# in 25 years from now will Dow be higher or lower ?



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Do you think the Dow Jones industrial average will be higher or lower 25 years from now ?

My bet is lower


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

I'm going to go out on a limb here ... higher*. 


* Unless exactly 25 years there is a serious market crash.


----------



## 30seconds (Jan 11, 2014)

Higher.. 

Real question is why do you think it'll be lower? Zombie apocalypse is not a good enough answer


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

lonewolf said:


> Do you think the Dow Jones industrial average will be higher or lower 25 years from now ?


Probably.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Considering that inflation in 25 years will be above 60% I doubt that it can be lower, imho it will be in 30K area


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I believe it will represent different companies than today and thus be a completely meaningless number for this debate.


----------



## wendi1 (Oct 2, 2013)

Will it be higher or lower?

Yes.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

lonewolf said:


> Do you think the Dow Jones industrial average will be higher or lower 25 years from now ?
> 
> My bet is lower


Then short it.


----------



## protomok (Jul 9, 2012)

Nice trolling OP


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

I am sure it's going to be higher or lower, no way it's going to be at the exact the same level, possible but not likely ;-)


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Higher. I say double it is now.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

lonewolf,

what do the moon, stars, bible, book of Jonah, whales and pigeons say?


----------



## martinv (Apr 30, 2009)

Unfortunately or fortunately, I most likely won't be around to see what number the Dow is at in 25 years.
At which point, I will no longer care. Scary thought but there we have it.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I can categorically state with full confidence that in 25 years, the DOW will be higher assuming a nominal GDP growth rate of 5% notwithstanding anything to the contrary subject to certain unpredictable factors beyond the immediate purview of the analysis in question. 
However, given the uncertain nature of geo-political issues and various myriad ramifications of the 4th coefficient of the efficient market hypothesis and the rambunctious nature of emerging market beta, it is possible that the DOW could be lower.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, of course.

I should be able to get a job as an analyst with a major investment bank, no?


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

Or bark at the moon like someone else in this thread probably does


----------



## praire_guy (Sep 8, 2011)

30seconds said:


> Higher..
> 
> Real question is why do you think it'll be lower? Zombie apocalypse is not a good enough answer


Umm, have you watched the walking dead?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

in 25 years i will be 90 and taking a decent cr#p will trump wherever the dow might be on a given day ...


----------



## cannew (Jun 19, 2011)

Where the market is in 25 years really doesn't matter too me (assuming I'm still around). I want to ensure the stocks I own will continue to grow their dividend, as they have. If they do, then I'm sure the value of my shares will be up even if the market as a whole is down.


----------



## Butters (Apr 20, 2012)

+2 for double


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

I'm past the point where I need any 25 year guarantees. However, for those of you who are planning to stick around that long, I wish you my best.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The Dow will very likely be higher in nominal terms (that is, the number will be larger) but that doesn't necessarily mean it has a positive real return.

A higher dow is not 100% guarantee. Japan's stock market declined over 30 years, for instance. Get unlucky about your start & end points and you can still have a negative return over 25 years.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Interesting that most responses here are very, very pessimistic. At 7.5% a year nominally, the Dow would be well past 100,000 in 25 years. 25 years is a long, long time. The Dow is not a real return indicator, it is solely stock price weighted. And P/Es are nowhere near the ridiculous levels of the Nikkei of 1989. 

25 years ago, the Dow was trading as low as 2168. It's now 17083. Just at that same pace, the Dow would be 135,000. So, my guess would be 100-130k, which is still, on the average, pessimistic.

Interestingly James, if the Dow companies did have a P/E of 100+ right now, similar to the Nikkei at its peak, then the Dow would already be at 100-130k, therefore yes you could say returns might be negative. Good thing for all long term investors that this is not the case.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Guys thanks for in put,
30 -40 years ago most people I knew were not playing the market. Now days a lot of people I know are long term players in the stock market. 30-40 years ago it was my perspective that people I knew never thought the market would be this high, now the tides have turned after 40 years of rally people think the trend will continue. The market fools the majority so if the majority thinks the market is headed higher over the next 25 years.

