Why work hard when you can just do technical analysis!

If you read the very first post in this thread you will see that I said 6-8 years for the bull market. The lows in the SnP were March of '09. 8 years from then would be this march.

So it could still be a pretty solid perspective.

Also, even if I had not said 6-8 and just said 6. If you understand cycles (and the context) you would realize that it doesn't mean only 2190 days (6*365). Cycles in complex systems are rarely fixed.

I don't really think of our solar system as a complex system, but, I will use it as an example none the less. Let's define our day as a 24 hr cycle made up of two smaller cycles, the daytime and the nighttime cycle.

In the summer maybe the 24hrs is broken down into 14 daylight and 10 nighttime. Whereas in the winter it is the opposite.

The same thing happens in the markets.

The problem is you can't stop investing 2-3 years before you think the cycle may possibly end.

When you add together the losses from any run-ups before the "obvious crash" happens with the losses from also being unable to time the bottom correctly, you are obviously far better off just DCA'ing right on through full time.

6-12 years guys. For sure.

How about if we sell 2-3 years before the end and then wait until the bottom to buy again?

so many goldbug or goldbug-sympathetic (maybe Rand is the latter) have this "all or nothing" approach to investing and just end up outsmarting themselves while passive investors who are DCA all the way through do far better.

There have been studies that show people who have dormant accounts, dead people, etc far outperform ppl who are wannabe market timers.

And if you really in your heart believe that you can time a 6-8 year cycle correctly, at least do something about it in a thoughtful and planned way ... for example:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=962461

Or you know, you can play the buzzword game and try to get as many of fiat/central bank/malinvestment/keynesianism/exponential growth into a paragraph as possible

It depends on the sun spots.

Vocabulary word of the day is apophenia.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

http://money.cnn.com/2000/11/01/zwei...unds/index.htm
"Our incorrigible search for patterns leads us to assume that order exists where it often doesn't. Many of us believe, for example, that it's possible to foresee where the market is heading or whether a particular stock will continue to rise. In reality, these things are far more random and unpredictable than we like to admit."

Ha cool word, I was aware of the concept (but not the word).

Maybe.

But...the business & interest rate cycles are not made up.

There are also traders that outperform your dead people...

Of course there are. But most funds still underperform the indexes. Since the long term trend is up, dollar cost averaging indexes seems to be the way to go.

Most professional baseball player's dont have .300 averages either, but that doesn't mean that they should just take every pitch and hope for a walk.

Eventually, some greedy individual might try and exploit that strategy and throw a strike everytime...

What???????????? Funds are paid professionals being paid to beat the average which they don't do for the most part. Joe Lunchbucket can just DCA the index and outperform those fee grubbing pricks.

Plus sabermetrics says you should be trying to get on base which often means taking that pitch for a walk. On base average is more important than batting .300

Haha, the MLB players are paid professionals who get paid to beat the average.

Joe Lunchbucket (love that name...) is getting pwnd by market makers, algos, day traders, & swing traders. Maybe every year more hegies return < SnP but the ones that return more return way more.*

IDK, I am not into the statistics of this BS. Nor am I saying give all your money to some hedge fund.

But, I will say that I think a passive approach to equities was better suited to the previous three decades than it will be to the next three decades.

*There are 100 hedgies in the world. The SnP returns 10% in the relevant year. 99 of the hedgies return 9.9% and one returns 100%. Where would you rather be? Passive SnP or with a random hedge fund manager?

so where iz d crash?

I'm pretty sure they use more advanced strategies than selling 5.9 years into a bull run and hoping they can then time the bottom that is eventually coming some day.

It's clear that for like 99% of people managing their own investments that buy, buy, buy very lost cost index funds regardless of the market conditions is the best strategy.

America laughs at its 20 trillion dollar debt because they know they will never pay it back and no one will make them

I had no say in the accumulated debt. When I say "America" I mean our government. Not sure the overarching implications of the debt but I doubt it'll be the slaughter you foretell because 75% of the world owes us a favor for one reason or another.

Oh yeah? What countries?

And why don't you just buy an ETF of the countries who "laugh at America" rather than a pet rock?

You know you can own global assets right?

6-18 years

It was funnier the first time...

Haha [citation needed]

Rand can pretty much be ignored as a pure troll. But here is an article about Buffetts bet (S&P vs Hedge Funds) and how the S&P is burying the 10,000+ plus hedge funds (100 LOL).

http://fortune.com/2016/05/11/warren...edge-fund-bet/

So were you.