Where to invest my money?

[facted]

Sure. Many have become millionaires by investing on index funds. This is the same reason why so much money, manpower, and research is done on the subject.

The average investor, meaning people like you or with even less knowledge (I assume that you are of above average intelligence), is better off putting their money on index funds. This is correct. But this doesn't mean that hedge fund managers and investing firms need to go out of business. Last time I checked, they are doing pretty well.

Or did Soros get his money from index funds?

Hedge fund managers and investing firms ARE going out of business as people realize that they can't beat the market consistently. Regardless, those at the top of those firms are making money...but not by beating the market. They're taking investors money at 2 and 20 and laughing all the way to the bank as they convince people that they can beat the market (they can't). There's a reason why hedge funds are losing accounts left and right and huge in-house investing accounts (such as large university endowments) are moving away from hedge funds and other actively managed products.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PlutoBoy]

But I do. Just not to every (printed) snake oil vendor. I love me Buffett, Munger, Marks, Klarman, Pabrai, Spier etc. I even believe in behavioral psychology. I just don't think anybody can be successful long-term without fundamental analysis.

I agree with that. I don't put my money in just about any company. First, I look at the fundamentals. Next, I look at the technical indicators. I don't listen to the noise -hype, people's feelings- because they are unreliable.

 

[PlutoBoy]

Hedge fund managers and investing firms ARE going out of business as people realize that they can't beat the market consistently. Regardless, those at the top of those firms are making money...but not by beating the market. They're taking investors money at 2 and 20 and laughing all the way to the bank as they convince people that they can beat the market (they can't). There's a reason why hedge funds are losing accounts left and right and huge in-house investing accounts (such as large university endowments) are moving away from hedge funds and other actively managed products.

To each his own. I don't intend to convince you. I simply stated that INTC is positioned to do well over the next few months.

 

[CyrusHabs7695]

 

[facted]

To each his own. I don't intend to convince you. I simply stated that INTC is positioned to do well over the next few months.

Thanks for the tip. Let's revisit this post in a few months.

 

[deleted171991]

I agree with that. I don't put my money in just about any company. First, I look at the fundamentals. Next, I look at the technical indicators. I don't listen to the noise -hype, people's feelings- because they are unreliable.

Then, if I may suggest something, stop wasting your time on S&P 500 companies. You won't beat the pros. Look at microcaps, which are too small for them to bother with and much easier to analyze.

 

[agammaglobulin]

Warren Buffett is winning one bet and losing another

Buffett challenge to Hedge Fund industry to beat S&P500 index fund over 10yr period, index fund winning. Birkshire Hathaway also losing over that time period. Article is roughly a year old, so assuming this hasn't changed...

In my opinion, there was a time (20+yrs ago) when an average investor and especially institutional investors could gather information, and select single stocks to invest in with some accuracy that would outperform the market. I think that has largely gone away now with so much information and so many people trying to get an advantage. Best to just invest in the index.

 

[PlutoBoy]

Warren Buffett is winning one bet and losing another

Buffett challenge to Hedge Fund industry to beat S&P500 index fund over 10yr period, index fund winning. Birkshire Hathaway also losing over that time period. Article is roughly a year old, so assuming this hasn't changed...

In my opinion, there was a time (20+yrs ago) when an average investor and especially institutional investors could gather information, and select single stocks to invest in with some accuracy that would outperform the market. I think that has largely gone away now with so much information and so many people trying to get an advantage. Best to just invest in the index.

It is safe to assume that Merryl Lynch, JP Morgan, Swiss National Bank, and others, have not seen this evidence or else why would they put millions into single stocks?

 

[agammaglobulin]

It's hard to charge a large fee if all you're doing is investing in an index fund.

 

[agammaglobulin]

.

 

[deleted162650]

Look, most of us are not in this to "get rich" off the stock market. That is very very hard to do - maybe a decent shot over a short time frame, but damn near impossible to pull off over 30 years. Those that are able to do it are extremely bright/gifted, and eat/sleep/breathe the market. This is a forum for Doctors. By definition, we eat/sleep/breathe medicine (although many think they coulda/would/shoulda been iBankers). We make our money taking care of patients, and we would like to retire at some point. Most have a 30ish year investment horizon. It has been proven time and time again that the best way to come out ahead over 30 years of investments is to park your savings in low-cost index funds, so that's what most of us do.

