vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Why wouldn't you expect a long-term profit?  Say you buy 100 shares of company X, selling for$1/share today.  You hold it for 20 years, after which it's worth $10/share (in inflation-adjusted dollars).  So you've made a profit, only making two trades (buy & sell).  What the algorithmic traders have done with short-term trades during those 20 years is irrelevant to you. Now expand the idea.  You want some diversification, so instead of one stock, you buy a bit of all the stocks on whatever index interests you, and you just hold them for the same 20 years.  How has what the short-term traders done in the intervening time affected you?
In the short term the market is a popularity contest In the short run which in value investing time can extend even to many years, an equity is subject to the vicissitudes of the whims by every scale of panic and elation. This can be seen by examining the daily chart of any large cap equity in the US.  Even such large holdings can be affected by any set of fear and greed in the market and in the subset of traders trading the equity. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience high variance in the short rurn. in the long term [the stock market] is a weighing machine In the long run which in value investing time can extend to even multiple decades, an equity is more or less subject only to the variance of the underlying value. This can be seen by examining the annual chart of even the smallest cap equities over decades.  An equity over such time periods is almost exclusively affected by its changes in value. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience low variance in the long run.
"I would start with long term data. It would show how 40 years worth of stock investing puts the investor so far ahead of the ""safe"" investor that they can afford to lose half and still be ahead. But - then I would explain about asset allocation, and how the soon to be retired person had better be properly allocated if they weren't all along so that the impact of down years is mitigated. The retiree is still a long term investor as life spans of 90 are common.  Look at the long term charts for the major indexes. So long as you average in, reinvest earnings (dividends) and stay diversified, you will be ahead. The market is still not where it was at the end of 2001, but in the decade, our worth has risen from 5X our income to 12.5X. This was not genius, just a combination of high savings and not panicking."
Ok, see that was my thinking too.  Historically, stocks and land values have always gone up, even after the depression.  So, it seems to me, that if you have a buy and hold strategy with a horizon of 10-20 years, then you should be fine.  Is my thinking realistic along those lines?
In Australia we have a 50% capital gain discount if you hold the asset for more than 12 months, whether it is in shares, property or other assets. The main reason is to encourage people to invest long-term instead of speculating or trading. The government sees speculation or short term trading as more risky than long term investing for the everyday mum and dad investor, so rewards people it sees taking the lower risk long term view. In my opinion, long term investing, short term trading and speculation can all be risky for someone who is unedutated in the financial markets, and the first rule of investing should be to consider the asset itself and not the tax implications.
"Remind yourself that markets recover, usually within a few years. If you believe this and can remind yourself of this, you will be able to see the down cycles of the market as an opportunity to buy stock ""on sale"". No one knows the future, so many people have found investing on a regular schedule to be helpful. By putting in the same amount of money each period, you will end up buying fewer shares when the market is up, and more when it is down. As long as your time horizon is appropriate, you should be able to wait out the ups and downs. Stocks are volatile by their very nature, so if you find that you are very concerned by this, you might want to consider whether you should adjust the amount of risk in your investments, since over time, most people lose money by trying to ""time"" the market. However, if your investment goals and requirements haven't changed, there likely isn't any need to change the types of assets you are investing in, as what you are choosing to invest in should depend on your personal situation. Edit: I am assuming you want to be a long-term investor and owner, making money by owning a portion of companies' profits, and not by trading stocks and/or speculation."
Some people simply do not care who is president, if they think / invest longterm.   For example the value of a company = Sum of all discounted cash flows from now until eternity. 4 years are not that long compared to eternity.
"Congratulations on a solid start. Here are my thoughts, based on your situation: Asset Classes I would recommend against a long-term savings account as an investment vehicle. While very safe, the yields will almost always be well below inflation. Since you have a long time horizon (most likely at least 30 years to retirement), you have enough time to take on more risk, as long as it's not more than you can live with. If you are looking for safer alternatives to stocks for part of your investments, you can also consider investment-grade bonds/bond funds, or even a stable value fund. Later, when you are much closer to retirement, you may also want to consider an annuity. Depending on the interest rate on your loan, you may also be able to get a better return from paying down your loan than from putting more in a savings account. I would recommend that you only keep in a savings account what you expect to need in the next few years (cushion for regular expenses, emergency fund, etc.). On Stocks Stocks are riskier but have the best chance to outperform versus inflation over the long term. I tend to favor funds over individual stocks, mostly for a few practical reasons. First, one of the goals of investing is to diversify your risk, which produces a more efficient risk/reward ratio than a group of stocks that are highly correlated. Diversification is easier to achieve via an index fund, but it is possible for a well-educated investor to stay diversified via individual stocks. Also, since most investors don't actually want to take physical possession of their shares, funds will manage the shares for you, as well as offering additional services, such as the automatic reinvestments of dividends and tax management. Asset Allocation It's very important that you are comfortable with the amount of risk you take on. Investment salespeople will prefer to sell you stocks, as they make more commission on stocks than bonds or other investments, but unless you're able to stay in the market for the long term, it's unlikely you'll be able to get the market return over the long term.
