>>I really think you would like Hussman. But you don't give any indication you're interested, so I won't mention him to you again.<<
i must've missed it the last time you brought up hussman. i'll google him and see what he's about.
do be careful *right now*, though. make no mistake, we are on the edge of the fiscal abyss with $500,000,000,000,000+ in derivatives, much of which is unfunded, that could not only bring down our financial system to its knees, which is what we've seen today (hence the $8.5 trillion in govt obligations to try and lift it back to its fee), but it could chop of its legs and then dice its body into miniscule pieces.
the author of "the ascent of money" was on GPS with Fareed (CNN) and he said a good scenario would be similar to japan's lost decade that started around 1990.
look at a nikkei chart over the last 25 years. when the market collapses 90% over a 20 year period, i'm guessing lots of japanese retired folks had to re-enter the work force.
btw, a person who invest a lump sum into the S&P in 1995 would expect to have earned $850k as of now.
the same person who tied their money up at a 3% annual rate (compounded monthly) would expect to have $760k.
while the s&p return is currently better, this assumes a lump sum drop and 14 years... given that earnings are collapsing and bankruptcies are accelerating... the S&P may well under perform inflation over an extended period of time.
the dollar cost averagers and buy and holders are currently be taken out back oand shot. i have no issue with someone who does some kind of valuation and buys knowing that one day they plan to sell at some future point based upon fundamentals - good or bad.
that sounds like what you did and you are much better off for having done that. just don't get all confused and think that game will work again now that the rules have been rewritten.
oh, and i bet brinker's net investment return is negative since 1995. that's a long time.
"gift horse?"
more like trojan horse. |
