I have a 401k, it's got more in it than the median 60 year old in the united states, and I'm 20 years from that.
And I am terrified of how little I know about how it exists or survives.
I read these articles and get a sense of overwhelming urgency that, without any explicit indication, I should do something with my nest egg to make it safer to survive a crash.
And then I keep reading, "don't touch it" when I go to read about what I should do.
So I sit here, not doing anything at all about it, crippled with dread.
What's the best strategy for someone like me, who has absolutely no idea how their retirement account exists?
I believe the general advice for people who don't want to care about their money all the time is to invest it in a diversified portfolio and then slowly turn that portfolio into things with low volatility as the time where you want to start selling approaches.
Sorry I don't feel bad for you since I have no retirement and very little savings.
My understanding is that generally you do not want to touch your 401k. If you do then usually it's because you screwed up.
You are (obviously I thought) supposed to be saving and investing in addition to the 401k. 401k is supposed to be low risk. The backup to that is something entirely different.
There’s nothing wrong with playing with a portion (up to you 20%) of your nest egg but only if you enjoy it. If your reptilian brain is steering the ship and you’re reacting based off of fear or greed you find yourself on the wrong side of trades.
Not an expert, but my opinion: Your money is probably safer where it is. Economic turmoil comes and goes, and as long as you don't need the cash right now, you're somewhat able to absorb that risk over a long period of time.
Educate yourself. You don't need to know the intricacies of how markets operate, but a little financial understanding is, I believe, a must for everyone.
Also, be aware that even when you do educate yourself and you do everything you think is in your power to 'safe guard' your nest egg, that there are are still a billion and one ways that it can all be wiped out tomorrow.
Micro managing you're finances if you don't know what you're doing is a fantastic way to wipe it out. As the good old saying goes, “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”
> Educate yourself. You don't need to know the intricacies of how markets operate, but a little financial understanding is, I believe, a must for everyone.
I second this. Lot's of good advice here about letting the 401k ticking along. In the meantime start building some knowledge. It may take a bit of time but it will be worth it. But the basics should be accessible to everyone. There are many sources of information (of varying quality). Youtube, blogs, financial section of major newspapers, MOOCs, and last but not least books
so to sum it up, don't do anything, and hope? Because even if you attempt to educate yourself, it'd be like trying to learn to do your own surgery. Not impossible, but...
What i want to really know is what people with a lot of money actually do - and when i say a lot, i meant a lot. networth in excess of 8-9 digits. What do they invest in? What diversification measures do they do? Which country? And finally, how they dodge taxes (as they inevitably seem to be able to - so if you can't defeat 'em, join 'em?)
they invest in businesses/franchises to keep a constant cash flow. that and fixed income due to low risk. taxes are avoided by keeping things offshore unless absolutely necessary to tunnel back to the us.
Most people, if they’re honest with themselves, don’t have the stomach for a 100% equity portfolio. That includes the intestinal fortitude not to panic and sell when the market drops 50% or more.
If you do this, it will prevent you from being any more screwed than anyone else, regardless of market conditions. You will also not become flamboyantly rich overnight in the way that Crypto speculators do.
While sitting on cash isn't necessarily a bad idea -- when the market crashes you then buy a bunch of index funds, having a 401k is a very safe investment. Think of it this way, the only way you're losing that money is if the market crashes, permanently, and if it crashes permanently, then that money isn't worth shit anyway.
This sounds a lot like you're trying to time the market, which is great if it works, but it's a gamble. Dollar cost averaging is generally regarded as the safer option.
Remember, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
Also, how can you know when the market has bottomed out? Why not use that same strategy to invest now and figure out when the market has peaked and pull out then? Sitting on money loses value due to inflation.
Too many people that try to take control of such investments fall prey to basic errors. They see a crash happening so pull their money out to safer investments, but it's already mostly too late so they have locked in losses. Then they see the market rally, so they re-invest their money in the market, but they already missed the start of the rally so have missed much of the potential gains.
Just buy s&p500 index funds (or total market index funds). A crash won’t affect your long term retirement plans. You only have to worry about a crash <10 years before retirement.
The permanent portfolio was constructed by Harry Browne to be what he believed would be a safe and profitable portfolio in any economic climate. Using a variation of efficient market indexing, Browne stated that a portfolio equally split between growth stocks, precious metals, government bonds and Treasury bills would be an ideal investment mixture for investors seeking safety and growth.
Asset allocation strategies like this used to work because the components like stocks and bonds were negatively correlated. When stocks crash, bonds gain value and reduce the variation and risk of the portfolio as a whole.
But that doesn't always happen. Sometimes the correlations flip, and everything becomes positively correlated, and everything crashes at the same time.
Today, there's about $20 trillion in the global government bond market that actually has a negative yield, which means the borrower gets paid to borrow.
And in the remainder of the government bond market where rates are still positive, rates are the lowest they've been for 1000 years.
When interest rates are near zero or even negative, it's unclear whether historic correlations will continue, so the concept behind the "permanent portfolio" may not continue to work in this environment.
> Today, there's about $20 trillion in the global government bond market that actually has a negative yield, which means the borrower gets paid to borrow.
Not really. The yields are negative, but the coupon rates are positive. Most of those were initially sold with a positive rate, then went negative as buyers bid up the prices. The issuing governments don't get that appreciation, and are still obligated to pay the coupon rate. If the yield is positive at auction, the borrower is still paying to borrow the money.
The only way the "borrower gets paid to borrow" is if the initial auction sees bonds sell at negative yields. That's quite possible when coupon yields are 0.100% or less (which has been common in Europe and Japan lately).
There have been quite a few recent issues at negative yields and coupons do not need to be low (they usually are though) for yields to be negative; bonds can also be issued at a premium to par. Recent 30 year Bunds were issued with a 0 coupon at EUR103.61 for a yield of -0.11.
IIRC, the permanent portfolio is 25% stock index, 25% long term bonds (which do great in low inflation, dropping interest rates), 25% gold, and 25% cash/short term debt.
Bonds doing terribly means interest rates spiking, and potentially defaults, or massive inflation. Which are all possibilities.
In those cases, you’re probably going to be very happy for the gold portion of the permanent portfolio. And it has been on a bit of a tear, recently, rising ~15% vs USD.
If you're interested in further study: the Gyroscopic Investing community [0] is a great forum supporting the late Harry Browne's investment/asset allocation philosophy, as are Harry Browne's original (short) book [1] and the modern treatment [2] by Craig Rowland and J. M. Lawson.
