If Flagpole was indeed tech-heavy that is just more reason he could not have beaten the market all those years. The NASDAQ was down 80% through much of 2002. The NASDAQ has had phenomenal years and some really bad years. So, if he IS tech-heavy he would beat the broader market on the years that the NASDAQ has thrived. If he ISN'T tech-heavy he would have lost out on those years that the NASDAQ did well.
1) I am not tech heavy.
2) The makeup of my holdings have changed a lot over the years. I didn't just buy something in 1989 and then I've kept it since. When I started I wasn't very diversified, and then I even changed stuff around a lot in those early days before settling on a philosophy of just buying as many new and different funds as I could to get as diversified as possible.
Can't it be as simple as this: as an owner of some growth mutual funds, you are in fact owning an outsized share of tech by nature of those funds holding a larger percentage of tech stocks within said funds as compared to being truly diversified across the broader market,
TL/dr: growth funds are likely tech biased, and investors holding said tech funds are therefore tech biased as well.
2) The makeup of my holdings have changed a lot over the years. I didn't just buy something in 1989 and then I've kept it since. When I started I wasn't very diversified, and then I even changed stuff around a lot in those early days before settling on a philosophy of just buying as many new and different funds as I could to get as diversified as possible.
Can't it be as simple as this: as an owner of some growth mutual funds, you are in fact owning an outsized share of tech by nature of those funds holding a larger percentage of tech stocks within said funds as compared to being truly diversified across the broader market,
TL/dr: growth funds are likely tech biased, and investors holding said tech funds are therefore tech biased as well.
that sounds right to me
for ex a big giant fund like Fidelity Contra doesn't say 'tech' anywhere in its name but its top holdings are full of many of the same giant tech/comms names as a growth or tech fund.
bottom line is that Flagpole's performance is that of a growth/tech investor. I dont' see how that isn't because he IS a growth/tech investor, whether he knows it or not.
the answer is that to people of the austrian economics persuasion...gains are not good if they are not earned the korrekt way. And those volks most definitely think the US economy and stock market of the last 14 years have not earned gains the right way. They are not pleased and think any gains will be answered by lows even lower. And they WILL be pleased by that.
Well if you look at a one year S&P 500 chart you can see what is likely going on. Likewise, you can look at S&P 500 EPS report to see where we are likely headed. This is no different than the Bear Market rally of eight weeks ago, rolled over. And this one will too. But whatever you want to do, its your money.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
the answer is that to people of the free money economic persuasion...market pricing of assets is not good, you must have ample cheap money for stock buybacks. And those of the investor class most definitely believe the US economy can fake its way for the foreseeable future and stock market of the last 14 years will be a permanent higher plateau. They are not pleased that inflation has reared its ugly head and fear the Fed and Treasury are powerless to reverse the appearance of serial bubble collapses. Still they believe in the magic of Modern Monetary Theory and think any lows will be answered by even greater gains. And they WILL be pleased by that :-)
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Added happy face
Interesting spot the sp500 is in…if we are in a trading range we should sell now and pick up shares 300 sp500 points lower. Rinse and repeat. I think Igy has had some success doing that.
Tough call because you are capping returns. What if the market keeps climbing?
Interesting spot the sp500 is in…if we are in a trading range we should sell now and pick up shares 300 sp500 points lower. Rinse and repeat. I think Igy has had some success doing that.
Tough call because you are capping returns. What if the market keeps climbing?
Interesting spot the sp500 is in…if we are in a trading range we should sell now and pick up shares 300 sp500 points lower. Rinse and repeat. I think Igy has had some success doing that.
Tough call because you are capping returns. What if the market keeps climbing?
You can't time the market. You just can't.
I did it in October. I bought at 3600 which was basically the low. It felt super low and everybody was feeling dismal. Maybe I just got lucky.
Other than timing the market, what do you do, just DCA?
2) The makeup of my holdings have changed a lot over the years. I didn't just buy something in 1989 and then I've kept it since. When I started I wasn't very diversified, and then I even changed stuff around a lot in those early days before settling on a philosophy of just buying as many new and different funds as I could to get as diversified as possible.
Can't it be as simple as this: as an owner of some growth mutual funds, you are in fact owning an outsized share of tech by nature of those funds holding a larger percentage of tech stocks within said funds as compared to being truly diversified across the broader market,
TL/dr: growth funds are likely tech biased, and investors holding said tech funds are therefore tech biased as well.
Can't it be as simple as this: as an owner of some growth mutual funds, you are in fact owning an outsized share of tech by nature of those funds holding a larger percentage of tech stocks within said funds as compared to being truly diversified across the broader market,
TL/dr: growth funds are likely tech biased, and investors holding said tech funds are therefore tech biased as well.
that sounds right to me
for ex a big giant fund like Fidelity Contra doesn't say 'tech' anywhere in its name but its top holdings are full of many of the same giant tech/comms names as a growth or tech fund.
bottom line is that Flagpole's performance is that of a growth/tech investor. I dont' see how that isn't because he IS a growth/tech investor, whether he knows it or not.
You can look at the individual companies that make up each mutual fund. Trust me, I am not heavily tech...a lot of MONEY in tech yes, but as a percentage of my total holdings, not tech heavy. As you mentioned before too, there a growth stocks that are NOT tech companies.
JPM had a clear view of falling inflation, back in October when CPI was roaring at 7.7%.
Inflation now says we're at Core CPI 5.6% and headline 5.2%, pretty close to what this analyst forecasted. Pretty good forecasting.
Seth Golden @SethCL J.P. Morgan Mislav: "Believe disinflation phase already begun and that inflation prints, both headline and core, will be meaningfully lower in 3-6 months time. US core #CPI at 5.3% vs 6.6% YoY presently & headline 5.7% vs 8.2% presently"
Hard to see this is sustainable. Either value catches up or tech falls back. I'd guess tech will fall back. +19% in 3 months is not realistic.
Meanwhile the market keeps trucking along. Apart from 2000-2002, over the last quarter century it has always soared after a bad year like 2022. Without fail.
The Nasdaq 100 (^NDX) just entered a new bull market and is about to notch its best first-quarter return since 2012 — up 18.5% with one day to go. Apple (AAPL) and Amazon (AMZN) are each up over 20% this year, while Tesla (TSLA) has surged nearly 60%, and Meta Platforms (META) is up over 70%. Chipmaker Nvidia (NVDA) is approaching an eye-watering 90% return this quarter — its best in over two decades.