re: Apparently, stocks only lose value and never regain or exceed declines.

quote:

---

If you are 65 years old and your current portfolio asset allocation is such that you experience 100% of the decline or gain in the equities Market you're a fricking idiot

---

This ... my wife and I are both past 65 and using our Vanguard IRAs to supplement our Social Security, and we do not live lavishly.

I'm not going to get into the argument about who's right or wrong here, I said in an earlier post that Trump (who I didn't vote for, not because I had an ounce of use for Kamala Harris, but because I never have been a fan of populism, flame away but I'm going to be honest and own it) deserves the right to try what he said he was going to do and if it works, wonderful and if it doesn't, this country has weathered worse disruptions.

But we're hanging even right now because at this point in our lives we're not all in stocks, and no one our age should be and all these people saying they've been completely wiped out makes me wonder how long it's been since they looked at their asset allocations or if they have ever looked at them, either personally after educating themselves on things or in concert with an adviser.

We are at a net 53% bonds and 39% stocks in two funds, Wellington and Wellesley, and 8% cash although we're gambling a little and using Short Term Investment Grade Bonds as our cash fund instead of a Money Market account. More power to people who are buying, buying, buying, but that ship has sailed for us at this stage.

We're of course uneasy and hoping this gets worked out sooner than later but I don't think we're going to end up destitute, and this reinforces the need for people to be cognizant of their retirement accounts ... especially as they approach that age ... and not just look at the bottom line number "How much have I got," and make adjustments during that approach because ultimately it's their responsibility, no one else's.

That's the whole point of an IRA or a 401(k), it belongs to you and you have to take care of it.

quote:

---

quote:

Roger, as your friend I ask you to take a step back and read your own posts. We all know you hate Trump and "muh populism". But your hatred for Trump is making you make idiotic assertions that are for the lack of a better term, retarded

There's honestly no recovering from his post in this thread. If I were him I'd just have to quit the fricking board. LOL

---

quote:

---

Even if they regain value, you still lost on your rate of return.

---

No, you didn't. Your rate of return is the difference between the sell price and buy price based on the buy price.

Your "return rate" is hypothetical until you sell. It doesn't exist.

If you by stock at 100. It goes to 200 and then back to 150 where you sell, your rate of return is 50%. You did not lose 50% on your rate of return because you could have possibly sold it for higher at an earlier date.

You're basing your argument around imaginary numbers. That 100% rate of return never existed in reality, and you can't lose something that never existed. That's as dumb as a gambler winning $10k, losing $2k of it, pocketing $8k profit and then crying about losing $2k. It was never real.

I'm sure your "you're losing imaginary money" argument scares the weakest of us, but for those of us who've seen the market rise and fall several times, it's just another day.

quote:

---

OMG lol. Ignorance on full display people.

---

Dude ran like a bitch and still has the balls to be in other threads acting like he has ANY frickING IDEA what he's talking about.

quote:

---

No, you didn't. Your rate of return is the difference between the sell price and buy price based on the buy price.

---

What you're describing is simply your percentage gain. Your Rate of Return is the difference between the sell price and buy price based on the buy price over a specific period of time and usually on an annual basis. Rate is right in the name, so time has to matter here, and it's going to take time to get back to where it was before.

Which means that this self-inflicted setback will almost surely affect almost everyone's (who's not in a massive short position) rate of return because of the new starting point moving forward, unless the market reverses course and returns to where it would otherwise be much faster than anyone is expecting.

quote:

---

what in the actual frick are you talking about? I mean seriously what in the frick

---

quote:

---

Corinthians420

---

same guy who thinks snow white made a profit.

quote:

---

same guy who thinks snow white made a profit

---

did he really say that?

quote:

---

could have sold higher than 80 had the market not fallen

---

And if my Aunt had balls she would be my Uncle (I know, this is not what you believe today). I didn't know that the market was supposed to only go up. There are winners and losers everyday in the market.

quote:

---

Imagine all the 65+ year olds that were about to retire. They just lost 10-12% of their retirement in 3 months.

---

If all your money is tied up in the stock market at 65, you should fire your financial planner. By that point, your money should be insulated from changes in the stock market with government bonds. If you had a million dollars earning 4%, that is nearly 40k in interest alone. Couple that with taking social security at 65, depending on your income, you have about another 50k a year in income. That 90k should be plenty for a couple to live on.