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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (27406)	1/13/2003 10:30:02 AM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<Oh for sure, over and over I bring up the issue that trading has a negative expected return yet traders always think that they will be one of the ones to beat the odds. > I think the problem on SI with this statement is I believe your talking about your 'daytraders'.... IMO holding a stock 6 months or a YEAR is still trading... perhaps longer! Investing is supposedly like building a company no?... 5-10 years? So from that standpoint I can see many traders here, including myself disagreeing. <For myself, I don't risk 20% to make a possible upside of 10%> Of course it all depends on the probability of outcomes... expected value. DAK

To: GraceZ who wrote (27406)	1/13/2003 11:52:39 AM
From: _scar_face_	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

In the long-run, that's very true, for traders and for folks who think they are one step ahead of the pack via asset class at any given time. This is not the time to be out of stocks. That's a very strong statement to make in a secular bear market, which a lot of people simply don't want to hear we're in. I would be curious to listen to similar reasoning, after only 3 years of other bear markets, as well as the secular ones too. Historically, these types of markets have at the very least shown great ability to go sideways/nowhere for as much as decades at a time. While risk could be considered limited during that period of the market, while in the market, the stiff head winds are partly causation for at least dead money for extended periods of time for the ltbh'r. While bringing the overvalued it to its means in time, and the perceived value early in a bear, to more valuable levels in like fashion. Hence, no prisoners for the impatient. Is being accepting of dead money, at the cost of lost opportunity with other methods during different cycles considered being risk averse? Contrary to the consensus thinking, the answer is yes.