99.5% chance that statement is true.
Last edited by HomerJ on Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The best tools available to us are shovels, not scalpels. Don't get carried away." - vanBogle59
RetireBy55 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:54 pm
Seems to be a bit of a stampede to the exits going on.
Usually see a bit more buying on big dips like this, but every little turn upward quickly seems to be being met with more vigorous "run!" selling.
I never understand analysis like this. Like, every single transaction has a buyer and a seller. How do you know when to emphasize the seller, not the buyer?
I don’t know why people get tripped up on this “every transaction has a buyer and a seller” bit when it comes to stocks. Let’s assume:
1) You live in a very desirable real estate market.
2) 10 people want to buy a house. Only 2 people want to sell a house.
3) 2 transactions occur, with prices determined via a bidding war.
4) RE prices continue to rise to a point that 5 of the original 10 buyers no longer want to buy, and an additional 3 owners decide they now want to sell. 3 more transactions occur.
5) In total, 5 transactions occurred, and every transaction (obviously) had a buyer and a seller. However, that does nothing to explain that prices initially rose because there were more people who wanted to buy than there were homes available to buy.
Stocks are no different, except it’s even more tangible in the sense that there are actually order books which update in real time each and every day. Prices rise when demand for stocks outweigh supply until such time as equilibrium is met, just like in any other market.
Well said. I think we all know that the number of actual buyers and sellers must be equal.
The rule (probably livesoft's) that the most you should spend on a car is the largest single-day variance in your portfolio. Definitely not the biggest move percentage-wise, but I have quite a bit more invested than I did going into last year's meltdown.
HomerJ wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:44 pm
Because of livesoft's ridiculous and dumb "rule" that you can only buy a car equal to one day's movement in the stock market.
Thanks for confirming.
A useful razor: anyone asking about speculative strategies on Bogleheads.org has no business using them.
jason2459 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:26 pm
Seems like a good buying opportunity to me. If Evergrand fails there will be even better opportunities it seems.
What would be the mechanism that triggers a big sell off if Evergrand fails? Even if Chinese consumers pull back, would that be enough? I don't think most companies have much exposure to Chinese real estate, so the contagion would seem to be mostly limited to China.
A really bad day(s) reminds me of 1987, 2008/09, and 2020; a 2% drop is nothing.
Keep interest as your friend, not your foe. |
Use money as a tool for bettering your life, not squandering it. |
Stay the course, don’t deviate from it.
RetireBy55 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:54 pm
Seems to be a bit of a stampede to the exits going on.
Usually see a bit more buying on big dips like this, but every little turn upward quickly seems to be being met with more vigorous "run!" selling.
I never understand analysis like this. Like, every single transaction has a buyer and a seller. How do you know when to emphasize the seller, not the buyer?
I don’t know why people get tripped up on this “every transaction has a buyer and a seller” bit when it comes to stocks. Let’s assume:
1) You live in a very desirable real estate market.
2) 10 people want to buy a house. Only 2 people want to sell a house.
3) 2 transactions occur, with prices determined via a bidding war.
4) RE prices continue to rise to a point that 5 of the original 10 buyers no longer want to buy, and an additional 3 owners decide they now want to sell. 3 more transactions occur.
5) In total, 5 transactions occurred, and every transaction (obviously) had a buyer and a seller. However, that does nothing to explain that prices initially rose because there were more people who wanted to buy than there were homes available to buy.
Stocks are no different, except it’s even more tangible in the sense that there are actually order books which update in real time each and every day. Prices rise when demand for stocks outweigh supply until such time as equilibrium is met, just like in any other market.
Well said. I think we all know that the number of actual buyers and sellers must be equal.
But isn't the reason that the market rises and falls that there isn't always an equal number of buyers and sellers?
Some index losses were halved from today's lows going into the close, a lot of dip buyers in the last half hour. I like holding mutual funds for this very reason. I only make decisions on buying more at the end of the day besides my regular automatic contributions.
RetireBy55 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:54 pm
Seems to be a bit of a stampede to the exits going on.
Usually see a bit more buying on big dips like this, but every little turn upward quickly seems to be being met with more vigorous "run!" selling.
I never understand analysis like this. Like, every single transaction has a buyer and a seller. How do you know when to emphasize the seller, not the buyer?
That's right - but when things directionally accelerate rapidly to the downside, there's more of an overall desire to sell than to buy. Of course there is a buyer for every seller..but the rate (and intensity) of a drop can reasonably be interpreted to be that there is more sell side pressure than desire to buy, or prices would be increasing - just like in any free market scenario. The converse is also true..
mikejuss wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:00 pm
But isn't the reason that the market rises and falls that there isn't always an equal number of buyers and sellers?
Depends on how you count them. Recently, I bought an ETF via a market order. While I was filling out the form, and before I pushed the buy button, would I be counted as a buyer?
jason2459 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:26 pm
Seems like a good buying opportunity to me. If Evergrand fails there will be even better opportunities it seems.
What would be the mechanism that triggers a big sell off if Evergrand fails? Even if Chinese consumers pull back, would that be enough? I don't think most companies have much exposure to Chinese real estate, so the contagion would seem to be mostly limited to China.
Temporary, or should I say transitory, sell off through momentum to the down side. I didn't say anything about being rational. Can't expect that in the short term and for some people they don't believe in that for the long term. Or did I say this is anything other then pure speculation. Seems like....
"In the short run, the stock market is a voting machine; in the long run, it is a weighing machine" ~Benjamin Graham
GP813 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:04 pm
Some index losses were halved from today's lows going into the close, a lot of dip buyers in the last half hour. I like holding mutual funds for this very reason. I only make decisions on buying more at the end of the day besides my regular automatic contributions.
Seems like the downside of mutual funds. Would have been better off with ETFs today.
80% global equities (faith-based tilt) + 20% TIPS (LDI)