Anybody Buying Yet? Where’s the Bottom?

[SAJ-99]

Not using NVDA own historical price site. I'm trying to make sense of it as well. Hell, it was a massive climb!
I thought it was 2016-2020 I played it though so many stocks played... Looks like the fun times with AMD and NVDA were back in '16. Hah!
Amazing how time flies!

I see what you are talking about. The NVDA website is showing a different price. I don’t trust it because it isn’t adjusting for the split from last week so I don’t know exactly what it is doing other than storing closing prices, and I’m not sure those are right. Every other source is using Nasdaq split-adjusted prices and they all match.

 

[Sytes]

I show $0.82ish. Like I said, that doesn’t mean it ever traded at that price. It means that one share or 1/24,600,000,000 (24.6b shr OS) of the company today was worth that price in mid 2015. Past prices are not always actual trades. They are past prices adjusted to today’s relative value.

We're referencing two separate tables. I'm referring to the historical one directly from Nvidia's Investor site.
The dates mentioned are accurate. I went back to our tax records for my day trades and it's par for Nvidia's site.

 

[SAJ-99]

We're referencing two separate tables. I'm referring to the historical one directly from Nvidia's Investor site.
The dates mentioned are accurate. I went back to our tax records for my day trades and it's par for Nvidia's site.

If I get this right, there was a 4:1 stock split in 2021. So all the adjusted price values pre that date should be multiplied by 40 to account for both splits.

 

[ismith]

Great time to buy old custom rifles.

 

[Flatrock]

World market affairs are important for U.S. market action.

No they aren't. Generally speaking, I could not possibly disagree with you more. 99% of what people think matters, doesn't. Seriously. There's headlines everyday scaring people. People should ignore nearly all that crap and just stay invested. Covid, the Ukraine war, China/Taiwan, the national debt, etc.. All nothing burgers if you're investing for the next 1-50 years.

 

[Sytes]

I think we need The Dude's opinion meme stickied. Haha!
All good with disagreements.

Human nature is fickle. As much as you disagree, you mentioned COVID, as one example. It clearly affected the U.S. market.

 

[Flatrock]

As much as you disagree, you mentioned COVID, as one example. It clearly affected the U.S. market.

I didnt say news events don't affect the market. I said in the long run, they don't matter. Yes, covid clearly affected the market. It's also clear that it was not important from an investing perspective. The S&P was up close to 20% in 2020. How much is the market up since pre-covid? Closing in on 100%. Getting scared and selling in 2020 was a terrible move.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

I miss COVID. All that fear and doubt for the future was a feast of short sells. Really looked like Carnival cruise was going to bankrupt on the profitable race down. While it’s true that short day to day and over the long term things don’t matter, over the medium term sure does matter. Every decade once or twice there’s some calamity that shakes shit up and causes huge upset. Nowadays, NVDA blinks and totally unrelated markets feel it. History, can’t ignore it.

 

[ismith]

Normalcy Bias

 

[Sytes]

World market affairs are important for U.S. market action.

All nothing burgers if you're investing for the next 1-50 years.

Ok, for sake of internet chat, I disagree on two fronts though agree with your overall picture - viewing 50 years. Reality, we didn't know what was going to happen with the global markets. The past is easy to predict. The U.S. great depression destroyed lives. We didn't know what to expect from COVID. Some thought drinking bleach would cure the issue (Yes, I know - Trump was jesting about the idea... humor folks), others claimed it was the biblical apocolypse. Easy to view from present. The black plague destroyed lives just as well.

Investments are modified as one moves closer to retirement. "Getting scared" is one perspective. Moving retirement $ to "safer harbors" - is another.

Covid caused a stir where many re-allocated their retirement money to other areas. Myself included. Throwing hypothetical numbers, end of 2019, I had $550k in TSP (Federal + gov % type of IRA) I follow FedSmith for my TSP info. At the start of covid, I had roughly 8 years until forced/mandatory retirement from my field of work, I felt my TSP needed to dock in a safe(r) harbor - G fund.

