Why Do People Buy At A Top?

Discussion in 'Trading' started by tradingjournals, Oct 21, 2013.

  1. it is. if people listen to people like you they've been kept out of best bull market since the great depression.

    Its the bull markets like these that give the markets a 8% avrage return per year.

    missing out on these you might as well never invest in the stock market.

    basically you are telling people never to do index investing, but to do market timing.

    keep believing we will crash this or next year. but i forecast at least another 2 years of rally up to 3 years.

    S&P2000 is in the cards.
     
    #81     Oct 29, 2013
  2. NoDoji

    NoDoji

    Hasn't offered another chance to get long there in a while.
     
    #82     Oct 29, 2013
  3. Ash1972

    Ash1972

    So back in March 2009 you were forecasting 7 straight years of gains?

    Or is your optimism somewhat more recently acquired? :)
     
    #83     Oct 29, 2013
  4. pfranz

    pfranz

    Nikkei Dec 1989: 39000, today 14300, avg return per year=8%?
    Nasdaq Composite Mar 2000: 5000, today 4000, avg return per year=8%?
    S&P500 Mar 2000: 1500, today 1770, avg return per year=8%?
    FTSEMIB Mar 2000: 53000, today 19300, avg return per year=8%?

    don't know as a trader, but failed_mathematician you are for sure
     
    #84     Oct 29, 2013
  5. NoDoji

    NoDoji

    I think 8% a year is if you buy at a bottom :D
     
    #85     Oct 29, 2013
  6. I dont know either you nor failed_trader but the only reason im responding is because of your comment "failed_mathematician". You obviously failed statistics. If you wouldn't have failed you'd know that cherry picking dates when there are more dates in the pool does not give you an average. For you to pick 2000 as your starting date, which includes the start of the tech bubble and doesnt include the roaring 90s is beyond ignorant. Most people will have 65ish investing years in their lifetime, so at the least you should look at a minimum of 65 years to get a true average for a person, not a 13 year period which includes 2 of the worst bubbles in history. Lastly, the index doesn't count reinvested dividends, so for you to not use total return numbers is also beyond ignorant.

    to top it off you started the nikkei at 1989 but the other 3 at 2000. next time you decide to talk, just don't.
     
    #86     Oct 29, 2013
  7. Yes, I finally have a methodology to forecast accurately.
    Well its more like backtesting. Current market conditions backtested leads to further market gains based on history. it may be a form of curve fitting but its beats "it feels high and frothy"

    PS, i dont index invest, but even as a market timer i think going short right now is just betting. betting on a taper. you could just as well put money on red.
     
    #87     Oct 29, 2013
  8. pfranz

    pfranz

    Don't worry, I know mathematics and know what I'm saying.
    Mine are not statistics (I'd need a book to write the whole thing down, including inflation, dividends, comparison with bonds, etc) nor a technical demonstration of anything which would be too long for this thread or any thread; these are just observations from where you can start demonstrating that 8% returns are pure fantasy.
    Cherry picking dates was only meant to make the point clearer,and to note some other points.
    I've studied Dow charts since pre-1900 and I tell you that considering the "roaring 90s" is THE cherry picking. You won't find returns of 8% in the last century.
    The tech bubble was part of a bigger bubble and is not so uncommon in history.
    Point is, it's been 13 years for West World and 24 years for Japan (which in my opinion anticipated our cycle) that returns are very small to negative on an average and there is no reason to think this will change anytime soon.
    Go study the Dow in the last century, you'll find returns are more or less the same as bond returns but with much more volatility.
    Frankly, I don't care if MAYBE in 65 years an investment COULD have interesting returns, I think 13-24 years (and many more to come,you'll see) gone bad are well enough. (By the way, I agree with failed_trad3r that for another 1-3 years we can have a bull market).
    As I explained in another thread,the only possibility I see for great nominal returns in stocks is hyper-inflation,but that would probably mean (possibly heavy) losses in real value.

    Conclusion: I'll continue writing, and you should read more carefully before inferring what is not written (a very common habit on ET).
     
    #88     Oct 30, 2013
  9. I agree that 8% is fictional, for that to happen money must inflate. Well money went from $1 in 1900 to 0,02 in 2000 according to wikipedia so it certainly did that. However if you assume 8% growth a year you cannot miss these rallies. If your methodology kept you out of the market since 2009 and you index invest. your methodology sucks.

    logic does say people cannot grow wealth like that without massive inflation or a recession. Buffet 20% a year leads to the conclusion in a non inflating economy he will hoard all of the capital eventually. tricke up is a natural status quo. then consumption plummets due to lack of capital and the economy goes into depression. thats why redistribution to the bottom MUST happen trough transfer payments.
    it is no coincidence the most succesful countries in the world are the countries with the most transfer payments. economy is demand driven, trickle down is a myth.
     
    #89     Oct 30, 2013
  10. pfranz

    pfranz

    Hey guys, how about learning some math and picking up correct data? Are you able to use a calculator?

    From Wikipedia:
    Dow Jones starting year: 1884
    Dow Jones starting value: 62.76

    Now let's compute returns.
    DJ current value approx: 15700
    Ratio Now/Beginning: 15700/62.76 = 250.16
    N. of years elapsed since beginning: 2013-1884 = 129
    Compounded annual growth rate: 250.16 ^ (1/129) = 1.04374

    As you can see, annual return is 4.374%, similar to (probably less than) bonds. And we computed it with current all-time highs.
    Counting in dividends doesn't change much, and then you should consider inflation too.
     
    #90     Oct 30, 2013