seems to me that these are the sorts of market times in which a
trader could get whipsawed to death.
not being a trader, I invite comments on this statement.
--
"Did you notice that [Candaq and Gardner] never miss one of my posts and I
never read theirs, I have to wonder just who it is that's envious." -Ed, in
news:<9cn26l$6di6$>.
sam grey wrote:
> seems to me that these are the sorts of market times in which a
> trader could get whipsawed to death.
>
> not being a trader, I invite comments on this statement.
>
Too true, Sam. I was just thinking the same thing. Luckily my real and
competition portfolios use completely different strategies.
I'd be buying right now, with the intent of selling again within the next
six months, when the Dow is back above 10,600. If I could avoid short-term
trading costs and ETFs, which I still don't trust altogether. If I were a
trader...
Elle
Just soakin' in the dividends. Motley fool had a great article on dividend
growth recently, affirming my sentiment on the subject.
"sam grey" <> wrote
> seems to me that these are the sorts of market times in which a
> trader could get whipsawed to death.
>
> not being a trader, I invite comments on this statement.
"Elle" <> wrote
> I'd be buying right now, with the intent of selling again within the next
> six months, when the Dow is back above 10,600. If I could avoid short-term
> trading costs and ETFs, which I still don't trust altogether. If I were a
> trader...
Sounding more and more like a timer, Elle/Caliban/Caroline.
What's not to trust with ETF's? 10,600 is only about 4% from here, you must
be quite confident to put your money at risk for 4% minus expenses & taxes.
....than funds? I think it was. At very least you agreed with Herbie that
they were. So what's with timing funds and ETF's if fees were lower and you
trusted them?
A PhD should know that timing doesn't work.
"Elle" <> wrote
> I'd be buying right now, with the intent of selling again within the next
> six months, when the Dow is back above 10,600. If I could avoid short-term
> trading costs and ETFs, which I still don't trust altogether. If I were a
> trader...
"Elle" <> wrote in message
news:Ai8ae.11972$
> I'd be buying right now, with the intent of selling again within the next
> six months, when the Dow is back above 10,600.
Goddamn TIMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> If I could avoid short-term
> trading costs and ETFs, which I still don't trust altogether. If I were a
> trader...
>
> Elle
> Just soakin' in the dividends. Motley fool had a great article on dividend
> growth recently, affirming my sentiment on the subject.
>
> "sam grey" <> wrote
> > seems to me that these are the sorts of market times in which a
> > trader could get whipsawed to death.
> >
> > not being a trader, I invite comments on this statement.
>
>
>
In article <evhae.2887$>,
"Gary C" <> wrote:
> Goddamn TIMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
hehehehehe, never time a trading range market. wait for the big turn to
come.......
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:58:40 +0000, Elle wrote:
> I'd be buying right now, with the intent of selling again within the next
> six months, when the Dow is back above 10,600. If I could avoid short-term
> trading costs and ETFs, which I still don't trust altogether. If I were a
> trader...
What if market doesn't see 10,600 in years? Would you be selling if it
goes significantly lower?
IP.
"IPavlov" <> wrote
> What if market doesn't see 10,600 in years? Would you be selling if it
> goes significantly lower?
>
> IP.
If it goes 'significantly lower' I would be a buyer, not a seller. If you
think it will go much lower you should sell one or two of your funds,
especially if they are in an IRA or other tax deferred account, and buy them
back later at lower prices. This way you can increase the number of shares
you own without adding money to your accounts.
"IPavlov" <> wrote in message
news:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:58:40 +0000, Elle wrote:
>
> > I'd be buying right now, with the intent of selling again within the
next
> > six months, when the Dow is back above 10,600. If I could avoid
short-term
> > trading costs and ETFs, which I still don't trust altogether. If I were
a
> > trader...
> What if market doesn't see 10,600 in years? Would you be selling if it
> goes significantly lower?
Again, ASSUMING I were a timer, then I'd simply hold if it went
significantly lower.
But my sense is that the economy and stock values, and people's sense of
them, is strong enough that the Dow will not remain below 10600 for an
extended period of time.
Admittedly as a timer, one is a gambler.
Most people I know have lost money in the stock market (exception is listed
below). And most people I know who invest are not good investors. Some are
lucky, some are not. More gambler than knowledgeable.
Kind of like the drivers in my area.... a lot of fast drivers, but not a lot
of good drivers...
I always find it interesting that a driver will tail-gate me, come to a
passing zone on our 2 lane road with plenty of time to pass.... and don't
know how. I guess they are of the new school of driver brought up to drive
on interstates where everyone goes in the same direction....
Kind of like investors.... they always know when to buy, but hardly ever
know when to sell, except when they have lost so much they can't stand
it.... then they join group no. 1, above.
The best thing a young investor can do is buy a good generic market mutual
fund and forget it...... then they will probably do ok, if they have a
minimum of 15+ years.....
Arne
"Elle" <> wrote in message news:DJ4de.3406
>
> Admittedly as a timer, one is a gambler.
>
>
I agree with you about "buying and forgetting" approach, but still
do believe that the initial buying event should be carefully chosen -
I almost said "timed" ...
At the very least it shouldn't be done at the height of the bull
market.
Buying in winter of 1999 or early spring of 2000 would unlikely
have provided any good returns even with 15 years time horizon
and would have given enough anguish if you don't completely forget.
In my opinion entry point is very important. It should take into
account long-term market cycles and as such shouldn't be considered
as purely timing, but an important element of a long-term strategy.
IP.
> The best thing a young investor can do is buy a good generic market mutual
> fund and forget it...... then they will probably do ok, if they have a
> minimum of 15+ years.....
>
> Arne
>
>
> "Elle" <> wrote in message
> news:DJ4de.3406
>>
>> Admittedly as a timer, one is a gambler.
>>
>>
>>
ARNE> Kind of like investors.... they always know when to buy, but
hardly ever know when to sell, except when they have lost so much they
can't stand it....
Survey I recently read has men over women exhibiting a practise of
holding too long; and then they'll come right back, within the same
ratios, apt in an continued position to be caught once again over
exposed. Almost as if self-abasing onself in some forgone conclusion
avarice assumes.
IP>I agree with you about "buying and forgetting" but do believe
initial buying event should be carefully chosen - I almost said
"timed" ... Buying in winter of 1999 or early spring of 2000 ... would
have given enough anguish if you don't completely forget. At the very
least it shouldn't be done at the height of the bull market. In my
opinion entry point is very important. It should take into account
long-term market cycles and as such shouldn't be considered as purely
timing, but an important element of a long-term strategy.
So many opinions hedged by phenomena devoid of rational means, though
I'm sure there's something sensical about not buying at the cusp of an
industrious market with windfall profits raining about your ears. I"m
no doubt an exempliary example, having bought solely into the bowels
such very auspicies the "Darlings of America", JANUS touted;-- for
awhile, just prior to dotcoms, 9/11, shared options exercised by
constituents leading to their lucrative evacuations, or all subsequent
after-hour trading issues. I simply forgot. Yes, once I forget a
fund, I think it's best to drop them flat. Especially with plenty more
pretty, floppy fishies wriggling about being caught.