If you choose to go a different route, more power to ya, and best of luck. It's always fun to revisit these kinds of threads and see how the predictions play out. I can't remember a single one where the predictor was right. Promise us that you won't disappear like the previous predictors. Stick around and own what you say.

 

[deleted126335]

It is safe to assume that Merryl Lynch, JP Morgan, Swiss National Bank, and others, have not seen this evidence or else why would they put millions into single stocks?

It is not their millions that they put into single stocks. Because that is how they get paid. By convincing the public that their advice is worth paying up for. Note my signature.

 

[PlutoBoy]

Look, most of us are not in this to "get rich" off the stock market. That is very very hard to do - maybe a decent shot over a short time frame, but damn near impossible to pull off over 30 years. Those that are able to do it are extremely bright/gifted, and eat/sleep/breathe the market. This is a forum for Doctors. By definition, we eat/sleep/breathe medicine (although many think they coulda/would/shoulda been iBankers). We make our money taking care of patients, and we would like to retire at some point. Most have a 30ish year investment horizon. It has been proven time and time again that the best way to come out ahead over 30 years of investments is to park your savings in low-cost index funds, so that's what most of us do.

If you choose to go a different route, more power to ya, and best of luck. It's always fun to revisit these kinds of threads and see how the predictions play out. I can't remember a single one where the predictor was right. Promise us that you won't disappear like the previous predictors. Stick around and own what you say.

You are absolutely correct. But what was proposed earlier is that buying individual stocks is ill advised.

I don't know how you would assume that a prediction is "wrong". A good stock pick is based on good fundamental and technical analysis. You make the best decision that you can with the information you have at hand. Whether it pans out or not does not mean you did wrong.

Losing is part of the game. But if I lose money at least I know that I did my homework as opposed to buying on a hunch.

People see this as something esoteric. When I evaluate real estate I look at the intrinsic value of the property, whether the location has potential, if it can be flipped for little money, if it can be a good rental, etc. That doesn't mean that I am going to win. What it means is that I won't lose money by blindly buying property without throughly analyzing it. But no one can guarantee you 100% success in any business venture (index funds included).

Stocks are the same way. Don't put your money in a company that is failing. That's all.

 

[PlutoBoy]

It is not their millions that they put into single stocks. Because that is how they get paid. By convincing the public that their advice is worth paying up for. Note my signature.

Ok. Honestly, we are wasting our time here, guys. All I said was that INTC is well positioned for a breakout.

 

[pgg]

Today is the lowest price in 5 years to get in if that is what people want.

Maybe it’ll be lower tomorrow? Then it’ll be the lowest price in 5 years + 1 day!

I think people would want that more.

 

[pgg]

Ok. Honestly, we are wasting our time here, guys. All I said was that INTC is well positioned for a breakout.

All we’re saying is that if any of us could be bothered to sacrifice a chicken and throw its guts across a floor while burning the correct kind of incense, we’dhave an equally squiggly-line-based technical analysis to contribute.

 

[deleted162650]

I think people would want that more.

Well now I just want a G-Damn burrito!

 

[PlutoBoy]

All we’re saying is that if any of us could be bothered to sacrifice a chicken and throw its guts across a floor while burning the correct kind of incense, we’dhave an equally squiggly-line-based technical analysis to contribute.

 

[facted]

I don't know how you would assume that a prediction is "wrong". A good stock pick is based on good fundamental and technical analysis. You make the best decision that you can with the information you have at hand. Whether it pans out or not does not mean you did wrong.

Of course it does. You're telling us that based on some information that you expertly interpret, you can make a correct prediction.

I'm telling you that you can't, and that a monkey can predict just as accurately as you can. And now you come and tell me it doesn't actually matter if your prediction is correct as long as you researched it before you made it?!??

 

[PlutoBoy]

Of course it does. You're telling us that based on some information that you expertly interpret, you can make a correct prediction.

I'm telling you that you can't, and that a monkey can predict just as accurately as you can. And now you come and tell me it doesn't actually matter if your prediction is correct as long as you researched it before you made it?!??

Nope. What I am saying is that based on the fundamentals and technical indicators of the company, it may be worth your while to look into it. Nobody can guarantee you success in any business venture. Why do you think stocks are different? Do you think stocks exist in a different dimension and thus not subject to the same pressures that all businesses face?