When you start investing makes a very large difference to the outcome, but that is on the time scale of what generation you were born into, not what week you choose to open your 401(k).  As you note in your last sentence, there is nothing that you can do about this, so there is no point in worrying about it. If you could successfully market time successfully, then that would make a difference even at smaller time scales.  But you probably can't, so there is no point in worrying about that either. As BrenBarn points out, your statement about not regaining their net worth until 2013 applies to someone who invested a lump sum at the 2007 peak, not to someone who invested continuously throughout.   By my calculation, if you started continuously investing in a broad market index at the peak (around Jun 4, 2007), you would have recovered your net worth (relative to investing in a safe instrument that merely kept up with inflation, a hard thing to find these days) around April 12, 2010.  I've done the computation on each business day because that is easier, so it might be slightly worse if do the periodic investment on each payday which is much more realist for a 401(k). (And of course if you need to preserve/recover you net worth in 3 years, you shouldn't be in stocks in the first place)
Is the Grant Date or the Vest Date used when determining the 12-month cutoff for long-term and short-term capital gains? You don't actually acquire the stock until it's vested, so that is the date and price used to determine your cost basis and short-term/long-term gain/loss.  The grant date really has no tax bearing. If you held the stock (time between vesting and sale) for more than one year you will owe long-term CG tax, if less than one year you will owe short-term CG tax.
The time horizon applicable to the price target is always specified by the broker or bank which published the research report.  You will find this information in the disclaimer, which is present on every research report. Usually it is 12 months, but some firms give 6 months price targets. However, you should never rely on the price target alone and always combine it with the following details (to name a few): Are the analyst's estimate above or below consensus estimates (or company guidance), did the analyst rise or lower its estimates. What is the rating on the stock (Buy, Sell, Hold...), when did he change his rating or price target.  Does the firm do business with the company? (which may influence a bullish tone and optimistic price target).
This is a somewhat complicated question because it really depends on your personal situation.  For example, the following parameters might impact your optimal asset allocation: If you need the money before 3 years, I would suggest keeping almost all of it in cash, CDs, Treasuries, and ultra safe short-term corporate bonds. If however, you have a longer time horizon (and since you're in your 30s you would ideally have decades) you should diversify by investing in many different asset classes.  This includes Australian equity, international equity, foreign and domestic debt, commodities, and real estate.  Since you have such a long time horizon market timing is not that important.
While historical performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance, I like to look at the historical performance of the markets for context. Vanguard's portfolio allocation models is one source for this data. Twenty years is a long term timeline. If you're well diversified in passively managed index funds, you should be positioned well for the future.  You've lost nothing until it's realized or you sell. Meanwhile, you still own an asset that has value. As Warren Buffet says, buy low and sell high.
I assume you mean Stock Mutual funds.  2008 wasn't that long ago. Down 37%. 07/08 combined were down 34%, or 07/09 down 20%.  The point of the long term is that over time, a decade will almost ensure a positive return.  2 years is too short, in my opinion.
Similarly, too much long term investment seems unproductive, but what would be too much? In 1900, the life expectancy of someone in the United States was less than 50.  It is now in the 70s.  My grandparents were born around that time and all lived into their 80s and 90s.  Life expectancy in India is currently about 66.  You should expect that to increase into the 70s if not the 80s in the next fifty years.   You should plan on living until 120.  Why?  If you die earlier than that, you may have wasted some money that you could have used for a better living standard.  However, if you do live that long and you spent all your savings by the time that you were 66, you'll have a hard retirement.  You've already said that you won't have descendants to take care of you.  You'll need your investments to do so.  You need long term investments more than someone with a family, not less.   You need to able to afford a house for retirement.  You need to be able to maintain it, buy food, etc. on your savings.  In order to be sure it lasts, you need to build your long term investments until they produce a steady income that comes close to matching your preretirement income.   There are some costs that you won't have in retirement.  You won't need to save for retirement.  You won't need to commute to work.  So your retirement income doesn't need to support that.   If I were you, I'd save like everyone else until income from investments matched my current expenses minus commuting.  At that time, you can readjust.   Overall, you are far more likely not to save enough than too much.  I wouldn't worry about oversaving in your twenties.  No one actually does so.
"If you're investing for the long term your best strategy is going to be a buy-and-hold strategy, or even just buying a few index funds in several major asset classes and forgetting about it. Following ""market conditions"" is about as useful to the long term trader as checking the weather in Anchorage, Alaska every day (assuming that you don't live in Anchorage, Alaska). Let me suggest treating yourself to a subscription to The Economist and read it once a week. You'll learn a lot more about investing, economics, and world trends, and you won't be completely in the dark if there are major structural changes in the world (like gigantic housing bubbles) that you might want to know about."