Others rode it out and - along your line of thought made back their sudden slam losses and continue to ride the market up. September(?) of 2020, I moved $ back into C & S funds and I am good with protecting my retirement from the sudden dump and the then fog of war [market] activity that ensued. Knowing now? Boy - I would have bought back in even earlier 2020! Haha! Though I do not have the luxury of seeing the future.

In the end - it was a tricky time. Am I worse off knowing what I know now? I may have lost/gained a bit though I was much more secure with my retirement.

In a nutshell, it depends on how close a person is to retirement, IMO.

This is one example of COVID and its, then, unknown affect and what we know now. There are potential events that will trigger me to protect my assets and #1 my retirement $.

 

[SAJ-99]

I didnt say news events don't affect the market. I said in the long run, they don't matter. Yes, covid clearly affected the market. It's also clear that it was not important from an investing perspective. The S&P was up close to 20% in 2020. How much is the market up since pre-covid? Closing in on 100%. Getting scared and selling in 2020 was a terrible move.

1. I kind of agree with you.
2. There are like 300,000 people in the US that call themselves financial advisors. If “buy and hold” and “just stay the course” is all that is needed, paying these people for services is unnecessary.
3. we pumped $4 trillion into the economy to mitigate the impact of Covid. Aren’t you just saying there’s always a Fed put on the economy?
4. (As @Sytes says, for discussion purposes) Isn’t there some macro event that could either change the Fed put or change its ability to impact the price of US markets? If so, how do you “ignore everything” while still looking for such an event?
5. I will point out that not everyone has a 50yr investment horizon. Should a 20yr old ignore more than a 60yr old? (Note- the debate/question is “does time diversify?” Ooh was there ever a debate about this 25 yrs ago.)

 

[LopeHunter]

1. I kind of agree with you.
2. There are like 300,000 people in the US that call themselves financial advisors. If “buy and hold” and “just stay the course” is all that is needed, paying these people for services is unnecessary.
3. we pumped $4 trillion into the economy to mitigate the impact of Covid. Aren’t you just saying there’s always a Fed put on the economy?
4. (As @Sytes says, for discussion purposes) Isn’t there some macro event that could either change the Fed put or change its ability to impact the price of US markets? If so, how do you “ignore everything” while still looking for such an event?
5. I will point out that not everyone has a 50yr investment horizon. Should a 20yr old ignore more than a 60yr old? (Note- the debate/question is “does time diversify?” Ooh was there ever a debate about this 25 yrs ago.)

Re #2: Very few people will benefit from paying 1% or more annually to a financial advisor. Advisors not only erode your returns as they underperform the market net of fees but also can dramatically underperform the market by playing “casino” with your money.

Some advisers win at the game of casino as you might have on a single trip to the casino but very, very unlikely you are ahead vs the casino after even two trips.

Picking individual stocks is a losing strategy for most persons whether are an advisor or the individual investor.

Why ignore the studies that show holding the S&P 500 or the whole stock market beats stock-picking attempts? Simple. Well over 50% of people say they are luckier than average so that keeps casinos open as eventual losers confidently stroll into the casino with their big wallet of cash.

Advisors need to convince you that they are lucky. That separates you from 1% of your wealth year after year and leads to underperformance. Here is the deal I offer to every advisor that has pitched me: I will pay you twice your fee every year you outperform the SPY performance by 10% but…no fee due if you underperform SPY plus you pay me 5x the underperformance. No takers yet for a 5-year locked in binding contract. Geez, how hard would it be to consistently use skill to stock pick Mr. Advisor?

If your estate is large and tax-planning is complicated then you may benefit from expert strategy on management of assets though no way you should be paying 1% as you can get a flat fee.

 

[Bonasababy]

Ok, for sake of internet chat, I disagree on two fronts though agree with your overall picture - viewing 50 years. Reality, we didn't know what was going to happen with the global markets. The past is easy to predict. The U.S. great depression destroyed lives. We didn't know what to expect from COVID. Some thought drinking bleach would cure the issue (Yes, I know - Trump was jesting about the idea... humor folks), others claimed it was the biblical apocolypse. Easy to view from present. The black plague destroyed lives just as well.