It is fairly evident that you don't even understand how the market works. Stick to index funds.

 

[pgg]

It is safe to assume that Merryl Lynch, JP Morgan, Swiss National Bank, and others, have not seen this evidence or else why would they put millions into single stocks?

Because they have guaranteed profits from the fees they charge the people who are actually investing their own money. Advising fees, mutual fund fees and loads, transaction fees, and fees to supoort the other fees they charge.


An interesting tangent to this discussion is whether or not index fund investing would still “work” if everyone was doing it. I fall on the yes side of that thought experiment but we’ll never know, since there will always be lots of people who are happy to give 1% or more of their principal every year to Merryl Lynch, JP Morgan, Swiss National Bank, and others.

 

[facted]

[QUOTE="PlutoBoy, post: 19398481, member: 295688"/]
It is fairly evident that you don't even understand how the market works. Stick to index funds.[/QUOTE]
I do understand how the market works. That's WHY I stick to index funds.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Because they have guaranteed profits from the fees they charge the people who are actually investing their own money. Advising fees, mutual fund fees and loads, transaction fees, and fees to supoort the other fees they charge.


An interesting tangent to this discussion is whether or not index fund investing would still “work” if everyone was doing it. I fall on the yes side of that thought experiment but we’ll never know, since there will always be lots of people who are happy to give 1% or more of their principal every year to Merryl Lynch, JP Morgan, Swiss National Bank, and others.

Probably only 10% of the overall market needs to be "active investing" for indexing to function properly. These Speculators actually help create an efficient market by buying and selling stocks/options/calls/puts etc all the time. This drives up the efficiency for index investors.

It's human nature to believe that a smart human being or trader can beat the market. I think it's hard-wired into some people's sub-consciousness. To a degree, even I fall for the lure of "active Investing" when all the evidence clearly shows passive investing is superior over 10 year periods.

The house doesn't always win but I wouldn't want to bet against it.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Active managers prefer you know less about their philosophy and strategy. Why? Since clients pay higher fees for active management versus passive, there needs to be something inherently special in the process. To quote the wizard in The Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." S&P Dow Jones recently published their 15th annual index versus active scorecard. Over 15 years of analysis, which easily covers a full market cycle, active managers were handily beaten. 92% of large-cap, 95% of mid-cap and 93% of small-cap managers underperformed their benchmark. While value managers did better than their growth peers, 79% of large-cap value managers trailing their bogey is far from ideal. This widespread underperformance applies to both long-only and long/short managers (i.e. hedge funds), which would prefer to keep their "original formula" management process under "lock and key"

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

For International Large Cap

Blend, International Small Cap and Emerging Markets I use primarily active management (along with passive ETFs like Vanguard):

 

[BLADEMDA]

Shares of Chipotle have plunged so far that technician Rich Ross of Evercore ISI says the stock is in "grave danger."

As of Thursday, the stock was down 63 percent from its all-time high, which it hit back on Aug. 5, 2015. But even now, says Ross, a long-term chart of Chipotle is signaling that even tougher times are ahead.

According to Ross, while the stock originally crossed its 50-week and 200-week moving average lines back in 2009, signaling the beginning of Chipotle's meteoric rise to over $700, the stock has actually crossed below both of those technical indicators this year. That, says the technician, is a bearish sign for the stock.


"I think the stock goes to $235 in the short-term, and there is potential downside into the low $100s," he said Wednesday on CNBC's"Power Lunch." A move to the low $100 level in Chipotle would represent a more than 150 percent decline from current levels.

"That's sort of the definition of grave danger, and I would be a seller of the stock," Ross said.


This stock has tanked 63 percent from its all-time high, and it’s in ‘grave danger’: Technician

 

[deleted126335]

This actually understates the case for indexing. The reason being survivorship bias. Many funds don't last 10 or 15 years and thus don't make it to the rankings.

 

[PlutoBoy]

Shares of Chipotle have plunged so far that technician Rich Ross of Evercore ISI says the stock is in "grave danger."

As of Thursday, the stock was down 63 percent from its all-time high, which it hit back on Aug. 5, 2015. But even now, says Ross, a long-term chart of Chipotle is signaling that even tougher times are ahead.