Just keep in mind this is an extremely conservative portfolio, that wont do much better than "cash under the mattress". That being said, a low risk way to do slightly better than inflation may be exactly the portfolio some people are looking for (not that I'd advocate this particular allocation).
- 25% in cash (short term treasuries actually): currently returning ~2%, approximately the returns of a higher yielding savings account.
- 25% in gold: historically does only very slightly better than inflation. Currently price of gold is inflation adjusted the same as it was in 1979, which was followed by a ~50% loss that took 30 years to recover [0]. TIPS are probably a better choice for people extremely worried about inflation.
- 25% in long term bonds: a sensible allocation to bonds, though I'd prefer intermediate term, personally.
- 25% in stocks: extremely low allocation. Generally 60% allocation to stocks is considered fairly conservative - it gives you some of the increased return of equities while reducing the volatility of exposure to the stock market. Lower allocations definitely make sense for some folks, though I've yet to see a compelling case made for anyone still in their earning years doing less than 40%.
Stocks/Bonds are money converted into "abstract human output". You are taking a bet that the group of humans that work at the companies that you've invested in will continue to become more advanced and efficient as to "generate value".
The stock market is "sentiment". It is collective group think as to what those companies are up to.
This is why you see people say "don't touch it". If you don't need the money now, the advances in "value creation" will possibly give you more money in the future.
I think the number one disservice that "stocks/investing" do is pretend it's not "gambling". Sure, you can minimize risk, and choose instruments that are 99% sound (gov bonds) but it's still _a gamble._
You are scared because you don't understand your risk exposure. (also, black swan events could change the exposure, but they are exactly that -- black swans)
You can:
- Decide to stop playing the game, convert your stocks/bonds into money which gives you absolute units and pegs your risk to inflation/deflation/government default.
- You can continue playing the game, and decide what your risk tolerances are, and adjust your strategy accordingly. This should give you a little bit more peace of mind.
If you want reasonably accessible exposure to these concepts, Khan Academy videos are free, you don't have to sign up to watch, and can fill in some gaps:
Regarding sentiment, and stock valuation, this is the way I look at it, which to me makes sense (although it doesn't account for irrationality in the market).
Let's say you have $100.00, and the market figures that you need to make a return of 4% per year. If you find a stock that gives dividends of $4.00 per year, that stock will then be worth $100.00. This is assuming that there is a really strong trust in this company, that it won't go out of business, won't grow or shrink in market share.
Now let's add onto this that based on what the company is doing, and an analysis of their competition, and their ability (track record) of execution, that there is a really good chance that next year they will be able to make enough money to return $8.00 dividends per year. Well, that means that next year the stock will be worth $200.00 per share. And if it is going to be worth $200.00 per share next year, well this year most people will probably be willing to pay about $192 per share (that gives a 4% return on investment just in the stock price).
You can extend this line of reasoning to factor in forecasted growth for a number of years into the future. Which is how you get stocks that currently only return a small fraction of a percent of their stock price in dividends (i.e., a $100.00 stock may pay 4 cents dividends, instead of $4.00, since market sentiment thinks the company will grow a lot in the future).
So based on this, I would like to pick stocks that don't have a lot of growth forecasted, but do pay good dividends. Especially stocks that are in a market where they are protected from competition, or otherwise have a strong likelihood of not going out of business but provide the same thing they've always done, without growth but with good dividends.
What? The value of the stock isn’t based on the dividend yield. Dividends are just some of the money of the company being paid out, the value of the company decreases by that amount. The company can declare literally any amount they want to pay out at any time, and it will be the same company either way, with the same underlying value.
If you want to diversify in a non correlated assets, you can put a part of your money from stocks into commodities, like gold/silver/Bitcoin (housing market is highly correlated with the stock market, so it's not a good diversification).
All asset (and storage) types have their advantages / problems, you should read about it of course.
> All asset (and storage) types have their advantages / problems, you should read about it of course.
Am I right in thinking that gold/silver are widely thought to be inflation proof? So I wasn't so concerned about growth could I just park my money in gold?
Depends what you want to call inflation. Gold's price movements don't track anticipated inflation in any meaningful sense [0].
That being said, over very long time horizons it is difficult to see why the real price of gold would change. They probably aren't going to mine it any cheaper and it isn't crazy to handwave an argument that demand can't drop all that far from where it is now. On that basis it easily outperforms cash.
If interest rates stay near 0 or drop negative gold might outperform bonds too. It is hard to say; the central banks do strange things to the bond markets.
Also, note that all these graphs only go back to the 1970s. Bit of a mystery why [1]. Gold's value tends to transcend such short-term concerns as the current global financial regime and that is a draw for some. Personally I think the current US dollar system is getting a bit long in the tooth. The biggest draw in this regard is that gold is a real expensive thing that is exceptionally easy to store (ignoring theft risks) and it is just hard to see how it could become less valuable than it is right now (short of government bans on gold trading).
Gold is mostly inflation proof, but it has a volatility. The price of a cow in gold/silver hasn't changed that much in the last 5000 years (you can check the prices in ancient Egypt yourself). USD lost more than 99% of its value in a few hundred years.
There are still market cycles for gold, and also if you're going physical, there's 2-3% exchange cost as well.
Silver may or may not have a VAT problem in your country.
You’re fine. If a crash happens tomorrow, in 20 years time it will have completely recovered. Read about investment horizons. Over that timescale, you’re not at the mercy of market cycles. Once you get a bit closer to retirement, that’s when you want to start minimising risks. 5-10 years out, you would start looking at fixed income assets and stuff like that. You don’t want to delay your retirement because your 401k had a single bad year. Until then, go nuts with high growth funds. It doesn’t matter if you have a -10% year if your investment is growing strongly on average over 20 years, you just don’t want that year to be the one where you’re looking to start cashing out.
Educate yourself. I like A Random Walk Down Wall Street, Are You A Stock Or A Bond, and Your Money Or Your Life.
Asset allocation is one of the few levers to control risk that you have. The more you have in safe assets (bonds and cash) the less likely to lose money in a downturn. Nothing's free, however, and that stability will cost you long term growth. Only you can figure out what level of risk you can love with (are you ok losing 10% during a downturn? 25%? 50%?). An advisor can help but you need to look in your heart of hearts and determine the number.
If you don't want to educate yourself or need a helping hand, get a fee based financial planner. Last I looked (years ago) was a couple thousand bucks to have a financial assessment. Ouch. But cheap compared to the 1% of assets the other kind of financial planners take annually. More on that here:
Learn about it. I would recommend A Random Walk Down Wall Street [1] and The Boglehead's Guide to Investing [2]. They will give you a good primer, but in essence the best thing you can do it nothing at all. As you get older you'll want to make sure bonds take up a larger percentage of your portfolio, but really you're fine. The old sayings is "time in the market, not timing the market".
