Experts - Has your view changed?

[novaman]

If your "gut" is telling you to get onto the sidelines, what it's really telling you is that your AA was wrong for you in the first place.

Great post....... and I'm the one sitting on the sidelines!

 

[teejayevans]

I dollar cost average in every payday (which explains why the market goes up on the 15th and 30th), I'm betting 5+ years from now stocks will be up, even if they only return to their previous highs, that's 40% higher than today, I'd actually like to see it drop a bit more.
CNBC can be entertaining, I was watching it when the dow fell 1000pts, talk about being dazed and confused
TJ

 

[kcowan]

...If your "gut" is telling you to get onto the sidelines, what it's really telling you is that your AA was wrong for you in the first place.

And many investors have learned that lesson in the past decade, usually the hard way, and with little thanks to their financial advisors.

 

[FinanceDude]

And many investors have learned that lesson in the past decade, usually the hard way, and with little thanks to their financial advisors.

You would be flat-out amazed at how many people "become" conservative investors when the market tanks, but "become" euphoric aggressive investors when the market's going up a lot........

 

[haha]

So you have succumbed to sheep mode. That's too bad.

For a take on the article from folks who are not confused, check out this link:
Bogleheads :: View topic - What do you think about this article by Paul B Farrell?

This Boglehead link reminds me why I steer well clear of Bogleheads. The guy posted a link, and he gets lectured that "the name Paul Farrell is not sufficient inducement to get tme to click on the link."

Oh, aren't you precious and important, your poor little finger is all clicked out.


Ha

 

[kcowan]

...The guy posted a link, and he gets lectured that "the name Paul Farrell is not sufficient inducement to get tme to click on the link."

Oh, aren't you precious and important, your poor little finger is all clicked out.


Ha

I think every link needs a quick synopsys of what it contains. This will increase the likelihood of a click through. Otherwise, all that clicking can be a time-waster.

 

[RonBoyd]

I think every link needs a quick synopsys of what it contains. This will increase the likelihood of a click through. Otherwise, all that clicking can be a time-waster.

Yeah, and that would prevent any hi-jacking from happening.

 

[DblDoc]

This Boglehead link reminds me why I steer well clear of Bogleheads. The guy posted a link, and he gets lectured that "the name Paul Farrell is not sufficient inducement to get tme to click on the link."

Oh, aren't you precious and important, your poor little finger is all clicked out.


Ha

Ha - its in the rules for posting. No naked links, give a quick summary or quote to give readers an idea of what the linked article contains.

DD

 

[Nords]

Ha - its in the rules for posting. No naked links, give a quick summary or quote to give readers an idea of what the linked article contains.

One way or another, posters favoring naked links end up on a lot of "Ignore Poster" lists, and not just on this board.