According to Ross, while the stock originally crossed its 50-week and 200-week moving average lines back in 2009, signaling the beginning of Chipotle's meteoric rise to over $700, the stock has actually crossed below both of those technical indicators this year. That, says the technician, is a bearish sign for the stock.


"I think the stock goes to $235 in the short-term, and there is potential downside into the low $100s," he said Wednesday on CNBC's"Power Lunch." A move to the low $100 level in Chipotle would represent a more than 150 percent decline from current levels.

"That's sort of the definition of grave danger, and I would be a seller of the stock," Ross said.


This stock has tanked 63 percent from its all-time high, and it’s in ‘grave danger’: Technician

Of course. You don't buy a stock when it is plunging. Trade the trend, folks.

Trading below the 200 w SMA...

 

[PlutoBoy]

INTC opened at an all time high.

 

[deleted171991]

Of course. You don't buy a stock when it is plunging. Trade the trend, folks.

Trading below the 200 w SMA...

God, you're such a speculator! Be careful not to forget Buffett's first and second rules.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I like Chipotle the company. I would even buy the stock... at $120-$130 per share.

 

[urge]

Another buying opportunity for Chipotle investors.


More Food Poisoning at Chipotle?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Chipotle Says There's No Link to ‘Supergirl’ Actor's Illness

Craig Giammona
•November 13, 2017

Chipotle Says There's No Link to ‘Supergirl’ Actor's Illness
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. said there’s no connection between the company and an illness suffered by “Supergirl” actor Jeremy Jordan, who blamed the burrito chain for making him severely sick.

 

[epidural man]

Apparently all the "food poising at CMG - scarred people" don't remember the horrible food poisoning crisis at Jack in the Box years ago. They nearly went bankrupt, but look at them now!

Have any of you CMG naysayers been in a chipotle lately? Each one I have been in has been packed still. People still love their food.

I think they have great food - I could eat there every day. Fresh ingredients (and the reason they have had food trouble because they won't put crappy chemicals in their food) and the right portions. I love the sophritas bowl.

The queso isn't doing well because it tastes like REAL cheese. People want the loaded chemical rich and smooth velveta tasting crap. Real cheese is not that smooth.

 

[epidural man]

Currently paying down my student loans at about $5000 per month. Once they are paid off I'd like to continue to live like I do now and invest the $5000 per month and save for retirement. Question is, what's the best way to invest and save this money?

Buy some real estate. I would start saving cash.

People scream "Don't TIME THE MARKET" and then blindly put money in every month hoping it will go up, knowing it will go down too, but hoping to time it perfectly so when they finally get to, or HAVE TO take money out - that the market is higher when they started. That is the very definition of timing the market.

The truth is, you can't avoid trying to time the market. People miss that very important fact - that ignoring market valuation and price NOW and hoping the market will be higher when you finally need your money - IS trying to time the market.

I think it's funny.

I also think you should pick individual stocks. Don't be a consumer - be an owner. Buy individual stocks of companies you use and love (and look at Micron).

I don't think passive investing is such a hot idea. I think you should be more responsible then that. Make the world a better place - avoid ETF's.

Are Index Funds Evil?

 

[epidural man]

Full disclosure to OP, I am bearish and probably should move my 401K funds out of the market - I will soon,

Here is something I wrote on another thread - I'll repost here.

Right before the dot.com bubble burst, there were 29 companies trading at 10X revenues. Today there are 28. Facebook actually trades at 15x revenue. Is this a concern? Should we be concerned about company revenue, or do all we care about are jobs and GDP? (By the way, on this issue, the CEO of Sun Microsystem, speaking about this egregious bubble which his company was part of said to Bloomberg in 2009 "At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company. That assumes zero expenses, which is really hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate. Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64? Do you realize how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don’t need any transparency. You don’t need any footnotes. What were you thinking?" He later said in that interview that he was trapped. He couldn't tell investors he was way overvalued, and he couldn't honestly tell people to buy more - so he said he had to just sit there and say nothing. Very interesting....Full interview here A Talk with Scott McNealy

 

[epidural man]

OP -

Before starting to invest in the markets - watch this.

 

[GA8314]

OP -

Before starting to invest in the markets - watch this.

What I would say after reading (including audio books) works by Jack Bogle, Burton Malkiel, Benjamin Graham, Rick Ferri, William Bernstein, Ric Edelman, and Rick Van Ness, is that it's impossible to time the market.