Best thing you can do is keep it in index funds for now. You're relying on dollar cost averaging to take care of the long term trends in the market. Downturns actually make you money as you're continuing to buy the better deals. If you pull out before you let your money buy these deals, you'll never receive the benefit when the market recovers, where you make the real money. Also, I read somewhere that the best trading days happen in a very short period of time. If you're not in the market during those days, you miss some significant gains.
You assume there is a workable strategy. But there's not, and that's the real problem. I don't want to retire "10 years from now" I want to retire as soon as humanly possible. Nothing supports that, however. There are no safe havens for wealth anymore because inflation destroys cash savings and thus pushes you into making risky bets on stocks and shitty bonds.
If you're not part of the in crowd, your savings will get cut in half every decade or so because they can't have you with actual wealth to challenge them, now can they? There is no strategy that gets you where you want to be: Without fear or pain.
So now that you understand that, what is your next move? Might I suggest a revolt?
If you're 20 years from needing it you don't need to worry about protecting it from a crash since you have time to wait for the market to recover. If you could perfectly predict the seemingly-imminent crash then you'd be better off selling all your shares just before and buying government bonds instead, then reversing that when the stock market hits the bottom.
But since you can't predict it, there's not much point doing anything (you can rebalance a bit from stocks to bonds if it makes you feel better but the impact will be minimal). The growth you'll miss out on from selling too early and buying too late will almost certainly outweigh the benefit.
This comment received sooo many replies with link references, I cannot help but think that at least half of these are from advertisers. A recent trend on HN...
I'll tell you something that nobody wants to admit to:
Nobody really knows how money works.
The average 401k holder has one because they don't have a good idea of how money works or what they should do with it. If they really understood their 401k, they'd know that they're probably getting ripped off in fees over their lifetime.
If economists and financial analysts completely understood money, they wouldn't be in such disagreement all the time over basic things. A financial advisor might tell you to leave your money in a 401k, and the next one might tell you the same, but it's not that hard to find one who will tell you to get your money out of your 401k ASAP for a variety of reasons.
At the end of the day, you have to trust your own judgment. People don't get rich doing the easy thing.
By the way, here's some things you should think about with 401ks:
- Someone with an average salary pays $138,336 in 401k management fees over their lifetime. Not only are you the only party taking a risk, but you're getting charged for taking that risk. Advisors and broker dealers aren't risking anything except your money.
- You don't own the money in your 401k. Read the fine print and you will find "FBO" (For Benefit Of). The tax code makes it technically owned by the government, but provided for your benefit. In a crisis, the government can confiscate any amount of your 401k to pay off debt and pensions.
- 401k teaches people to cluelessly invest. Do you know if your money is being invested in big tobacco or big oil?
- The government has the advantage with your money. Because you can't cash out without penalties, when you die, whatever's left over for your children is not only subject to income tax but to estate tax as well. They want your 401k money to be gifted to someone else because that means they don't get to cash in on your pile of money.
The average 401k holder knows that it's a tax advantaged savings vehicle and that there aren't many of those available to individual investors. The tax advantage completely outweighs all of the negatives that you listed in almost all cases.
Advocating that people not take advantage of a 401k because something about the government potentially seizing it is basically saying you shouldn't save money at all.
* Yes, 401k plans usually have high fees, however the tax advantage they provide should more than offset those fees except for the very worst plans. And there are exceptions too: some 401k plans offered by very large companies actually have lower fees than popular low-fee IRA providers.
* When you say "get your money out of your 401k" are you referring to moving it to a low-cost IRA or cashing it out? The former is good advice if you have a 401k from an old job (that is not one of the aforementioned "very good" 401k plans). I don't think there are any reputable financial advisors that would suggest straight-up cashing out a 401k before retirement due to the taxes and penalties. The only circumstance I can think of where that would make sense is if it was necessary to avoid homelessness or pay for necessary medical care and you had already run through your non-retirement savings.
* You absolutely do "own" your money in your 401k as much as you own shares in a brokerage account or deposits in your bank account. If we're at the point where the government would confiscate funds in 401k accounts instead of just issuing new debt then the economy has probably already collapsed to a point beyond recognition.
* Your point about "clueless investment" is a critique of mutual funds and index funds not 401k plans. Someone holding an S&P 500 index fund in their IRA or brokerage account is no smarter than someone holding that fund in their 401k. Additionally, history has shown time and again that the only thing you can say with certainty about the stock market is that its aggregate value increases on average over time. The average person attempting to pick stocks, even at the sector level, is a recipie for them to miss out on the gains they need to have sufficient funds for their retirement.
* Your point about estate and income tax: and having the money in any other form would do what? You need to pay income tax on funds drawn from a (traditional) 401k plan because you deferred the tax when you deposited the funds. Whether you or your heirs are drawing the funds is immaterial in that aspect. If you have funds in a Roth 401k or Roth IRA or a regular brokerage you have already paid the taxes and as such you will not be taxed on withdrawls (except capital gains from brokerage accounts).
Similarly for the estate tax, if you had the money in cash at time of death you would still owe the same amount. On top of that, you'll be dead! What do you care what happens to the money after you're gone? Not to mention you need literal millions of dollars of assets upon death to get hit with the estate tax in the US so this will only apply to the literal 1%.
They're often buried in the "expense ratio" of the funds offered. My company's 401k plan has exactly 3 funds with an expense ratio lower than 0.50%, all of them US domestic index funds. All of my bond and international options have ERs over 1.00% which is unacceptably high (I have most of my holdings of those asset classes in my other retirement accounts).
I don't really see how that counts as "401k fees", since those funds charge the same expense ratio to people who buy them on the open market. Investment choice, or lack thereof, is an issue that goes beyond fund fees.
This. The employees participating in the 401k plan don't choose which funds the plan includes, HR people (who are often not very well-versed in investing) do. Those HR people will choose these high-ER funds because the 401k provider usually offers discounts to their direct costs for having them, essentially shifting the cost of running the 401k plan from the employer to the employees.
> Read the fine print and you will find "FBO" (For Benefit Of). The tax code makes it technically owned by the government, but provided for your benefit.
No, the assets in the fund are owned by the plan administrator, and held for your benefit; this is in some ways better than you owning them, as it makes them generally immune to seizure/garnishment by creditors other than the IRS, and only by the IRS to the extent you could take a no-penalty distribution.