Investments are modified as one moves closer to retirement. "Getting scared" is one perspective. Moving retirement $ to "safer harbors" - is another.

Covid caused a stir where many re-allocated their retirement money to other areas. Myself included. Throwing hypothetical numbers, end of 2019, I had $550k in TSP (Federal + gov % type of IRA) I follow FedSmith for my TSP info. At the start of covid, I had roughly 8 years until forced/mandatory retirement from my field of work, I felt my TSP needed to dock in a safe(r) harbor - G fund.

Others rode it out and - along your line of thought made back their sudden slam losses and continue to ride the market up. September(?) of 2020, I moved $ back into C & S funds and I am good with protecting my retirement from the sudden dump and the then fog of war [market] activity that ensued. Knowing now? Boy - I would have bought back in even earlier 2020! Haha! Though I do not have the luxury of seeing the future.

In the end - it was a tricky time. Am I worse off knowing what I know now? I may have lost/gained a bit though I was much more secure with my retirement.

In a nutshell, it depends on how close a person is to retirement, IMO.

This is one example of COVID and its, then, unknown affect and what we know now. There are potential events that will trigger me to protect my assets and #1 my retirement $.

A few other thoughts, from someone closer to retirement than you are.

1) I think there's a tendency--that I struggle to fight--in thinking looming retirement means you build to a point and then stop, then start all over. There's some truth to that esp. if you have to move your money from where it is into something else in retirement. But as far as the amount in the market, the long run still applies to an extent there. Assuming you will be alive for a few decades after retirement.

2) Most folks know wall street hates uncertainty. I maintain that we have been and will stay in more uncertain times regarding monetary policy than we had for a LONG time before today. So I am not a huge fan of saying look at the past and dont worry about the future at all.

Look at Covid. In hindsight most folks that stayed in did OK, and folks like myself that moved mostly out of the more risky things but then got back in not long after the main declines did OK too. But the real risk there was how Covid was looked at and dealt with by many. Investors get real nervous when they see a huge problem and don't perceive it is being addressed. And that situation has not gone away. Huge numbers of people still think it's a scam, believe false claims about vaccine safety--rather than using recent experience to be ready for the next pandemic we may be even worse off if one comes.

So--can't trust the future. Corporation heads sure aren't liking the future potential depending on what happens in november either, according to multiple sources. Some might be surprised who they are worried about more too. Again--uncertainty is not good.

 

[Bonasababy]

Re #2: Very few people will benefit from paying 1% or more annually to a financial advisor. Advisors not only erode your returns as they underperform the market net of fees but also can dramatically underperform the market by playing “casino” with your money.

Some advisers win at the game of casino as you might have on a single trip to the casino but very, very unlikely you are ahead vs the casino after even two trips.

Picking individual stocks is a losing strategy for most persons whether are an advisor or the individual investor.

Why ignore the studies that show holding the S&P 500 or the whole stock market beats stock-picking attempts? Simple. Well over 50% of people say they are luckier than average so that keeps casinos open as eventual losers confidently stroll into the casino with their big wallet of cash.

Advisors need to convince you that they are lucky. That separates you from 1% of your wealth year after year and leads to underperformance. Here is the deal I offer to every advisor that has pitched me: I will pay you twice your fee every year you outperform the SPY performance by 10% but…no fee due if you underperform SPY plus you pay me 5x the underperformance. No takers yet for a 5-year locked in binding contract. Geez, how hard would it be to consistently use skill to stock pick Mr. Advisor?

If your estate is large and tax-planning is complicated then you may benefit from expert strategy on management of assets though no way you should be paying 1% as you can get a flat fee.

I generally agree, but find it more complicated.

It's easy to invest in a mix of low cost mutual funds and do well with very little investing experience.

Some folks are so uneasy with that--or refuse to believe it's actually easy--or just don't trust themselves--and for them an advisor might make some sense.

