The funny thing about these articles on predicting stock market performance is that they go entirely by trend lines, ratios etc...which are great ways of describing what happened after the fact. I found it hilarious that an article referring to the stock market drop of 2009 can manage to completely ignore the actual reason why it happened, as opposed to the valuation & trend line explanation.
I thought Harry Browne described this very well: the market is the sum total of millions of individual actions, responding to a set of circumstances that is unique to any given time period and will never recur in the same way again.
sophie wrote:the market is the sum total of millions of individual actions, responding to a set of circumstances that is unique to any given time period and will never recur in the same way again.
I like this one.
Also, another one I like, but forget the source (and I'm paraphrasing)..
"The past doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."
Don't agree with me too strongly or I'm going to change my mind
I just looked it up. Yeah, erroneously attributed to Mark Twain. It was found in a book of poems by a poet, a guy named Colombo -- no, not the Lieutenant. Colombo. But the poet claimed he wasn't the original source either.
Abd here you stand no taller than the grass sees
And should you really chase so hard /The truth of sport plays rings around you
Eufo makes a mistake attributional
Tortoise wonders if we're simply rapper tools
But it's history that rhymes
The people are just lines
And now we're off topic like usual
Kriegsspiel wrote:Eufo makes a mistake attributional
Tortoise wonders if we're simply rapper tools
But it's history that rhymes
The people are just lines
And now we're off topic like usual
Although I’ve been 70/30 in retirement accounts I want to thank Tyler for opening my eyes on the benefit of SCV and how it complements the PP portfolio. Making that change towards GB has made all the difference.
Has anybody here ever compared the total market capitalization of stocks, LTTs, gold, and cash?
If we assume that money "sloshes" between those four assets -- i.e., that if it flows out of one, a roughly equal amount must flow into one or more of the others -- then the portfolio would maintain a constant value only if the four assets were allocated according to total market capitalization, right?
It would be interesting to see those four percentages...
Tortoise wrote: ↑Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:38 pm
Has anybody here ever compared the total market capitalization of stocks, LTTs, gold, and cash?
If we assume that money "sloshes" between those four assets -- i.e., that if it flows out of one, a roughly equal amount must flow into one or more of the others -- then the portfolio would maintain a constant value only if the four assets were allocated according to total market capitalization, right?
It would be interesting to see those four percentages...
Well If, for instance, all assets were worth $25, and everyone wanted to sell stocks, they'd keep dropping in value until someone felt like buying them. If nobody wanted to buy them until they were at $5, then the total market cap of this economy would be $80. So some money went from, say, cash to stocks, but $20 of value is gone.