That's a pretty basic error in a rant about how everyone else doesn't understand the basics...
A friend of mine that's self made and worth about $40m strongly advised me to cash out my 401k. His reasoning just boiled down to who has your best interest at heart, you or some random broker in New York? If you think you can do a better job of putting your money to work, then you should. To be clear, he wasn't talking about buying mutual funds.
My counterpoint is that my wife would kill me if I cashed out my 401k.
There have been prolonged stagnations in the market. It took a couple of decades to recover from the Great Depression, and the if you invested in the 60s you might not be doing so hot by the 80s. The market isn’t a sure thing even in the long term, it’s just fairly reliable.
Those events had long periods of stagnate market performance. So they might not lose as much as a full crash, but they might not beat inflation either. Anyways, nothing like that has happened in our lifetime, but it did happen in our parents’ and grand parents’.
First, make sure you’re not 100% equity. You clearly don’t have the stomach for what that would do in a downturn. 60-40 equity-bond is an old standby for a conservative portfolio (I don’t recommend that allocation, though). Then, head over to portfoliocharts.com and play with some of the portfolios and asset allocations to get a sense of how they change historical results. For a conservative portfolio, I like the All Seasons/All Weather, and the Golden Butterfly is an interesting modification of the Permanent Portfolio another poster mentioned. But don’t just blindly follow them, use them as a jumping off point to learn more about the asset classes. Bogleheads.org is a nice forum for learning more about index investing. Good luck, and happy to expand on anything.
If the mutual fund charges 3%. Then the underlying securities have to increase 3% before you have broken even. Which if you're mixing bonds and such, you're probably not getting yearly returns much higher than that. So your money is literally doing nothing for you. Then during a market downturn, you just plain lose. You're down the market amount AND the 3%.
Flipside, ETFs like Vanguard have fees of 0.05% on some of the big ones. So when the stocks increase in value, you pretty much get all of the benefit.
You're not making some banker and financial advisor rich off your money. You're retiring sooner.
From the Bible: "Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth" (Ecclesiastes 11:2).
That is: diversify. You don't want your entire 401k in one stock. An S&P 500 index fund is better, but you might want to put a bit of money in an international stock fund, and a bit in a bond fund. (You probably still want to be mostly in stocks at your age, but note well: I am not an investment advisor.)
Maybe somebody should tell Warren Buffet his BFF Bill Gates took 80% of his money by convincing him
"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently."
Warren is advocating to anybody willing to listen that they too should fork over all there monies like someone severely traumatized by Stockholm syndrome.
Number 1 convinced number 2 he was way better in controlling the goods. This is a trick we did before we could talk. Biggest heist ever.
Mr. Buffet pledged 80% of estate to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with many, many other wealthy people for the betterment of mankind.
By all accounts, The Gates Foundation is delivering on their promise by reducing child mortality, womens rights, life expectency, health care and education to the underprivileged of the world.
I'm not implying Bill Gates is bad but he is performing a myth like Santa Claus. It is even better when you have twice the amount of Santa Claus money.
Bill Gates "When you have money in hand,only you forget who are you .But when you do not have any money in your hand, the whole world forget who you are.It's life."
> By all accounts, The Gates Foundation is delivering on their promise by reducing child mortality, womens rights, life expectency, health care and education to the underprivileged of the world.
Except for the first item, that doesn't seem to say what you seem to think it does. Unless you mean to say that women’s rights, life expectancy, health care, and education in the developing world are all bad things that it is good to reduce.
The issue is not that this rich couple is promoting good in the world (nb: I'm not going to nitpick the grammar that others are chuckling over).
The issue is that it might be better for society not to allow people to amass so much wealth, such that society as a whole must then rely on them to pick out issues to try and solve. It might be better if we could solve social problems collectively, through a better system of taxing and directing money to social programs, rather than allow it to bubble up to a few and wait for noblesse oblige to kick in.
I'm looking at other countries, where the inequality isn't so great and the quality of life is better for everyone. Much of western Europe is an example I think we'd do well to follow.
In short: why leave it up to Gates and Buffett to decide what's a good use of what society produces? We could collectively decide we wanted universal health care, free university, and so on, like various other nations have successfully offered for decades.
It’s important to remember that the stock market != the economy. You know who would be the first to say that? Warren Buffet.
Warren Buffet is actually a big believer in not making macro economic predictions. It just so happens that if you pick stocks like he does (based on fundamentals and a certain proprietary “discount”) you’ll probably avoid having your investments tagged in a recession.
Stocks in the Great Recession took a nose dive because of a market downturn, not the other way around. It is very possible (and much more common) for stocks to dip significantly and for the broader market economy to shrug its shoulders and say, “meh”.
We have familiarity bias though, so we think that the next one will look like the last one. Pro tip: it won’t.
Your reference material is incorrect (it doesn't understand how to assess cash & cash equivalents properly).
Berkshire Hathaway's cash position was sitting at an all-time high of $122 billion as of early August. Your source claims $44 billion. Buffett will be distraught to find out $78 billion in cash is missing.
"The result was that the company’s cash hoard -- a major focus for investors in recent years -- surged to a record $122 billion."
By the way, if you buy a stock and then short sell an index, you can be guaranteed to make money in a market downturn so long as the stock you picked does better than the index. But good luck picking a stock that consistently outperforms the market! Warren Buffet can do that, though.
It's not news that people are predicting a 2020 recession. The bond yield inversions are literally people putting their money where their mouth is and betting on a recession. The definition of an inversion is that 3 month bonds yields better than 10 year bonds. The first inversions happened in March. It has been a mistake to go 10 year over 3 month. The 3 month bonds would have returned already and then you could have picked up the 10 year. It's completely irrational to make these decisions unless you are predicting a crash.
It's not just bonds. Price of Gold has skyrocketed since June; Gold is higher than it has been for years. Bitcoin is back above $10,000. These are your standard mechanisms to isolate your money from a crashing market.
ISM is somewhat of a decent report. Soon as they lower below 50% it means manufacturing is shrinking; which means layoffs. July 2019 new orders are 50.8%.
Nissan is laying off 12,500. GM closing multiple plants. Ford has $20 billion cash stashed and layoffs. Chrysler is laying off thousands. Toyota, Honda, everyone is laying off.
He is not making any macro statement about the economy. If anything it's a statement about large cap stock valuations. Warren Buffett likes to pick value-priced stocks, and there just aren't that many of them around anymore after 10 years of easy money. Especially if you look at large companies, most of which are priced to perfection. There may certainly still be bargains in the smaller company space, but those don't move the needle for a giant like Berkshire Hathaway.