I think it wont happen to many expect it. Perhaps I m wrong for the members are not as bullish as I thought they would be. Of course we have some smart members here & polling from this group might not get the same reading as the street.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

doctrine said:


> Interestingly James, if the Dow companies did have a P/E of 100+ right now, similar to the Nikkei at its peak, then the Dow would already be at 100-130k, therefore yes you could say returns might be negative. Good thing for all long term investors that this is not the case.


Just clarifying though, I didn't say the Dow would be lower. I said: "The Dow will very likely be higher in nominal terms"

The remarks about Japan are to remind people that higher stocks are not a guarantee, even by waiting 25 years. Stocks are never a guarantee, period.

Anyone notice by the way that China's Shanghai Composite is today -65% lower it was 7 years ago. Remember how everyone thought China was the strongest economy and probably the strongest stock market in the world?

Instead, the Chinese stock market has NO gains after 7.5 years. And it's lost more than half its value in the last 7 years. That's despite the global recovery and stimulus from both America and China.

It was supposed to be the greatest investment theme in the modern world, and seven and a half years and the index still has not gone up. The horror!

See, people on this board poured money into Canadian and American stocks and got lucky that those markets went up. Others who poured money into China... have lost money. That's why stocks aren't a guarantee, it's a gamble, and you have to remember that. The fact that you made lots of money on the TSX does not indicate you are smart or that your strategy is sound. It doesn't show that you know what you're doing.

It just shows that by dumb luck, you invested in markets that happened to rise instead of for example investing in the Shanghai composite.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

james4beach said:


> See, people on this board poured money into Canadian and American stocks and got lucky that those markets went up. Others who poured money into China... have lost money. That's why stocks aren't a guarantee, it's a gamble, and you have to remember that. The fact that you made lots of money on the TSX does not indicate you are smart or that your strategy is sound. It doesn't show that you know what you're doing.
> 
> [/QUOTE
> 
> Who would set up a market to make other players rich ? The market was set up to make its designers rich. If the playing field is not fair it is it really worth it to keep the market going ? Most players would be better off over their life times not entering the market/casino. It is not that easy to make money @ a game, When the host of the game is set up to take money out of the players pockets. Stay in a casino long enough & most peoples pockets will become empty.


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

James you missed the whole run. I wouldn't tell people they are smart or dumb if I sat on my hands.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Just clarifying though, I didn't say the Dow would be lower. I said: "The Dow will very likely be higher in nominal terms"
> 
> The remarks about Japan are to remind people that higher stocks are not a guarantee, even by waiting 25 years. Stocks are never a guarantee, period.
> 
> ...


I don't know why you persist in downplaying stock markets as pure gambling and dumb luck when gains are made, and concentrating only on a few markets where in your chosen snap shot time frame returns have been negative. You also ignore valid points in terms of value of the investment being made in Japan at the beginning of the downturn for example. 

Being invested in N/A equity markets certainly does have something to do with knowing what you're doing. Luck helps like being born at the time this opportunity exists. Would you also say someone with a high percentage of fixed income investments is only counting on dumb luck or that their strategy over the past 20-30 years is more sound? Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows stock markets are not a guarantee. There will always be volatility and markets may not perform anywhere near like they have in the past- lower or higher. Most people understand equity markets is a calculated risk similar to most other things/activities in life. Even your revered fixed income investments should be considered "gambling" using your metrics, since there is always risk of default and loss of purchasing power. 

The last few years I've been on here reading you beat your drum against equities hasn't stopped them from advancing smartly. The time will come but it might be after some very significant gains for many. 

The only way to invest is within your comfort zone understanding the risks; with a suitable asset allocation and appropriate choice of specific investments. Period. 

Clearly not "everyone" thought China was the strongest economy stock market in the world. Plenty of folks I know would not invest there since they don't trust their economy, government and corporate governance etc.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> See, people on this board poured money into Canadian and American stocks and got lucky that those markets went up. Others who poured money into China... have lost money. That's why stocks aren't a guarantee, it's a gamble, and you have to remember that. The fact that you made lots of money on the TSX does not indicate you are smart or that your strategy is sound. It doesn't show that you know what you're doing.
> 
> It just shows that by dumb luck, you invested in markets that happened to rise instead of for example investing in the Shanghai composite.


