Tuesday, 10/15, Market WrapUp (Intel misses CRAP earnings)

Financial Sense Online ^ | 10/15/2002 | James J. Puplava

[rohry]

"Good point. Hisotry shows it's better to invest, even if you buy at the high point."

Really? I have never read advice from anyone that suggested this investment strategery...

Buy high, sell low...

Wow, I'll have to see how it works!

[nickcarraway]

It's not that it's suggested that you actively try to by at the top. The point is to start investing right away, and not try to time the market. All evidence suugests that, since 1926(and before), that if you started investing at the high points over that period, you would still benefit in the long term. One of the reasons is, the equities market games usually come in very brief spurts, and if you miss them, you miss the gain. Remember, the point is to invest. Even if youn started in February 2000, you'll be okay in the long run.

[rohry]

"All evidence suugests that, since 1926(and before), that if you started investing at the high points over that period, you would still benefit in the long term."

Bunch of crap and completely untrue. Bond funds outperform stock funds over considerable peiods of time during the 20th Century...

Also, please get a spell-check and a grammar-check...

[LS]

Well, it might have been ok to keep Bledsoe---but I guess he didn't want to play second fiddle, and he sure is lighting it up in Buffalo.

[rohry]

"Well, it might have been ok to keep Bledsoe---but I guess he didn't want to play second fiddle.."

You're right, but my point was that I thought Bledsoe was better then Brady, but I'm no expert...

[nickcarraway]

Firrst of all we weren't talking about bonds, were we? Second of all, you are contradicting almost every investment professional and academic. Yes, sometimes equities are outperformed by other securities, the point is that equities will outperform for longterm investors. Even if you invested before the bear markets of the 70s, you'd still be better off today. Even if you invested in September 1987, you'd be better off today. Facts are facts. Among the numerous examples, check with Jeremy Siegel, the Wharton professor. His book, Stocks for the Long Run he has a lot of excellent info and charts. Including one that shows returns on equities, bonds, gold etc. since 1802.

[nickcarraway]

Bond funds outperform stock funds over considerable peiods of time during the 20th Century...

Also, please get a spell-check and a grammar-check...

Physician, heal thyself.

[cibco]

You sure have a lot of patience. ;0)

[rohry]

"Second of all, you are contradicting almost every investment professional and academic. Yes, sometimes equities are outperformed by other securities, the point is that equities will outperform for longterm investors."

Yah, if you take a long enough time frame (and make sure you include the bubble market of 1995-2000) you can make a case for the stock market always going up. But let's factor in the truth that we all die someday and someone investing in 1929 would have waited until 1948 until the market reached its former high. The 1966 market took until 1982 to reach its former highs. I don't have 19 or 16 years (I'm 50) to climb back to previous highs on this bubble market...

"Second of all, you are contradicting almost every investment professional and academic."

And we all know that academics are always right on:

1. Gun control
2. Socialized medicine
3. The United Nations
4. Etc, etc, etc

Also, there are plenty of investment professionals who support my position. The Austrian School of economics has the true conservative stance and supports my beliefs...

[nickcarraway]

The conservative stance? Capitalism is wrong is the conservative stance?

[nickcarraway]

And we all know that academics are always right on

All Academics get painted with the same brush? So Thomas Sowell is a socialist to you?

[rohry]

"Physician, heal thyself"

You are right, I did spell one word wrong and I apologize. Here is your serial mispellings revealed to the world, however:

by at the top...All evidence suugests...Even if youn started...Firrst of all

[rohry]

"Capitalism is wrong is the conservative stance? "

I'm sorry, but now you are making no sense. I guess we'll end this discussion as I have other people to respond to...

[nickcarraway]

Of course, your age has to be factored in to your financial plan. Please check nout the Siegel book and Charles Ellis. (especially Winning the Loser's Game)

Would anyone get rich listening to Jim Rodgers? Being a permabear? (Those people are NOT conservative, if that's what you are worried about.

If you can time the market, congratulations. You should be the richest man on earth.

[nickcarraway]

I was just curious how an anti-equities stance is conservative, that's all?

[rohry]

"I was just curious how an anti-equities stance is conservative, that's all?"

Jim Puplava is not anti-equities, he is interested in people moving their money into investments that will increase in value in the near-term. If equities are overvalued (which they are, right now) then NOBODY should be buying them. They should be invested in bonds or "things."

Please research before you post, you seem to know nothing about the Financial Sense Online posts that I have been doing for over 6 months...

[rohry]

"Of course, your age has to be factored in to your financial plan. Please check nout the Siegel book and Charles Ellis. (especially Winning the Loser's Game)"

Since you haven't impressed me with your knowledge I'll not be reading books recommended by you...

"If you can time the market, congratulations. You should be the richest man on earth."

I do not believe in timing the market... I did get out of the stock market in January 2000, however (Dow 11,000). I'm not the richest man on earth but I'm 40%+ richer than I would be if I followed your advice (buy and hold)...