Expensive stocks may be one sign of an upcoming crash, but they are by no means a sufficient condition. Stocks can stay expensive for many years, and the conditions that led to them being expensive (easy money) actually look like they'll be around for quite a while yet. There are other possible indicators like the inverted yield curve, but again, one can never say for sure. Oil prices for example are depressed, and that is not what is typically seen before a recession:
Warren knows that his statements are enough to move markets, so even if he wanted to say something, I think he'd be cautious of how it was said. There's something called the "Warren Buffet" effect where, when he announces a new purchase or trade, much of the market follows him and proves him right.
He invests in candy? Everyone invests in candy! Oh look, candy stocks went up, it must be a good investment!
This was my take away from the article, reads like a hit piece instead of an article on Warren Buffett and his warning. Bloomberg is pulling out all the stops these days...
>Trump’s bonkers G-7 made the world less safe....
>That has all changed in the President Donald Trump era....
>Trump’s erratic behavior before, during and after...
>Another Trumpian chaos agent...
>Trump’s economic-policy anarchy ....
>Trump vs. China vs. Companies....
>One of the more bizarre things Trump said ....
>Trump said he could declare an emergency ....
>Trump ad-libs wild claims...
>While Trump verbally berates his own country’s companies...
>Trump’s trade war will make things much worse...
>Far from the economic basket case Trump would have you think ...
The news these days is a big stinking pile of crap, it's not even news anymore.
Edit: If it were up to me, I might work in monetary supply somehow too (The gold standard ended in 1972 or so). But maybe there's a reason they call him the Oracle of Omaha, and nobody calls me the Oracle of Santa Monica.
That's interesting, there's that plot that floats around of the labor share of GDP growth diverging from productivity coinciding with the end of Bretton Woods, which is striking to look at, and I have no idea how to reason about conditions before compared with conditions after.
In a similar fashion to the Warren Buffet, it would be nice for people who give advice to also post a high level asset overview like house, mortgage, stocks etc. It's hard to evaluate any comment without knowing some biases. I believe it would also help commenters to stop and think about their own biases before posting.
The analogy that I have started to use recently is that of a pressure gauge. Money has to flow somewhere. The US just dumped a ton of money into the economy when the pipe (ability of the economy to move a lot of money between a large number of people, aka bandwidth) is essentially static, not much wage growth, little hiring, etc. That money has to go somewhere, so it goes to the stock market, because that is where the pressure is the lowest (very easy to call up a broker or go online and dump money into an account, compared to say, hiring and employee that can add real value to your company and the economy in exchange for a paycheck). Most of the time people assume that companies are going to take the money they get from stocks and invest it in growing the company or in paying salaries or paying for goods that pay salaries, etc. Unfortunately the corps are all sitting on loads of cash, and buying back stock, and not hiring or expanding (on average). As a result? Money that we normally expect to be growing the pipe, increasing the bandwidth of the economy to do real work, is instead flowing back into the pressure gauge and up goes the pressure, zoom! The economy is doing great! Right?? No. It is hard to get a good measure of the bandwidth of the pipe, and trying to interpret the pressure without it is folly, especially with regard to the impact of reducing the money supply (incoming volume of water). When the flow through the pipe is large and there is high bandwidth and the pressure is high, and the money supply drops, then we would expect the pressure to come down a bit, but in general to be stable essentially due to high inertia in the primary pipe, but if the total bandwidth is low? Then the pressure gauge is going to plummet, because the increased pressure (stock value) was due to a large flow trying to fit into a small pipe, and that pressure increase was due primarily to the change in the money supply, not due to fundamental soundness of the current economy (inertia).
Not a perfect analogy, with plenty of mixed metaphors, but simple enough to reason about and see where it breaks down.
tl;dr economy is flow in pipe, stock market is pressure gauge, if you don't know the flow through the primary pipe (hard to measure directly), then your pressure gauge could be extremely, dangerously misleading
It is important to recognize Buffett runs an absolutely massive amount of money and wants concentration. If you are limited by those factors you are limited to about 400 companies in the USA. Then among those, about half of them have weak returns on marginal capital invested. Among the remaining 200 or so, he doesn't like the price.
Most investors are not limited to about 200 companies. Keep looking. Look under 500M market caps. Plenty of companies trading for ev/ebits under 7, PEs under 10, price/books under 1, with decents ROICs.
Sure stocks on average are expensive, but bargains always exist.
One of my favorite "Zen Master" quotes from Gust in Charlie Wilson's War... Zen Master says, "We'll see." Great life advice along the lines of counting chickens...Buffet is the Zen Master extraordinaire.
Buffett has been known for a long time to keep cash handy as his 'elephant gun'.
He patiently waits, watching and analyzing, looking for an excellent company to buy for a fair price (or better). When such a bargain emerges, Buffett deploys the 'elephant gun' and makes a massive buy.
This has nothing to do with timing the market. Buffett will buy no matter what the broader market is doing-- it's all that excellent company at a good price that matters.
Above all, remember: It's not timing the market, it's time in the market.
102 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadI have a 401k, it's got more in it than the median 60 year old in the united states, and I'm 20 years from that.
And I am terrified of how little I know about how it exists or survives.
I read these articles and get a sense of overwhelming urgency that, without any explicit indication, I should do something with my nest egg to make it safer to survive a crash.
And then I keep reading, "don't touch it" when I go to read about what I should do.
So I sit here, not doing anything at all about it, crippled with dread.
What's the best strategy for someone like me, who has absolutely no idea how their retirement account exists?
My understanding is that generally you do not want to touch your 401k. If you do then usually it's because you screwed up.
You are (obviously I thought) supposed to be saving and investing in addition to the 401k. 401k is supposed to be low risk. The backup to that is something entirely different.
There’s nothing wrong with playing with a portion (up to you 20%) of your nest egg but only if you enjoy it. If your reptilian brain is steering the ship and you’re reacting based off of fear or greed you find yourself on the wrong side of trades.
Also, be aware that even when you do educate yourself and you do everything you think is in your power to 'safe guard' your nest egg, that there are are still a billion and one ways that it can all be wiped out tomorrow.