Why do so many people invest in Cdn/US markets ... simple, past performance.

Any investment could be considered a gamble since you never really know the outcome ... holds true for cash,GICs,bonds,gold,stocks, whatever. You have to weigh out the risk/reward (or the odds if you prefer the gambling speak) for yourself.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Oldroe said:


> James you missed the whole run. I wouldn't tell people they are smart or dumb if I sat on my hands.


I think you missed the whole point of my comment. Let's say you had 3 hypothetical stock markets of the largest economies in the world

index 1: doubles in value
index 2: drops to half its value
index 3: doubles in value

(That's more or less what happened in the last few years). You happened to invest in index 1. Are you smart, or is it dumb luck?

And will you be able to repeat your "success" next time, and the next, and the next?

These will switch around inevitably over time, and on the next round it could be index 1 that gets wiped out. It's dangerous to mistake your random luck for investing intelligence.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

cainvest said:


> Why do so many people invest in Cdn/US markets ... simple, past performance.


OK so let me get this straight, you're telling me that the correct solution to the problem is just make sure you stay invested in US and Canadian stocks.

And you're saying that these will be the global outliers, that will keep going up year after year, even while other places like Japan, China (still negative after 8 years), and emerging markets go negative?

Is that right? You're telling me that two economies with some of the lowest GDP growth rates in the world, and the US with one of the largest debt burdens in the world, will continue to be the global stars perpetually?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> OK so let me get this straight, you're telling me that the correct solution to the problem is just make sure you stay invested in US and Canadian stocks.
> 
> And you're saying that these will be the global outliers, that will keep going up year after year, even while other places like Japan, China (still negative after 8 years), and emerging markets go negative?
> 
> Is that right? You're telling me that two economies with some of the lowest GDP growth rates in the world, and the US with one of the largest debt burdens in the world, will continue to be the global stars perpetually?


Based on past history .... Yes. 

However, if "you" feel that CDN/US index equities (TSX / S&P500) are not safe investments put your money somewhere else. Given the S&P500 has had an average return of 11.68% over the past 50 years (11.87% in the last 100 years) you may decide to invest in it.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> OK so let me get this straight, you're telling me that the correct solution to the problem is just make sure you stay invested in US and Canadian stocks.


you always run the same argument that has a gaping hole right in the middle ...

you stay invested in stocks because they are the best choice in a bad lot ...

you always miss the *compared to what* part james

you referenced nominal value, that is essentially inflation and the only alternatives you offer to compete with stocks are gic's and bonds which are getting _creamed_ by inflation man

this is always the disingenuous part of your argument james ... we would all like to avoid market risk but you must take it or you will _guarantee_ yourself a loss by staying with gic/bonds in the current economy

why else are taking what you acknowledge is a pure gamble on TOU ? ... you are doing it because you know you have to pop your yield


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

psst cat here's my take: he doesn't own any stocks, does our james4.

over in investor village where he writes under the username perpetualbull, our james has confided that he never shorted anything in the bust of 2008-09. What he had, he said, was a virtual account.

likewise, buying tourmaline, valeant etc is another leg-pulling stunt imho.

as for owning berkshire hathaway, *that* is rich :biggrin:

psst cat don't tell anybody i said this, OK?


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Just clarifying though, I didn't say the Dow would be lower. I said: "The Dow will very likely be higher in nominal terms"
> 
> The remarks about Japan are to remind people that higher stocks are not a guarantee, even by waiting 25 years. Stocks are never a guarantee, period.
> 
> ...


I invest primarily in first world economies with easily understood laws and economic policy. I don't understand China's laws, so why would I invest my money there? Although some people think emerging markets are great, I definitely do not.

However, I most certainly did invest in Canadian and US markets when, five years ago, they were clearly showing zero gains over 10 years. Fundamental analysis..it works.

