https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1501941853859377160?t=u7LhVv0Ao9v7JrARpoBZoA&s=19
Yeah those February sanctions really pumped the inflation number up
3 Likes
Bro you dont like inflation? Tell me why do you support the murder of Ukranian babies and children?
It’s good politics to blame it on that, though. Glad to see he figured that out.
1 Like
Pretty funny to blatantly lie though. I mean maybe he doesn’t know inflation calculations didn’t include the sanctions (if i read correctly), it is Biden after all.
I mean, Republicans are blaming 100% of the inflation on Biden and completely ignoring the impact of the sanctions, so tit for tat. If Biden can get people to chalk it up to, “somewhere in the middle, both sides are to blame,” that’s a huge huge win for Dems. It’s the type of bullshit Republicans pull all the time.
1 Like
Oh I’m not denying that. It’s funny to me in that it amuses me that this is what it’s come to.
Yeah that’s a great point. I’m actually currently more invested than I want to be in those accounts, but I’m factoring in that I’ll be making significant contributions to those accounts for 2022 in the next few months so it’s a temporary thing.
Essentially picking value stocks allowed me to get back towards a conservative but standard allocation, as I wasn’t touching the indexes at the heights at which they were trading.
I’m 35 and if the markets crash enough I will go 100% into equities in my retirement accounts and start trying to shovel bankroll cash into the markets, too. If they’re just reasonably undervalued I’ll go to 90% in my retirement accounts. Fairly valued I’d be at 80% probably.
Instead I’m currently aiming for 65/35. I’m currently:
Equities 66%
Commodities 5%
Gold 6%
Cash 22%
I consider the gold to be akin to cash, and commodities somewhere in the middle. They’re inflation protection and the commodities are also a hedge on the war. So right now I’m basically 66/34, because if the market crashes I’ll move commodities/gold into equities.
Counting the contributions that will be hitting soon, I’m at:
Equities 58%
Commodities 4.5%
Gold 5.4%
Cash 31.9%
So once I make my annual contribution, I’ll go hunting for more value opportunities.
What is your definition of crash to when you’ll put more in the market? I’ve been buying this 10% drop up although now i’m waiting a bit to see if theres another 10% to buy more
I’d probably start kicking the tires below S&P 3,000.
Once it drops another 15% or so I’ll dig in more and figure out where to start working money in.
I’m still doing retirement contribution stuff and putting some other money to work at a regular cadence, but keeping it somewhat defensive where possible. We’d have to be meaningfully below Jan ‘20 levels before I’d consider accelerating.
My bonus is sitting in my checking account. It will take me a few days to invest it, so I wouldn’t mind if the market goes down another few points.
What if that never happens? Does the money ever get invested?
1 Like
From upthread:
I’m just in value stocks, instead.
Your opinion on investing may change if the market were to crash >50%. Unless you’re suzzer in early 09 posting on 22, asking if this may be the bottom to a bunch of crickets, you may experience a different point of view on the market, that’s assuming that you still have the funds to invest and avoided averaging down too quickly which wipes out most recreational investors if things were to tank that bad.
Opinions on the market and particular stocks in general change far more than folks realize simply due to price change. You’ll never have a shortage of idiots wanting to buy gamestop at 300 a share but sneer at it when it crashes to 5 with no change to the actual business. That probably won’t be you but I can assure you that the bottom will display everything imaginable that investing is a something like a “thing of the past” that will avert folks from investing their left over crumbs near the actual bottom.
1 Like
Yeah that won’t be me, I’ll be thrilled to start shovelling money in at that point. Once I do the work to sort out my strategy with regard to initial entry point, it’ll be some variation of putting X% of my cash on hand into VOO, QQQ, and VTI each time they drop an additional 1% or whatever. Then I’ll set a bunch of buy orders and wait to hear the alert notification on my phone.
If I run out of dry powder in my retirement accounts and it’s still down/dropping, I’ll move on to other investible money until all that’s left is my living expense savings, then I’ll just add whatever I can each month.
What actually jumps out at me as a bigger risk is holding 20% in cash. If the whole point is to beat the index, giving the index that much of a head start is pretty problematic. If the index grows at 5% to 10% per year in the long run, you are accepting that you have to outperform the market by 100 bps to 200 bps just to catch up to the index. That’s extremely tough.
I mean, standard allocation is 100-age% in stocks and the rest in bonds, right? So in reality if you’re comparing apples to apples, a standard allocation wouldn’t be 100% S&P even if all you were buying is the S&P.
1 Like
100 - age can’t still be a real thing, can it? Anyone near retirement age who has more than half their portfolio in bonds in this day and age would get slaughtered.
I think 100-age is a bad and lazy metric. Really, when you’re still 30+ years from retirement, it should be basically 100% equities. I’m pretty sure if you pick any 30-year period (even one right before a bubble), stocks will out-perform bonds.
I’d say once you get 20 years out you should start adding bonds/cash and probably not on a linear basis.
You also need to factor in any other fixed income you expect to have in retirement - both SS and any pensions, etc.
1 Like
I agree with that but isn’t that still the standard suggestion? I consider my 65/35 right now to be very conservative, but in line with my view on the markets right now.
I think that’s still what they say? I just Googled standard allocation and that’s what came up. My plan if the markets feel fairly valued is to stay more invested than 100-age, but I thought that was the accepted baseline.