But my experience suggest for them they should still look to a low cost fund company for help rather than someone else-their fees are lower, and they provide help to a point along with confidence for free.

The other thing I can see using and advisor for is to help evaluate choices as large events loom, like retirement--or happen, like loss of a spouse and their income etc. And if someone wants to not have to do much at all with their money in retirement and is NOT worried about beating the market as much as wanting a return that is more reasonable and easier to achieve--it can make sense to use one IMO.

But my experience still tells me to look to the Fidelity;s Vanguards and their ilk for advising help. Over my years I've talked with Ameriprise/AMEX, Thrivent, Edward Jones, and Schwab. All of them have leaned towards taking over for a fee that's too high. I then tried to find a smaller firm that does fee for service. My experience there was even worse--I was told to rapidly move all our money into Roth right before Covid hit--my accountant said H#ll no of course. I did pay them a bit for advise and access to some planning tools--but that was quite interesting. Somehow they signed me up for a listserv from an outfit that works with smaller fee for service pros and I am getting all the info intended for pros this place sends out now. Its all about --how do we get the chumps to give you more money, how can you convince them fees are reasonable--not much on how can you meet their needs, all about how can the firm take the chumps money.

Back to the low cost fund companies. I am strongly considering letting Fidelity manage much of our retirement money. Their fees are .3 to 1/2 percent, MUCH lower than the 1 percent that is more common from "individual advisors". You get someone assigned to you but you get access to teams of pros and data researchers with them.

The real tricky thing for everyone these days isn't what equities will do in the future--it's whether bonds will rise enough to be viable again. And the fixed income side of investing is where it's much harder for the average investor to do well IMO, at least it has been for a long time. I do remember--fondly--when muni funds were giving me great returns. Haven't seen that since the 90's.

But you can avoid some of that by being heavy into balanced funds--most major fund companies have them, usually try to maintain a 60/40 or similar equity/bond percentage. Go up and down with the market but don't sink as low as equity funds--or equity index funds--during downturns. Forfeit some potential in good markets for less volatility.

 

[Flatrock]

Ok, for sake of internet chat, I disagree on two fronts though agree with your overall picture - viewing 50 years. Reality, we didn't know what was going to happen with the global markets. The past is easy to predict. The U.S. great depression destroyed lives. We didn't know what to expect from COVID. Some thought drinking bleach would cure the issue (Yes, I know - Trump was jesting about the idea... humor folks), others claimed it was the biblical apocolypse. Easy to view from present. The black plague destroyed lives just as well.

Investments are modified as one moves closer to retirement. "Getting scared" is one perspective. Moving retirement $ to "safer harbors" - is another.

Covid caused a stir where many re-allocated their retirement money to other areas. Myself included. Throwing hypothetical numbers, end of 2019, I had $550k in TSP (Federal + gov % type of IRA) I follow FedSmith for my TSP info. At the start of covid, I had roughly 8 years until forced/mandatory retirement from my field of work, I felt my TSP needed to dock in a safe(r) harbor - G fund.

Others rode it out and - along your line of thought made back their sudden slam losses and continue to ride the market up. September(?) of 2020, I moved $ back into C & S funds and I am good with protecting my retirement from the sudden dump and the then fog of war [market] activity that ensued. Knowing now? Boy - I would have bought back in even earlier 2020! Haha! Though I do not have the luxury of seeing the future.

In the end - it was a tricky time. Am I worse off knowing what I know now? I may have lost/gained a bit though I was much more secure with my retirement.

In a nutshell, it depends on how close a person is to retirement, IMO.

This is one example of COVID and its, then, unknown affect and what we know now. There are potential events that will trigger me to protect my assets and #1 my retirement $.

I can agree with a lot of that. As you get closer to retirement, you should definitely be modifying investments. My point is that you really shouldn't be doing much with your equity position and it should just be in an index fund. The vast majority of news events are just distractions and have nearly no effect on the markets past a few months. Admittedly, covid probably wasn't the best example because that was a massive news event but even so, it eventually passed and we all moved on.