Micro managing you're finances if you don't know what you're doing is a fantastic way to wipe it out. As the good old saying goes, “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”
I second this. Lot's of good advice here about letting the 401k ticking along. In the meantime start building some knowledge. It may take a bit of time but it will be worth it. But the basics should be accessible to everyone. There are many sources of information (of varying quality). Youtube, blogs, financial section of major newspapers, MOOCs, and last but not least books
What i want to really know is what people with a lot of money actually do - and when i say a lot, i meant a lot. networth in excess of 8-9 digits. What do they invest in? What diversification measures do they do? Which country? And finally, how they dodge taxes (as they inevitably seem to be able to - so if you can't defeat 'em, join 'em?)
These are Bad Answers and instead you just need to read and obey two books and two books only:
1) https://www.amazon.com/Bogleheads-Guide-Retirement-Planning/...
2)https://www.amazon.com/Bogleheads-Guide-Investing-Taylor-Lar...
If you do this, it will prevent you from being any more screwed than anyone else, regardless of market conditions. You will also not become flamboyantly rich overnight in the way that Crypto speculators do.
Yeah who would want that???
[1] https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Main_Page
Remember, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
Also, how can you know when the market has bottomed out? Why not use that same strategy to invest now and figure out when the market has peaked and pull out then? Sitting on money loses value due to inflation.
The permanent portfolio was constructed by Harry Browne to be what he believed would be a safe and profitable portfolio in any economic climate. Using a variation of efficient market indexing, Browne stated that a portfolio equally split between growth stocks, precious metals, government bonds and Treasury bills would be an ideal investment mixture for investors seeking safety and growth.
But that doesn't always happen. Sometimes the correlations flip, and everything becomes positively correlated, and everything crashes at the same time.
Today, there's about $20 trillion in the global government bond market that actually has a negative yield, which means the borrower gets paid to borrow.
And in the remainder of the government bond market where rates are still positive, rates are the lowest they've been for 1000 years.
When interest rates are near zero or even negative, it's unclear whether historic correlations will continue, so the concept behind the "permanent portfolio" may not continue to work in this environment.
Not really. The yields are negative, but the coupon rates are positive. Most of those were initially sold with a positive rate, then went negative as buyers bid up the prices. The issuing governments don't get that appreciation, and are still obligated to pay the coupon rate. If the yield is positive at auction, the borrower is still paying to borrow the money.
The only way the "borrower gets paid to borrow" is if the initial auction sees bonds sell at negative yields. That's quite possible when coupon yields are 0.100% or less (which has been common in Europe and Japan lately).
Bonds doing terribly means interest rates spiking, and potentially defaults, or massive inflation. Which are all possibilities.
In those cases, you’re probably going to be very happy for the gold portion of the permanent portfolio. And it has been on a bit of a tear, recently, rising ~15% vs USD.
If you're interested in further study: the Gyroscopic Investing community [0] is a great forum supporting the late Harry Browne's investment/asset allocation philosophy, as are Harry Browne's original (short) book [1] and the modern treatment [2] by Craig Rowland and J. M. Lawson.
[0] https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/82103.Fail_Safe_Investin...
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13838783-the-permanent-p...
- 25% in cash (short term treasuries actually): currently returning ~2%, approximately the returns of a higher yielding savings account.
- 25% in gold: historically does only very slightly better than inflation. Currently price of gold is inflation adjusted the same as it was in 1979, which was followed by a ~50% loss that took 30 years to recover [0]. TIPS are probably a better choice for people extremely worried about inflation.
- 25% in long term bonds: a sensible allocation to bonds, though I'd prefer intermediate term, personally.
- 25% in stocks: extremely low allocation. Generally 60% allocation to stocks is considered fairly conservative - it gives you some of the increased return of equities while reducing the volatility of exposure to the stock market. Lower allocations definitely make sense for some folks, though I've yet to see a compelling case made for anyone still in their earning years doing less than 40%.
[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-...
Stocks/Bonds are money converted into "abstract human output". You are taking a bet that the group of humans that work at the companies that you've invested in will continue to become more advanced and efficient as to "generate value".
The stock market is "sentiment". It is collective group think as to what those companies are up to.
This is why you see people say "don't touch it". If you don't need the money now, the advances in "value creation" will possibly give you more money in the future.
I think the number one disservice that "stocks/investing" do is pretend it's not "gambling". Sure, you can minimize risk, and choose instruments that are 99% sound (gov bonds) but it's still _a gamble._
You are scared because you don't understand your risk exposure. (also, black swan events could change the exposure, but they are exactly that -- black swans)
You can:
- Decide to stop playing the game, convert your stocks/bonds into money which gives you absolute units and pegs your risk to inflation/deflation/government default.
- You can continue playing the game, and decide what your risk tolerances are, and adjust your strategy accordingly. This should give you a little bit more peace of mind.
If you want reasonably accessible exposure to these concepts, Khan Academy videos are free, you don't have to sign up to watch, and can fill in some gaps:
https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/core-fi...
Strictly speaking your exposure never changes, only your perception of your exposure as your sure-bet real estate portfolio crashes to zero.
Let's say you have $100.00, and the market figures that you need to make a return of 4% per year. If you find a stock that gives dividends of $4.00 per year, that stock will then be worth $100.00. This is assuming that there is a really strong trust in this company, that it won't go out of business, won't grow or shrink in market share.
Now let's add onto this that based on what the company is doing, and an analysis of their competition, and their ability (track record) of execution, that there is a really good chance that next year they will be able to make enough money to return $8.00 dividends per year. Well, that means that next year the stock will be worth $200.00 per share. And if it is going to be worth $200.00 per share next year, well this year most people will probably be willing to pay about $192 per share (that gives a 4% return on investment just in the stock price).
You can extend this line of reasoning to factor in forecasted growth for a number of years into the future. Which is how you get stocks that currently only return a small fraction of a percent of their stock price in dividends (i.e., a $100.00 stock may pay 4 cents dividends, instead of $4.00, since market sentiment thinks the company will grow a lot in the future).
So based on this, I would like to pick stocks that don't have a lot of growth forecasted, but do pay good dividends. Especially stocks that are in a market where they are protected from competition, or otherwise have a strong likelihood of not going out of business but provide the same thing they've always done, without growth but with good dividends.
All asset (and storage) types have their advantages / problems, you should read about it of course.
Am I right in thinking that gold/silver are widely thought to be inflation proof? So I wasn't so concerned about growth could I just park my money in gold?
That being said, over very long time horizons it is difficult to see why the real price of gold would change. They probably aren't going to mine it any cheaper and it isn't crazy to handwave an argument that demand can't drop all that far from where it is now. On that basis it easily outperforms cash.
If interest rates stay near 0 or drop negative gold might outperform bonds too. It is hard to say; the central banks do strange things to the bond markets.
