Re: Advice?

Financial Planning - Financial planning in general. (Moderated) 

  Yahoo!   Google   Windows Live   del.icio.us   digg   Netscape

Subject Author Date Re: Advice? honda.lioness 12-29-2008  Re: Advice? anoop 12-29-2008  Re: Advice? honda.lioness 12-30-2008  Re: Advice? Will Trice 12-30-2008  Re: Advice? honda.lioness 12-31-2008  Re: Advice? Tad Borek 12-30-2008
Posted by on December 29, 2008, 4:58 pm > The problem here is the whole conventional wisdom "buy and > hold" mantra. If you didn't understand what to do and picked > up a random book on financial planning, you'd think the best > strategy was to buy and hold stocks forever (forever being > some large year). It used to be that if you didn't need the > money for 5 years, you should be invested in stocks. But > that has proven to be wrong this time. I know of no reputable advisor or web site that advocated or advocates five years as the minimum time horizon a person needed prior to investing in stocks. "Long term" has always struck me as meaning 10 years or more in this context. Posted by anoop on December 29, 2008, 8:36 pm On Dec 29, 1:58 pm, honda.lion...@gmail.com wrote: > > > The problem here is the whole conventional wisdom "buy and > > hold" mantra.  If you didn't understand what to do and picked > > up a random book on financial planning, you'd think the best > > strategy was to buy and hold stocks forever (forever being > > some large year).  It used to be that if you didn't need the > > money for 5 years, you should be invested in stocks.  But > > that has proven to be wrong this time. > > I know of no reputable advisor or web site that advocated or advocates > five years as the minimum time horizon a person needed prior to > investing in stocks. "Long term" has always struck me as meaning 10 > years or more in this context. The media is replete with articles that suggest an investment horizon of 5 or more years calls for investing in stocks...just google and you will find plenty. Here are some... http://www.military.com/Finance/content/0,15356,144637,00.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_n12_v23/ai_13220967 http://www.fool.com/teens/teens03.htm http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/value/archive/2004/va0217.htm BTW, as I mentioned earlier, getting in exactly 10 years ago one would have negative returns. Anoop Posted by on December 30, 2008, 3:56 pm > On Dec 29, 1:58 pm, honda.lion...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > The problem here is the whole conventional wisdom "buy and > > > hold" mantra. If you didn't understand what to do and picked > > > up a random book on financial planning, you'd think the best > > > strategy was to buy and hold stocks forever (forever being > > > some large year). It used to be that if you didn't need the > > > money for 5 years, you should be invested in stocks. But > > > that has proven to be wrong this time. > > > I know of no reputable advisor or web site that advocated or advocates > > five years as the minimum time horizon a person needed prior to > > investing in stocks. "Long term" has always struck me as meaning 10 > > years or more in this context. > > The media is replete with articles that suggest > an investment horizon of 5 or more years calls > for investing in stocks...just google and you will > find plenty. Here are some...http://www.military.com/Finance/content/0,15356,144637,00.html The part of this web site that mentions five or more years does not read the way you claim. I am not going to bother checking the others when you are being this loose. > BTW, as I mentioned earlier, getting in exactly 10 years > ago one would have negative returns. Not sure if you took dividends into account. Either way, negative returns over ten years have happened. So? Posted by Will Trice on December 30, 2008, 6:58 pm honda.lioness@gmail.com wrote: >> On Dec 29, 1:58 pm, honda.lion...@gmail.com wrote: >> The media is replete with articles that suggest >> an investment horizon of 5 or more years calls >> for investing in stocks...just google and you will >> find plenty. Here are some...http://www.military.com/Finance/content/0,15356,144637,00.html > > The part of this web site that mentions five or more years does not > read the way you claim. I am not going to bother checking the others > when you are being this loose. In general, I agree with your posts to this thread, Elle. However, the first link seems relevant to Anoop's point when it says, "If you are under the age of 50 and you don’t need to spend your money for five years or more, stocks can be a very compelling place to invest your hard-saved money. While there’s definitely no guarantee that history will repeat itself, stocks have historically had the highest investment return of all of these categories over the long-run." This doesn't seem real loose. I agree with you that 5 years may be too short to call "long term", but I also agree with Anoop that the media often defines "long term" carelessly. -Will william dot trice at ngc dot com Posted by on December 31, 2008, 10:02 am Will Trice wrote: > honda.lion...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Dec 29, 1:58 pm, honda.lion...@gmail.com wrote: > >> The media is replete with articles that suggest > >> an investment horizon of 5 or more years calls > >> for investing in stocks...just google and you will > >> find plenty. Here are some...http://www.military.com/Finance/content/0,15356,144637,00.html > > > The part of this web site that mentions five or more years does not > > read the way you claim. I am not going to bother checking the others > > when you are being this loose. > > In general, I agree with your posts to this thread, Elle. However, the > first link seems relevant to Anoop's point when it says, > > "If you are under the age of 50 and you don’t need to spend your money > for five years or more, stocks can be a very compelling place to invest > your hard-saved money. While there’s definitely no guarantee that > history will repeat itself, stocks have historically had the highest > investment return of all of these categories over the long-run." > This doesn't seem real loose. With the statement in the article that, "This is why we say stocks rock if you have at least five years on your side," I retract my contention that anoop was being loose with this article. I stand by my contention that he is being loose when he claims conventional wisdom has been "if you didn't need the money for 5 years, you should be invested in stocks." This is not conventional wisdom IMO. I continue to feel no reputable advisor or web site that advocated or advocates five years as the minimum time horizon a person needed prior to investing in stocks. I agree with you that 5 years may be too > short to call "long term", but I also agree with Anoop that the media > often defines "long term" carelessly. I do not have any objection to this re-writing of Anoop's earlier statement. In particular, sites that have an interest in the public investing in stocks (or promoting frenzies so as to aattract more readers and so better advertising deals) will argue for getting into stocks. But these are not reputable sites in my view. I guess if one is a non-critical reader, they certainly may seem otherwise, though. Perhaps this exchange will promote more thoughtful reading. Similar Threads Posted A little advice... March 12, 2007, 10:53 am need advice October 19, 2007, 5:01 am Re: Advice? December 26, 2008, 3:06 pm Re: Advice? December 26, 2008, 5:35 pm Re: Advice? December 26, 2008, 7:27 pm Re: Advice? December 26, 2008, 8:35 pm Re: Advice? December 27, 2008, 8:20 am Re: Advice? December 28, 2008, 12:28 am Re: Advice? December 29, 2008, 8:41 am Re: Advice? January 1, 2009, 7:26 pm