It's most definitely not dumb luck. Canadian and US markets have a century of excellent capital markets that have made plenty of money and I see no reason why this won't continue. Some very notable investing authors, such as Jason Zweig, have been cautioning investors on overpaying for emerging markets since the 90s. I concur with this approach. 

Hard to argue with 100+ years of steady, solid wealth creation. I am confident there will be a six digit Dow within three decades.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

That's right, I traded my way through '07-'08 and then stopped shorting the market because it's crazy to fight a rising market. I haven't done any active trading for years now


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

... alas what you said on IV was that all that stuff about shorting - including the claim that you'd shorted CROCS - was make-believe. It was a virtual account only


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

You think we forget. You never shorted a market in your life. You told everybody that would listen "you new the CASH was coming"

And sat on your hands. I've called out a few frauds but your are the worst. 

And then you buy the American dream and cry like a baby.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Boy do you guys have bad attitudes. Isn't Mr. Market keeping you happy?


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

james4beach said:


> That's right, I traded my way through '07-'08 and then stopped shorting the market* because it's crazy to fight a rising market*. I haven't done any active trading for years now


If it (equities) is pure gambling then you wouldn't be positive it is "a rising market". Is shorting the market not closer to "pure gambling"? If you do own shares in BH do you think what Buffet does is "pure gambling"?

You seem determined to predict (time) and benefit from a declining market, and if it isn't declining you spend your time telling people it will, and they have only been lucky if it hasn't. All the time losing out on forward momentum....

Using your word "crazy"......

I don't get it. It's got to be painful.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

james4beach said:


> *1.* Anyone notice by the way that China's *Shanghai Composite is today -65% lower it was 7 years ago.*
> *2.* Remember how everyone thought China was the strongest economy and probably *the strongest stock market in the world?*
> *3.* It was supposed to be the greatest investment theme in the modern world, and *seven and a half years and the index still has not gone up. The horror!*
> *4.* *poured money into Canadian and American stocks and got lucky* that those markets went up. Others *who poured money into China... have lost money.*
> *5.* Boy do *you guys have bad attitudes*. Isn't Mr. Market keeping you happy?


*1.* Markets are roller-coasters, especially Chinese ones, but as usual, in most examples you bring up, you like to point out only the crashes, but not the preceding booms that explain said crashes.

As the formidable exporter/manufacturer that China is, I doubt many investors would not have taken notice of the sliding SSE & known the reasons for it. You're absolutely correct that the SSE is currently down -65% from 2007, but that is yet another extreme example of yours considering it also rose 505% between 2005 & 2007 [60% in just the last quarter before hitting a ridiculous high of 6,100+]. But as we know, when huge bubbles inevitably find the big needle, the drop is never gentle nor short-lived [note the global crisis low reached China months earlier than it did here even], and no doubt that it will take a long time for the 07 highs to be seen again. Extreme herding investing/quick rich wannabes/greed comes to mind; what's the saying, bulls/bears make money, pigs get slaughtered? I would not touch China for reasons Doctrine mentioned [fundamental weaknesses, laws, etc.], not even if it fell another 50% and back to its 2005 low, but that's not to say that I won't be looking at benefiting in various other ways, or that I haven't benefited nicely already.

*2.* Given the above mentioned, it was in fact the 3rd largest, but not surprisingly, it was not for very long.

*3.* No horror, but more like a well-deserved correction/rebalancing. Not only had the decline since 07 been influenced by the global financial crisis, but also by various significant internal factors that caused their own stomach turning Eiffel towers before and after the crisis.









*4.* In comparing NA with Chinese markets, you're comparing apples to oranges. 

*5.* It's entirely your business how you invest, but you're forever mocking others as gamblers [you're the younger version of Belguy, but even from him you could have learned good lessons], so it's you with the attitude J4B and I'm not saying this to be critical per se. One thing is to be bullish & complacent at all times [I don't think many CMFers fall in this category], but quite another to be a permabear. 

Think about how many succeed in life with perpetual pessimistic attitudes? Take any success story [not just in investing] from here/there/anywhere, and what is the common denominator? Not negativity and not pure luck either as you always seem to suggest.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

The DOW will be much much higher in 25 years. 

