It is an illusion to think you are making money by inactivity. You are always long or short. The real difference is that the shrewd investor waits a long time between moves.
Well here again Bill you have imparted worthwhile information and a smart perspective on longterm investment, and you did it all without any demonstration of your rather prominent propensity for TDS.
What a crock of B.S.! You counseled stay in uber safe mode and avoid all those naked beauties, like Nvidia, Tesla, and just about every tech stock that popped up in the last 5 years, while growth gains went through the roof. I am a conservative investor and don’t risk my capital any more than I can. However, ignoring these opportunities, as well as the wonderful growth in dividend stocks would have cost me lots of gains. So, I used your advice, found sprinkled rarely in your DJT rants, as a measure, but never as a bell weather. Now, you offer a lame excuse for why your advice was the correct one and my choice was wrong, comparing it to some teenager’s fantasy of judging a Miss Nude Universe contest. Thanks for nothing. I would have preferred you say something like we still think the market is at risk, but we missed the mark on some of these past winners. FYI: I respect Tom and Dan’s advice, have followed it in some extent, and welcome their contribution each week. Your’s, not so much.
They’ve always said that their strategy is a conservative one aimed at avoiding the big loss and give a rationale for it. Last year they made decent returns on what they invested in. Don’t see what your complaint is. For me the point is things went so well last year that it’s annoying to have a flat six months.
Well here again Bill you have imparted worthwhile information and a smart perspective on longterm investment, and you did it all without any demonstration of your rather prominent propensity for TDS.
So true and so frustrating. Would a little toe dipping into the fast money be OK?
You wrote "you would have approximately tripled your real wealth".
My impression is that to have the same purchasing power today, you'd need three euros for every one you had in 2000...
‘ 4-6 by my calculation. At 5 at 2026 with the calculation of a doubling of costs - inflation every 10 years. Good observation Martin.’
What a crock of B.S.! You counseled stay in uber safe mode and avoid all those naked beauties, like Nvidia, Tesla, and just about every tech stock that popped up in the last 5 years, while growth gains went through the roof. I am a conservative investor and don’t risk my capital any more than I can. However, ignoring these opportunities, as well as the wonderful growth in dividend stocks would have cost me lots of gains. So, I used your advice, found sprinkled rarely in your DJT rants, as a measure, but never as a bell weather. Now, you offer a lame excuse for why your advice was the correct one and my choice was wrong, comparing it to some teenager’s fantasy of judging a Miss Nude Universe contest. Thanks for nothing. I would have preferred you say something like we still think the market is at risk, but we missed the mark on some of these past winners. FYI: I respect Tom and Dan’s advice, have followed it in some extent, and welcome their contribution each week. Your’s, not so much.
They’ve always said that their strategy is a conservative one aimed at avoiding the big loss and give a rationale for it. Last year they made decent returns on what they invested in. Don’t see what your complaint is. For me the point is things went so well last year that it’s annoying to have a flat six months.
Nor any hasty generalisations drawn from the back of a chauffeured car today either.