You quoted me as saying ”stocks are much better than bonds,”.
Your mal-quote of me is deceptively out of context.
In context, I said, in full:
"Note that in the long term, stocks are much better than bonds."
Which is a correct statement.
Peace.
Really ....?
You think I had malicious intent ?
Deceptively .... ?
I assure you I was simply highlighting the point I intended to address. As well as give other readers a bit of context to my post.
Your statement
“Note that in the long term, stocks are much better than bonds.”
Is true under certain limited circumstances, I was simply
seeking to open the door to a wider vision of the bond market.
1 year treasury yield reached upwards of 17.31% in 1981 ...
pretty sweet ..right?
One size never fits all, times change, variables change, risk management changes.
What is long term ..... 10 20 years? 50... 75 ?
Has there ever been a bad 10 year run for stocks?
I enjoy few things more then a good economics discussion/debate...I try to learn something every day.
I have no problem telling where I stand .... right...wrong...
or in the wind. And I try to give specifics that propel me in a direction.
This with the hope that if I'm miss reading or overlooking something... perhaps someone will enlighten me.
I'm very disappointed in your choice of “mal-quote” and “deceptively” to describe my reply. It leaves me with the impression that you ascribe some nefarius motive to me.
METC is still on the rise ..... any thoughts?
NDX is running ...
10 yr down
$ down