But it won't get there in a straight line. Buy during times of maximum pessimism.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

lonewolf said:


> Do you think the Dow Jones industrial average will be higher or lower 25 years from now ?
> 
> My bet is lower


Are you predicting a few more world wars in the meantime? Start selling the Dow on Monday....dumbest post ever.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

gt_23 said:


> Are you predicting a few more world wars in the meantime? Start selling the Dow on Monday....dumbest post ever.


 When there gets to be a high number of replies like the above it will be a strong indication of a major top.


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

Just like every other "indication" you have?


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

lonewolf said:


> When there gets to be a high number of replies like the above it will be a strong indication of a major top.


Maybe in the short term, but the long-term driver in the markets is growth, not investor psychology as you seem to imply.

Even 1-2% annual growth is still a lot of growth compounded over 25 years.

Your opinions are baseless and misguided. If you're so certain on your view, then why not wager it? I will give you 100:1 odds that DJIA is higher than 17,000 on July 29, 2039, minimum $100k bet. Now what do you say?


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

gt_23 said:


> Maybe in the short term, but the long-term driver in the markets is growth, not investor psychology as you seem to imply.
> 
> Even 1-2% annual growth is still a lot of growth compounded over 25 years.
> 
> Your opinions are baseless and misguided. If you're so certain on your view, then why not wager it? I will give you 100:1 odds that DJIA is higher than 17,000 on July 29, 2039, minimum $100k bet. Now what do you say?


 gt 23
I would put some money on the table for that. If an exchange offered those odds

If the DJIA is below 17,000 on July 29 2039 $100 on the table would give me $10,000

If the DJIA was higher then 17,000 on July 2039 I would lose my $100

Not sure if betting with you using real money is legal as well as how would we set it up so the winner was paid ?


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

Wow a whole $100 bet?That's confidence for you.I believe the "bet" was minimum $100000
Easy peasy for someone as smart as ......


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

yyz said:


> Wow a whole $100 bet?That's confidence for you.I believe the "bet" was minimum $100000
> Easy peasy for someone as smart as ......


Do ya think gt can cover the 10mil for that 100k bet?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This illustrates something interesting about betting on market declines or significant market disasters.

People and institutions tend to not bet on such things, partly because it's futile -- in such a scenario, you may not get your money. Especially in a serious market disaster, the counterparty will be insolvent.

In the marketplace for long-term bets, nearly all participants are bullish (long-only). The absence of long-term bearish bets gives the perception that nobody thinks markets will ever decline, long-term. In reality I think that a healthy number of major investors do think equities can go down, but they recognize that there is no viable way to profit on that bet.

Think of a simple European-style equity option, the kind that is only exercised at maturity -- insurance companies and Berkshire Hathaway take positions in these. Say that I think that markets will decline significantly (S&P 500 will be decimated and is lower in 10 years), and my counterparty thinks this is impossible. This is kind of a dumb bet for me to take. If markets don't crash, I lose. If markets do crash, my counterparty -- the guy who thinks a market decline is impossible -- has ruined his books, his business is in shambles, he's bleeding cash and probably filed for bankruptcy. I'll never recover the money.

Similarly what if lonewolf engages in a high stakes bet against a bullish forum member? The market declining over 20 years is a very low probability event, so the bet would have to pay out big. Well lonewolf, good luck getting your money. You'll go to the guy who lost and ask for your money, but because he leveraged into stocks and expected his home price to never decline, you find this guy is now bankrupt (or various banks are first in line for his assets, and you're out of luck).

The stock market is inherently long-only. This doesn't mean that equities can't lose, it means that everyone is screwed if that happens.


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

cainvest said:


> Do ya think gt can cover the 10mil for that 100k bet?


Do ya think Lonewolf would win?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

lonewolf said:


> If the DJIA is below 17,000 on July 29 2039 $100 on the table would give me $10,000
> If the DJIA was higher then 17,000 on July 2039 I would lose my $100


On July 29, 2039 your $100 will probably be worth the same as $1 in real term :rolleyes2:
So the bet is heavily loaded in your favor.

