Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Naked Truth - Big Kahuna a Myth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BGR who wrote (73708)	11/4/1999 6:28:00 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86076

BGR, for an answer, look at the mania tops of '29 in the U.S., '89 in Japan and if you like 1720 in Britain....the 'long term' becomes painfully long once a bubble pops. that's why. hb

To: BGR who wrote (73708)	11/4/1999 6:53:00 PM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86076

question for you bgr; but first an assumption: i assume you believe in asset allocation models that are dynamic across a lifetime. many such models, for example, allocate assets more heavily towards bonds as an individual gets older. now the question: would a statistically "high market" in any way logically influence the asset allocation process? i.e. would logical risk averse investors ever pay any heed to market level? follow up question: if a person needs "x" to retire, would a statistically "high market" make them logically reduce exposure to the market. for instance if they were at .95 x and could achieve the last .05 x in a money market in a year should they given a high market...i'm trying to say would there be any time versus height of the market tradeoff. additional example: if someone wanted to retire and needed .1 x to get there and historically one gets there in one year in the stock market, could it possibly make logical sense to get there in two years through a money market given a statistically "high market".