You most definitely should be concerned with your equity/bond/cash mix as you get closer to retirement though. If you're getting closer to retirement, the absolute worst time to be selling stocks is if they go into a 20%+ decline. A person should never be in that position where they're all of a sudden panicking about their stock exposure when the market starts to take a dive and sell. There is a possibility every single year that stocks could go down 20-50%. If you can't stomach that, then you shouldn't have that much exposure to stocks. Rotate some of it into cash or bonds. With the markets at all time highs, now would be a good time to at least consider that.

And yes, I agree that covid was a very unique situation and not easy by any means to be an investor.

 

[Flatrock]

1. I kind of agree with you.
2. There are like 300,000 people in the US that call themselves financial advisors. If “buy and hold” and “just stay the course” is all that is needed, paying these people for services is unnecessary.
3. we pumped $4 trillion into the economy to mitigate the impact of Covid. Aren’t you just saying there’s always a Fed put on the economy?
4. (As @Sytes says, for discussion purposes) Isn’t there some macro event that could either change the Fed put or change its ability to impact the price of US markets? If so, how do you “ignore everything” while still looking for such an event?
5. I will point out that not everyone has a 50yr investment horizon. Should a 20yr old ignore more than a 60yr old? (Note- the debate/question is “does time diversify?” Ooh was there ever a debate about this 25 yrs ago.)

1. Ha.
2. I'd say advisors in some sense absolutely do serve a good purpose and should be used. But paying them a 1% fee is absolutely absurd. I don't use one and so I don't know how they all operate but a 1% fee is outrageous and straight up theft IMO. They should just help a client get an appropriate mix of index funds and that's it. I don't know why it isn't just a fee based service like everything else. I think registered reps work on a fee but they don't seem to be as common. If I'm wrong on some of that, correct me.
3. Ummm, I wouldn't say we should be totally reliant on the Fed put but yea it's always there to some degree. I don't expect the Fed to come in and save the market in a 20-30% correction but I also think they will protect against a correction that starts to go 50%+. I meant more that the day to day headlines that people think are important, aren't.
4. Yea probably. What kind of event? Idk. Some black swan event. And again, I mean more ignoring stuff like debt ceilings, government debt, elections, China/Taiwan, Ukraine, etc. Yea they could knock the market down 20% but if I'm worried about that, I'll never be in the market to catch its upside. It's far more likely the market will move up 20-100%+ before some event knocks it down 20%.
5. I shouldn't have said 50 years. I meant more anyone who isn't close to retirement. I don't think a 60 year old should worry that much more than a 20 year old though about their stocks. They SHOULD have a stock/bond/cash/other investment mix that allows them to not worry that much about a big market decline. That's not an easy mix to figure out though.

 

[antelopedundee]

I generally agree, but find it more complicated.

It's easy to invest in a mix of low cost mutual funds and do well with very little investing experience.

Some folks are so uneasy with that--or refuse to believe it's actually easy--or just don't trust themselves--and for them an advisor might make some sense.

But my experience suggest for them they should still look to a low cost fund company for help rather than someone else-their fees are lower, and they provide help to a point along with confidence for free.

The other thing I can see using and advisor for is to help evaluate choices as large events loom, like retirement--or happen, like loss of a spouse and their income etc. And if someone wants to not have to do much at all with their money in retirement and is NOT worried about beating the market as much as wanting a return that is more reasonable and easier to achieve--it can make sense to use one IMO.

But my experience still tells me to look to the Fidelity;s Vanguards and their ilk for advising help. Over my years I've talked with Ameriprise/AMEX, Thrivent, Edward Jones, and Schwab. All of them have leaned towards taking over for a fee that's too high. I then tried to find a smaller firm that does fee for service. My experience there was even worse--I was told to rapidly move all our money into Roth right before Covid hit--my accountant said H#ll no of course. I did pay them a bit for advise and access to some planning tools--but that was quite interesting. Somehow they signed me up for a listserv from an outfit that works with smaller fee for service pros and I am getting all the info intended for pros this place sends out now. Its all about --how do we get the chumps to give you more money, how can you convince them fees are reasonable--not much on how can you meet their needs, all about how can the firm take the chumps money.