A more fair bet would be - _If the DJIA were higher than 17,000 on July 2039 you will give $10,000_ to the counter-party.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

yyz said:


> Do ya think Lonewolf would win?


Highly unlikely to win IMO but it *could* happen ... like an extreme market crash in 2039.
On the other side of the coin, would anyone buy a lottery ticket if you knew they couldn't pay you?


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

lonewolf said:


> gt 23
> I would put some money on the table for that. If an exchange offered those odds
> 
> If the DJIA is below 17,000 on July 29 2039 $100 on the table would give me $10,000
> ...


It doesn't have to be "legal" - it's a private agreement. 

For the record, I don't have $10mm today (who knows about 25 years down the road), but could likely put together a group that would underwrite such a wager.


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

He could purchase an insurance policy to cover the payout . I bet the premium couldn't be that much.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

HaroldCrump said:


> On July 29, 2039 your $100 will probably be worth the same as $1 in real term :rolleyes2:
> So the bet is heavily loaded in your favor.
> 
> A more fair bet would be - _If the DJIA were higher than 17,000 on July 2039 you will give $10,000_ to the counter-party.


The way a bet works, you pay up-front for the odds and receive a payout in the future if you win (kind of like a really long term option contract). If you lose, you lose your wager.

I don't take a wager on credit - the $100k is due today to consummate the wager.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Maybe the 2038 time issue will cause the crash, could be much bigger than the Y2K problem.


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

Just like Y2K ended the world as we know it as well?
Or 11-11-11? Or 12-12-12 

Simple noise that people use to get attention. I thought we were all done for in 2012 according to the Mayan calendar right? There is no end to people that will use any chart,indicator , planetary alignment, inside information their Uncle Bob gave them to come up with some type of theory conspiracy end of days scenario.Its the people that pay any attention that cause these people to perpetuate these ideas.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Who needs reality tv when you got threads like these. :biggrin:

25yrs is a long time and a lot can happen. If I had to make a prediction today I'd say higher.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

This is not entirely a bad idea...to start a time-capsule style predictions thread.
Like kcowan's yearly predictions thread on steroids (+ a healthy dose of weed).

In addition to DJIA, we can predict where gold, silver, bitcoin, oil, etc. will be in 25 years.
And since we are talking about 25 years, might as well take quotes on emerging technologies like carbon credits, rackspace, etc.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

With 100 to 1 odds I would go with the trade that gave $100 to the 1 dollar weather the trade was higher or lower.

The trade pyramid consists of the trader, market & trade. When everyone gets on one side of the trade the odds highly favour taking the other side of the trade even if you agree with everyone. Since everyone is betting on one side of the market they need someone to take the other side of the trade. The risk/reward in the market such as the option market can turn a person from rages to riches with a single trade @ historic market turns.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

fatcat said:


> you always run the same argument that has a gaping hole right in the middle ...
> 
> you stay invested in stocks because they are the best choice in a bad lot ...
> 
> ...



Sometimes it is best not to invest. Just because everyone wants to pop their yield does not make it there right for the market to comply & make them rich. In this game your playing with some of the most power full richest men in the world. This game was not set up to make everyone rich. If money was not being sucked out of the retail investor do you think there would be a market ? It takes a lot of money to keep the market well oiled.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

lonewolf said:


> Sometimes it is best not to invest. Just because everyone wants to pop their yield does not make it there right for the market to comply & make them rich. In this game your playing with some of the most power full richest men in the world. This game was not set up to make everyone rich. If money was not being sucked out of the retail investor do you think there would be a market ? It takes a lot of money to keep the market well oiled.


I rarely understand where you're coming from or going, but your posts are frequently entertaining to read. 

Pop your yield, market to comply to make them rich, game was not set up, keep the market well oiled.........???????


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

bull it's a question of aura, you're either in his aura or you're not

i can say that lonewolf is pretty good with options even though the language can be a tad high-flown ...


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Thanks hp. 

Obviously I'm not there with the aura or with options. Not sure if I want or need to be but enjoy reading anyhow.


----------