My borrowed ideas on the principles of investing (from the aforementioned very credible sources) is that your BEST, individual, asset allocation is the one which allows you to continue contributing without making too many changes (aside from perhaps yearly rebalancing) while staying fully vested (i.e. not in cash).

So, if you are sensing that equities are trading very high, and your target asset allocation (for simplicity) is 70/30 stocks/bonds, then perhaps while you rebalance, you take your equity position down to 55/45. While you will likely miss timing the market, if that helps you feel less nervous and less likely to sell all assets, then history and evidence suggests, that's a good asset allocation strategy for you. If you are fine with a 70/30 stock/bond allocation, then simply rebalancing to maintain 70/30 mix is the best for you.

Just recently I had a very very high (90%) diversified equity position. I THOUGHT I could ride that out. I got nervous at equity valuations and thus "rebalanced" to about a 50/50 allocation which resulted in MUCH LESS anxiety about an equity market turn which could happen next month, next year, or two years from now. Or tomorrow. At this point, MY PERSONAL risk exposure is acceptable to me and I am comfortable with this allocation. Meantime, I know I'll miss more upside as the market may continue to rise, but my risk is more in line with what will allow me to stay highly vested.

Any downturns at this point will be buying opportunities, and if we have a severe enough correction, then I may change asset allocation to 70/30 or even 80/20 at that point, but I will only do that if I see extremes.

Evidence suggests that this is the was to do things. I will stick to this thick or thin.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The stock market is over-valued at this point. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see another 10% gain next year before a bear market sets in. If the tax cuts gets passed that will add fuel to the fire for another leg up.

Since nobody can accurately predict when these bear markets will occur the best course of action is to pick a % of equity exposure you can live with through good and bad times. For me, it's about 50-55% for good times and 60-65% during bear markets (valuations are much cheaper and one gets a discount to fair value). This requires diligence and patience which is measured over decades not weeks.

I like the global growth story for the equity market. Yes, there are so many things which can go wrong and derail the market but this "worry factor" has always been a part of investing since the 1920's.

For those who have never lived through a real bear market like 2008 I urge caution in 100% equity exposure at this time. I think an 80/20 mix is plenty of risk in this market and if one really wants to dial up the risk then own a lot of high P/E stocks with a "growth story" like Facebook, Amazon, Google, Square, etc.

Be careful out there.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

Buy some real estate. I would start saving cash.

People scream "Don't TIME THE MARKET" and then blindly put money in every month hoping it will go up, knowing it will go down too, but hoping to time it perfectly so when they finally get to, or HAVE TO take money out - that the market is higher when they started. That is the very definition of timing the market.

The truth is, you can't avoid trying to time the market. People miss that very important fact - that ignoring market valuation and price NOW and hoping the market will be higher when you finally need your money - IS trying to time the market.

I think it's funny.

I also think you should pick individual stocks. Don't be a consumer - be an owner. Buy individual stocks of companies you use and love (and look at Micron).

I don't think passive investing is such a hot idea. I think you should be more responsible then that. Make the world a better place - avoid ETF's.

Are Index Funds Evil?

I think that's the complete opposite of "timing the market." When most people on here say "timing the market," they mean entering late or leaving early based on their personal research or, more commonly, gut feeling.

Just because you put money in every month for 30 or 40 years, and then need to withdraw it, doesn't mean you're trying to "time the market." The timing does affect your ultimate return, but the whole point of that strategy is that there is no 30yr time period where you haven't a had a positive real return. There have been multiple papers/articles showing that if you started investing right before any of the market peaks, if you stay in the market for long enough you will end up on top.

So, theoretically, you could go all in on Monday, the stock market could crash 60% on Tuesday, and historically, if you stayed vested for the next 30 years, you'd still end up in the black. Obviously, just because it's always been positive for every 30 year stretch in the past doesn't mean it will be positive for every 30 year stretch in the future, but if you're gambling on the stock market doing something it's never done in the past, then that's a whole other discussion (usually involves lots of guns and food and ammo).

 

[GA8314]

The stock market is over-valued at this point. Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see another 10% gain next year before a bear market sets in. If the tax cuts gets passed that will add fuel to the fire for another leg up.