Also, note that all these graphs only go back to the 1970s. Bit of a mystery why [1]. Gold's value tends to transcend such short-term concerns as the current global financial regime and that is a draw for some. Personally I think the current US dollar system is getting a bit long in the tooth. The biggest draw in this regard is that gold is a real expensive thing that is exceptionally easy to store (ignoring theft risks) and it is just hard to see how it could become less valuable than it is right now (short of government bans on gold trading).
[0] https://upfina.com/gold-vs-inflation/ particularly "Longer Term Correlation Between Real Gold & TIPS Doesn’t Hold Up"
[1] That was when the last monetary system failed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
There are still market cycles for gold, and also if you're going physical, there's 2-3% exchange cost as well.
Silver may or may not have a VAT problem in your country.
Mine in part index fund/part bonds and I move around the % based on the market sentiment.
Asset allocation is one of the few levers to control risk that you have. The more you have in safe assets (bonds and cash) the less likely to lose money in a downturn. Nothing's free, however, and that stability will cost you long term growth. Only you can figure out what level of risk you can love with (are you ok losing 10% during a downturn? 25%? 50%?). An advisor can help but you need to look in your heart of hearts and determine the number.
If you don't want to educate yourself or need a helping hand, get a fee based financial planner. Last I looked (years ago) was a couple thousand bucks to have a financial assessment. Ouch. But cheap compared to the 1% of assets the other kind of financial planners take annually. More on that here:
https://www.napfa.org/financial-planning/what-is-fee-only-ad...
It was assigned to me at Princeton in my intro to finance class and was formative to my financial education. It’s also very readable.
I am now a CFA charterholder working in finance, and I still love that book.
[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Random-Walk-down-Wall-Street/dp/03933... [2] - https://www.amazon.com/Bogleheads-Guide-Investing-Taylor-Lar...
If you're not part of the in crowd, your savings will get cut in half every decade or so because they can't have you with actual wealth to challenge them, now can they? There is no strategy that gets you where you want to be: Without fear or pain.
So now that you understand that, what is your next move? Might I suggest a revolt?
But since you can't predict it, there's not much point doing anything (you can rebalance a bit from stocks to bonds if it makes you feel better but the impact will be minimal). The growth you'll miss out on from selling too early and buying too late will almost certainly outweigh the benefit.
You're not alone in this.
I've found that most people who think they know how money works often just repeat conspiracy theories that don't hold up to critical examination.
While I'm pretty good at spotting bogus theories, I'd be hard-pressed to offer a coherent explanation myself.
Nobody really knows how money works.
The average 401k holder has one because they don't have a good idea of how money works or what they should do with it. If they really understood their 401k, they'd know that they're probably getting ripped off in fees over their lifetime.
If economists and financial analysts completely understood money, they wouldn't be in such disagreement all the time over basic things. A financial advisor might tell you to leave your money in a 401k, and the next one might tell you the same, but it's not that hard to find one who will tell you to get your money out of your 401k ASAP for a variety of reasons.
At the end of the day, you have to trust your own judgment. People don't get rich doing the easy thing.
By the way, here's some things you should think about with 401ks:
- Someone with an average salary pays $138,336 in 401k management fees over their lifetime. Not only are you the only party taking a risk, but you're getting charged for taking that risk. Advisors and broker dealers aren't risking anything except your money.
- You don't own the money in your 401k. Read the fine print and you will find "FBO" (For Benefit Of). The tax code makes it technically owned by the government, but provided for your benefit. In a crisis, the government can confiscate any amount of your 401k to pay off debt and pensions.
- 401k teaches people to cluelessly invest. Do you know if your money is being invested in big tobacco or big oil?
- The government has the advantage with your money. Because you can't cash out without penalties, when you die, whatever's left over for your children is not only subject to income tax but to estate tax as well. They want your 401k money to be gifted to someone else because that means they don't get to cash in on your pile of money.
Advocating that people not take advantage of a 401k because something about the government potentially seizing it is basically saying you shouldn't save money at all.
Well, perhaps pedantic, but the exemption effects 100% of estates. Less than 1% face any tax after the exemption.
Less pedantically, the exemption is actually $11.4 million for 2019:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2018/11/15/irs-an...
* Yes, 401k plans usually have high fees, however the tax advantage they provide should more than offset those fees except for the very worst plans. And there are exceptions too: some 401k plans offered by very large companies actually have lower fees than popular low-fee IRA providers.
* When you say "get your money out of your 401k" are you referring to moving it to a low-cost IRA or cashing it out? The former is good advice if you have a 401k from an old job (that is not one of the aforementioned "very good" 401k plans). I don't think there are any reputable financial advisors that would suggest straight-up cashing out a 401k before retirement due to the taxes and penalties. The only circumstance I can think of where that would make sense is if it was necessary to avoid homelessness or pay for necessary medical care and you had already run through your non-retirement savings.
* You absolutely do "own" your money in your 401k as much as you own shares in a brokerage account or deposits in your bank account. If we're at the point where the government would confiscate funds in 401k accounts instead of just issuing new debt then the economy has probably already collapsed to a point beyond recognition.
* Your point about "clueless investment" is a critique of mutual funds and index funds not 401k plans. Someone holding an S&P 500 index fund in their IRA or brokerage account is no smarter than someone holding that fund in their 401k. Additionally, history has shown time and again that the only thing you can say with certainty about the stock market is that its aggregate value increases on average over time. The average person attempting to pick stocks, even at the sector level, is a recipie for them to miss out on the gains they need to have sufficient funds for their retirement.
* Your point about estate and income tax: and having the money in any other form would do what? You need to pay income tax on funds drawn from a (traditional) 401k plan because you deferred the tax when you deposited the funds. Whether you or your heirs are drawing the funds is immaterial in that aspect. If you have funds in a Roth 401k or Roth IRA or a regular brokerage you have already paid the taxes and as such you will not be taxed on withdrawls (except capital gains from brokerage accounts).
Similarly for the estate tax, if you had the money in cash at time of death you would still owe the same amount. On top of that, you'll be dead! What do you care what happens to the money after you're gone? Not to mention you need literal millions of dollars of assets upon death to get hit with the estate tax in the US so this will only apply to the literal 1%.
I haven't seen these "high fees" in any of the five 401k plans across 4 providers that I have had since I started my career 17 years ago.
No, the assets in the fund are owned by the plan administrator, and held for your benefit; this is in some ways better than you owning them, as it makes them generally immune to seizure/garnishment by creditors other than the IRS, and only by the IRS to the extent you could take a no-penalty distribution.
