Here’s the thing about stock markets: if you think it’s inflated or there’s a bubble, great, you can pull your money out. But then you look around and try to figure out a better place to put your money long term, and where does that bring you?

Back to the stock market.

▲

achierius 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What is this supposed to mean? Yes, people are unhappy with the choice of "high risk of losing 1/2 of your savings at an inopportune moment" and "watch it all decay away thanks to our inherently inflationary regime".

	▲	10000truths 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> high risk of losing 1/2 of your savings at an inopportune moment Operative word being moment. The volatility is irrelevant if you wait it out long enough, hence "long term". If you need a shorter term low-risk investment vehicle, that's what treasury bills/notes are for. > watch it all decay away thanks to our inherently inflationary regime Any alternative investment strategy is equally affected by inflation.

▲

bee_rider 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

These days canned food often seems like a good investment

▲

koolba 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Back to the stock market.

It’s a very different calculus when nominal bonds are paying 5% and TIPS are paying 2.6% above inflation.

The nowhere to go but the stocks holds more water when the ten year was paying 0.55%.

	▲	greyface- 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> TIPS are paying 2.6% above inflation. 2.6% above CPI. Investor calculus should include a consideration of how CPI is set vs what their actual personal rate of inflation will be.

▲

zeroonetwothree 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you think it will go down you can short the market.

If you think it will go up just more slowly well that’s hardly all that bad?

▲

MuffinFlavored 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is this the answer for citizens of countries other than America? I don't think it is.

▲

therobots927 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You say that like “stock market” = the US stock market.

It doesn’t. And the smart money recognized this a couple years ago. You’ve been presented with a false dichotomy.

▲

deadbabe 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Is there a better stock market than the US stock market?

▲

eftychis 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To augment sibling replies: depends on one's, subjective and highly personal, portfolio and financial strategy. But U.S. has a strong stock market(s).

▲

missingcolours 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

VXUS is up almost twice the S&P 500 year over year, although some of that is likely the weakening of the dollar.

	▲	FreakLegion 37 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Compare them over the last 5 or 10 or 15 years. Since VXUS's inception the S&P has outperformed it by over 7x.
	▲	aynyc 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Going back how’s many years? I checked recently and VTI easily out perform in the last 5 years.
	▲	cesarvarela 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You should also compare risk, not just returns.

▲

mylifeandtimes 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

depends what decade you are talking about.

▲

scarmig 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not really, but diversification often useful; it reduces variance, which is a common goal. And there have been decades (e.g. 2000-2010) where international stocks outperformed American ones.

▲

therobots927 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

VEA. Look it up. Europe, Hong Kong, etc have been outperforming the US for over a year now.

Google the ticker and compare to VTI then get back to me. And that’s without even mentioning gold.

	▲	no_wizard 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		My VT shares have risen in bear direct proportion to VTIs relative underperformance. The main difference is the international exposure of VT.
	▲	deadbabe 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I did, and I see most years it has not beaten VTI… and if you invested 10k in them for the past 10 years VTI is near 2.5x more money. May be worth it for diversification, but you’d be very lucky if it outperformed the next 10 years.

▲

Mistletoe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If we judge it by the lost decade after the 2000 tech bubble definitely not back to stocks.

A portfolio of things like gold, small cap value, long term treasuries did 10% a year while stocks did like 0% a year for a decade.

https://portfoliocharts.com/2021/12/16/three-secret-ingredie...

▲

deadbabe 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

you cannot cherry pick, you must judge stocks over multiple decade long trends.

▲

Imustaskforhelp 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes but also nobody's absolutely forcing you to keep your money if you feel like stocks are in turbulence

In fact you win even more if you feel like stocks are bubbly and wait in say gold or short term and you buy more stocks when they are cheap

Also US stocks have underperformed compared to EU when you take all factors into account and all US stocks have rather been focused on AI hype which once again is a bubble which will fundamentally break the US economy.

It's like saying 2008 crisis still made you money long term

Sure if you are 20 years deep and even then nobody could've predicted what happened. The sentiments were extremely low

I am one of the biggest index funds advisors usually and that's when I read finance books and wanted to go into finance but genuinely felt like index funds are just so great that the need is very low

In fact I must admit that I dislike saying Gold but its genuinely one of the best assets (although it may be overvalued now not sure), another investment is specifically globalize your index fund portfolio to extreme/exclude US. In fact if possible bet on index funds on the opposite side of AI which most likely feels gold and yes, I am a little sad about this fact but rules of the game changes at points of extremes so gold is valid option right now

▲

andsoitis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> you buy more stocks when they are cheap

but they are unlikely to be cheaper in the future than they are right now (https://www.guggenheiminvestments.com/advisor-resources/inte...).

so if you have the money but defer buying them, you lose out on the time value of money.

▲

Imustaskforhelp 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I understand this but realize that there are dips of almost 25%

I invest in Index funds for peace of mind as well. That the market remains reasonably happy/sad and I can be for the long run.

People discount this fact but imagine your concerns if you feel like 25% of your savings just evaporated because a guy ten layers detached from you burnt all the money on AI compute and there is no moat (Ahem ahem)

If you don't want peace of mind, people should angel invest or build their own side hustles but then you are getting some savings anyway and its better to invest than keep it in banks (once you have a safe amount saved)

But if you are saving money and still facing 25% crisis. Yeah...

I understand where you are coming from but if you can expect a 50-75% dip in market this time (some companies are 2-5x overvalued just because they slap AI, their P/E ratio's straight up just don't make any sense at all!)

So if you are willing to consider such dip for unforseen amount of time for unforseen returns in future when you can get a pretty safe investment for X amount of years being very liquid and historically in such times there are times when bond prices have been larger than stock prices

If I remember correctly, Intelligent Investors suggests an intelligent approach towards this (in one of the starting chapters of the book)

	▲	deadbabe 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		P/E ratios rarely seem to make sense and yet people have been making money for a long time buying stocks with crazy P/E.

▲

therobots927 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What’s no longer outperforming? Gold?

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]