Since nobody can accurately predict when these bear markets will occur the best course of action is to pick a % of equity exposure you can live with through good and bad times. For me, it's about 50-55% for good times and 60-65% during bear markets (valuations are much cheaper and one gets a discount to fair value). This requires diligence and patience which is measured over decades not weeks.

I like the global growth story for the equity market. Yes, there are so many things which can go wrong and derail the market but this "worry factor" has always been a part of investing since the 1920's.

For those who have never lived through a real bear market like 2008 I urge caution in 100% equity exposure at this time. I think an 80/20 mix is plenty of risk in this market and if one really wants to dial up the risk then own a lot of high P/E stocks with a "growth story" like Facebook, Amazon, Google, Square, etc.

Be careful out there.

Nice post Blade. I'm in my early 40's, but my savings rate is very high (goal is 50% of gross.....). I know the "right" asset allocation (as discussed) is one which allows you to weather the storm.

I think that's the complete opposite of "timing the market." When most people on here say "timing the market," they mean entering late or leaving early based on their personal research or, more commonly, gut feeling.

Just because you put money in every month for 30 or 40 years, and then need to withdraw it, doesn't mean you're trying to "time the market." The timing does affect your ultimate return, but the whole point of that strategy is that there is no 30yr time period where you haven't a had a positive real return. There have been multiple papers/articles showing that if you started investing right before any of the market peaks, if you stay in the market for long enough you will end up on top.

So, theoretically, you could go all in on Monday, the stock market could crash 60% on Tuesday, and historically, if you stayed vested for the next 30 years, you'd still end up in the black. Obviously, just because it's always been positive for every 30 year stretch in the past doesn't mean it will be positive for every 30 year stretch in the future, but if you're gambling on the stock market doing something it's never done in the past, then that's a whole other discussion (usually involves lots of guns and food and ammo).

Indeed, I've seen compelling data on lump sum investing versus dollar cost averaging. Perhaps it depends on your time horizon, but the data is pretty clear that the most important factors are 1) staying fully vested in a diversified, low cost portfolio, rebalance every now and again, and close your eyes.

I do think strategic rebalancing based upon reasonable assessment of market levels is not a bad idea but i'm not sure the data supports that.

 

[urge]

Full disclosure to OP, I am bearish and probably should move my 401K funds out of the market - I will soon,

I think that's the complete opposite of "timing the market." When most people on here say "timing the market," they mean entering late or leaving early based on their personal research or, more commonly, gut feeling.

He is timing the market and trying to rationalize it to feel better about it.

The great thing about the market is that you can time the market or not time the market all the same, because nobody has a real clue what the market will do next.

 

[pgg]

The best thing about an 8 year bull market is that everybody makes money.

The worst thing about an 8 year bull market is that everybody thinks the reason they made money is because they're smart.

 

[epidural man]

He is timing the market and trying to rationalize it to feel better about it.

The great thing about the market is that you can time the market or not time the market all the same, because nobody has a real clue what the market will do next.

So are you. You just don’t realize it.

 

[facted]

So are you. You just don’t realize it.

How so?

 

[urge]

Chipotle shares drop on yet another report of possible food safety issues

 

[castafari]

Why do you recommend avoiding ETFs?

QUOTE="epidural man, post
: 19459740, member: 153158"]Buy some real estate. I would start saving cash.

People scream "Don't TIME THE MARKET" and then blindly put money in every month hoping it will go up, knowing it will go down too, but hoping to time it perfectly so when they finally get to, or HAVE TO take money out - that the market is higher when they started. That is the very definition of timing the market.

The truth is, you can't avoid trying to time the market. People miss that very important fact - that ignoring market valuation and price NOW and hoping the market will be higher when you finally need your money - IS trying to time the market.

I think it's funny.

I also think you should pick individual stocks. Don't be a consumer - be an owner. Buy individual stocks of companies you use and love (and look at Micron).

I don't think passive investing is such a hot idea. I think you should be more responsible then that. Make the world a better place - avoid ETF's.

Are Index Funds Evil?[/QUOTE]

 

[BLADEMDA]

I love ETFs. I own them and will be buying many more. Low cost with great diversification. In addition, fantastic tax management for most ETFs vs a Mutual Fund which is essential in a taxable account.

Do I own individual stocks? You bet. But, would I sell my ETFs for a basket of 15-20 stocks? No.