That's a pretty basic error in a rant about how everyone else doesn't understand the basics...
My counterpoint is that my wife would kill me if I cashed out my 401k.
Stop reading the news.
Invest in some remote rural property, lay in plenty of supplies, educate yourself in the proper use and maintenance of various weapons.
It begins.
Your 401k no doubt is holding mutual funds that are tremendously expensive and practically just robs you. https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersmffeeshtm.html
If the mutual fund charges 3%. Then the underlying securities have to increase 3% before you have broken even. Which if you're mixing bonds and such, you're probably not getting yearly returns much higher than that. So your money is literally doing nothing for you. Then during a market downturn, you just plain lose. You're down the market amount AND the 3%.
Flipside, ETFs like Vanguard have fees of 0.05% on some of the big ones. So when the stocks increase in value, you pretty much get all of the benefit.
You're not making some banker and financial advisor rich off your money. You're retiring sooner.
That is: diversify. You don't want your entire 401k in one stock. An S&P 500 index fund is better, but you might want to put a bit of money in an international stock fund, and a bit in a bond fund. (You probably still want to be mostly in stocks at your age, but note well: I am not an investment advisor.)
"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently."
Warren is advocating to anybody willing to listen that they too should fork over all there monies like someone severely traumatized by Stockholm syndrome.
Number 1 convinced number 2 he was way better in controlling the goods. This is a trick we did before we could talk. Biggest heist ever.
By all accounts, The Gates Foundation is delivering on their promise by reducing child mortality, womens rights, life expectency, health care and education to the underprivileged of the world.
Heist indeed. <sarcasm>
Sauce: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/
Bill Gates "When you have money in hand,only you forget who are you .But when you do not have any money in your hand, the whole world forget who you are.It's life."
That doesn't sound too good to me.
Except for the first item, that doesn't seem to say what you seem to think it does. Unless you mean to say that women’s rights, life expectancy, health care, and education in the developing world are all bad things that it is good to reduce.
The issue is that it might be better for society not to allow people to amass so much wealth, such that society as a whole must then rely on them to pick out issues to try and solve. It might be better if we could solve social problems collectively, through a better system of taxing and directing money to social programs, rather than allow it to bubble up to a few and wait for noblesse oblige to kick in.
I'm looking at other countries, where the inequality isn't so great and the quality of life is better for everyone. Much of western Europe is an example I think we'd do well to follow.
In short: why leave it up to Gates and Buffett to decide what's a good use of what society produces? We could collectively decide we wanted universal health care, free university, and so on, like various other nations have successfully offered for decades.
Warren Buffet is actually a big believer in not making macro economic predictions. It just so happens that if you pick stocks like he does (based on fundamentals and a certain proprietary “discount”) you’ll probably avoid having your investments tagged in a recession.
Stocks in the Great Recession took a nose dive because of a market downturn, not the other way around. It is very possible (and much more common) for stocks to dip significantly and for the broader market economy to shrug its shoulders and say, “meh”.
We have familiarity bias though, so we think that the next one will look like the last one. Pro tip: it won’t.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BRK.B/berkshire-ha...
Berkshire Hathaway's cash position was sitting at an all-time high of $122 billion as of early August. Your source claims $44 billion. Buffett will be distraught to find out $78 billion in cash is missing.
"The result was that the company’s cash hoard -- a major focus for investors in recent years -- surged to a record $122 billion."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-03/buffett-s...
For further reference here is a chart of Berkshire's cash going back to 1996 from Reuters:
https://i.imgur.com/VzrG8lP.jpg
It's not just bonds. Price of Gold has skyrocketed since June; Gold is higher than it has been for years. Bitcoin is back above $10,000. These are your standard mechanisms to isolate your money from a crashing market.
https://www.instituteforsupplymanagement.org/ismreport/mfgro...
ISM is somewhat of a decent report. Soon as they lower below 50% it means manufacturing is shrinking; which means layoffs. July 2019 new orders are 50.8%.
Nissan is laying off 12,500. GM closing multiple plants. Ford has $20 billion cash stashed and layoffs. Chrysler is laying off thousands. Toyota, Honda, everyone is laying off.
Recession is coming for sure, no question.
Expensive stocks may be one sign of an upcoming crash, but they are by no means a sufficient condition. Stocks can stay expensive for many years, and the conditions that led to them being expensive (easy money) actually look like they'll be around for quite a while yet. There are other possible indicators like the inverted yield curve, but again, one can never say for sure. Oil prices for example are depressed, and that is not what is typically seen before a recession:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-27/oil-pr...
He invests in candy? Everyone invests in candy! Oh look, candy stocks went up, it must be a good investment!
This was my take away from the article, reads like a hit piece instead of an article on Warren Buffett and his warning. Bloomberg is pulling out all the stops these days...
>Trump’s bonkers G-7 made the world less safe....
>That has all changed in the President Donald Trump era....
>Trump’s erratic behavior before, during and after...
>Another Trumpian chaos agent...
>Trump’s economic-policy anarchy ....
>Trump vs. China vs. Companies....
>One of the more bizarre things Trump said ....
>Trump said he could declare an emergency ....
>Trump ad-libs wild claims...
>While Trump verbally berates his own country’s companies...
>Trump’s trade war will make things much worse...
>Far from the economic basket case Trump would have you think ...
The news these days is a big stinking pile of crap, it's not even news anymore.
Edit: If it were up to me, I might work in monetary supply somehow too (The gold standard ended in 1972 or so). But maybe there's a reason they call him the Oracle of Omaha, and nobody calls me the Oracle of Santa Monica.
Not a perfect analogy, with plenty of mixed metaphors, but simple enough to reason about and see where it breaks down.
tl;dr economy is flow in pipe, stock market is pressure gauge, if you don't know the flow through the primary pipe (hard to measure directly), then your pressure gauge could be extremely, dangerously misleading
Most investors are not limited to about 200 companies. Keep looking. Look under 500M market caps. Plenty of companies trading for ev/ebits under 7, PEs under 10, price/books under 1, with decents ROICs.
Sure stocks on average are expensive, but bargains always exist.
He patiently waits, watching and analyzing, looking for an excellent company to buy for a fair price (or better). When such a bargain emerges, Buffett deploys the 'elephant gun' and makes a massive buy.
This has nothing to do with timing the market. Buffett will buy no matter what the broader market is doing-- it's all that excellent company at a good price that matters.
Above all, remember: It's not timing the market, it's time in the market.