Back to the low cost fund companies. I am strongly considering letting Fidelity manage much of our retirement money. Their fees are .3 to 1/2 percent, MUCH lower than the 1 percent that is more common from "individual advisors". You get someone assigned to you but you get access to teams of pros and data researchers with them.

The real tricky thing for everyone these days isn't what equities will do in the future--it's whether bonds will rise enough to be viable again. And the fixed income side of investing is where it's much harder for the average investor to do well IMO, at least it has been for a long time. I do remember--fondly--when muni funds were giving me great returns. Haven't seen that since the 90's.

But you can avoid some of that by being heavy into balanced funds--most major fund companies have them, usually try to maintain a 60/40 or similar equity/bond percentage. Go up and down with the market but don't sink as low as equity funds--or equity index funds--during downturns. Forfeit some potential in good markets for less volatility.

Like many things in life some swear by em, and some swear at em. I don't see how any rational person could use Edward Jones. They charge a fee to trade plus 5% of the traded amount BOTH ways IIRC. That's a 10% loss right from the git go. Now even Vanguard is starting to charge ticky tacky fees. If I had a sufficiently large account I'd turn it over to Chase or Fidelity or someone similar for wealth management. I was reading some comments from Mark Cuban about simply putting a lottery jackpot into a MM or savings account. Another poster elsewhere said that it would be fiduciary malfeasance NOT to invest it. If you hire a FA DO NOT give them an opportunity to churn your account. And so the world turns.

 

[Bonasababy]

Like many things in life some swear by em, and some swear at em. I don't see how any rational person could use Edward Jones. They charge a fee to trade plus 5% of the traded amount BOTH ways IIRC. That's a 10% loss right from the git go. Now even Vanguard is starting to charge ticky tacky fees. If I had a sufficiently large account I'd turn it over to Chase or Fidelity or someone similar for wealth management. I was reading some comments from Mark Cuban about simply putting a lottery jackpot into a MM or savings account. Another poster elsewhere said that it would be fiduciary malfeasance NOT to invest it. If you hire a FA DO NOT give them an opportunity to churn your account. And so the world turns.

My late mother in law had one of those made the news stories. Had most of her money needed for retirement with Edward Jones. Her rep moved her money into something that made him money, lost her money, and ultimately had the rep sued and fired. You'd think a reputable company would do everything they could to apologize. No she had to sue. Got it all back including paying her lawyers fees but had to fight them over it.

Neighbor at a place we are selling--partly because of him--is an Edward Jones Rep. Snake in the grass guy through and through.

On the other hand i had another former neighbor Jones rep-- salt of the earth solid christian guy who I'd trust completely. And had AMEX and thrivent guys both good and bad over the years.

I just bail when fees start to rise and they all have been too high.

Have an appointment to talk with Vanguard about investing our retirement money tomorrow. Initially called them to see if they might compete with Fidelity, and it sure didn't look promising, but we'll see. I think Vanguard has really changed since Bogle passed.

 

[Sytes]

Do they negotiate fees?

As I understand,Vanguard is flat corporate wide, .35-.40 annual.

We have our non gov portfolio funds via Schwab.

 

[SAJ-99]

Have an appointment to talk with Vanguard about investing our retirement money tomorrow. Initially called them to see if they might compete with Fidelity, and it sure didn't look promising, but we'll see. I think Vanguard has really changed since Bogle passed.

Hasn't changed much, but it has made a couple of attempts to go into financial advice. It closed its UK FA arm because it couldn't generate enough business. It has made a couple of attempts going into automated financial planning, but mediocre results. The reality is people are hard-wired for the con where another human being charges a fee and sells themselves as an expert to do the exact same thing the pre-programed computer would do.

I think what we need is a bit of a reset. A market where your financial advisor doesn't even pick up the phone because he/she doesn't know what to say as the markets melt down. We are all a bit complacent.