The advice to invest in yourself is good advice. But the stock market can be very rewarding over the long pull. You have about 45 years to retirement now and that is plenty long enough that each dollar put into the market now will be many dollars then. A simple way to do this might be to open a brokerage account at a reputable broker and put a grand into a very broad based all market ETF and then doing nothing with it. The price of the ETF will go up and down with the usual market gyrations, but over the decades it will grow nicely. Make sure the ETF has low fees so that you aren't being overcharged.   It's good that you are thinking about investing at a young age. A rational and consistent investment strategy will lead to wealth over the long pull.
Investing for your future through stocks isn’t for the faint of heart. While there are stocks that can withstand our volatile market, there are few that can guarantee their business will still be a business 20 or 30 years from now. [Compound Stock Earnings](http://www.compoundstockearnings.com) Report Benigans would always be with us, but they no longer exist.
In 1929 the Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked at roughly 390 just prior to the Great Depression. It did not return to that level again until 25 years later in 1954. 25 years is a long time to go without any returns, especially if you are a retiree. There is no easy answer with investing. Trying to time the tops and bottoms is widely regarded as a foolhardy endeavor, but whenever you invest you expose yourself to the possibility of this scenario. The only thing I highly recommend is not to base your decision on the historical returns from 1975 to 2000 that the other answers have presented. These returns can be explained by policy changes that many are coming to understand are unsustainable. The growth of our debt, income inequality, and monetary manipulation by central banks are all reasons to be skeptical of future returns.
I usually trade in the medium to long term, however I let the market decide how long I am in a position and when I get out of it. I try to follow the trend and stay in a position as long as the trend continues. I put automatic stop losses on all my positions, so if the market turns against me I am automatically taken out. I can be in a position for as little as a day (can happen if I buy one day and the next day the stock falls by 15% or more) to over a year (as long as the trend continues). By doing this I avoid the daily market noise and let my profits run and keep my losses small. No matter what instrument you end up trading and the time frame you choose to trade in, you should always have a tested trading plan and a risk management strategy in place. These are the areas you should first gain knowledge in to further your pursuits in trading.
"No, 90% of investors do not lose money. 90% or even larger percentage of ""traders"" lose money. Staying invested in stock market over the long term will almost always be profitable if you spread your investments across different companies or even the index but the key here is long term which is 10+ years in any emerging market and even longer in developed economies where yields will be a lot lower but their currencies will compensate over time if you are an international investor."
You're not seeing the forest for the trees.    Proper capital allocation takes diligent research from a community in choosing the best prospects.  That community then supports LONG-TERM investment in that company.  This is how proper companies are fostered; proper research is done; technologies advance, societies develop.  Long-term investment leads to proper capital allocation.  Please do tell me how short-term investment has any value in proper capital allocation.
You are only 33, with plenty of time to generate long-term returns. A correction is an opportunity for you to buy more at a lower price. My advice: invest about half in an index fund (S&P 500, for example) and half in a target fund (pick your retirement age), keep saving regularly, and in 30 years you'll be very happy you did. 5-10K a month is fine until all of the money is invested. (You said this is a retirement account, so invest the entire amount. Keep a rainy day fund in your non-retirement savings.) You can fiddle around with how you invest the money and I'm sure you'll get variations on my answer. My above suggestions may not be the absolute best option, but they are certainly not the worst option. Given that you are very risk-averse, keep in mind that you are in this for the long term and should be investing in something where you can safely ignore short-term downswings.
For now, park it in a mix of cash and short term bond funds like the Vanguard Short Term Investment Grade fund. The short term fund will help with the inflation issue. Make sure the cash positions are FDIC insured. Then either educate yourself about investing or start interviewing potential advisors. Look for referrals, and stay away from people peddling annuities or people who will not fully disclose how they get paid. Your goal should be to have a long-term plan within 6-12 months.
"Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors:  ""Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)"" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock ""winners"", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run."
I researched quite a bit around this topic, and it seems that this is indeed false. Long ter asset growth does not converge to the compound interest rate of expected return. While it is true that standard deviations of annualized return decrease over time, because the asset value itself changes over time, the standard deviations of the total return actually increases.      Thus, it is wrong to say that you can take increased risk because you have a longer time horizon.  Source
First, keep about six months' expenses in immediately-available form (savings account or similar). Second, determine how long you expect to hold on to the rest of it.  What's your timeframe for buying a house or starting a family?  This determines what you should do with the rest of it. If you're buying a house next year, then a CD (Certificate of Deposit) is a reasonable option; low-ish interest reate, but something, probably roughly inflation level, and quite safe - and you can plan things so it's available when you need it for the down payment. If you've got 3-5 years before you want to touch this money, then invest it in something reasonably safe.  You can find reasonable funds that have a fairly low risk profile - usually a combination of stock and bonds - with a few percent higher rate of return on average.  Still could lose money, but won't be all that risky. If you've got over five years, then you should probably invest them in an ETF that tracks a large market sector - in the US I'd suggest VOO or similar (Vanguard's S&P 500 fund), I'm sure Australia has something similar which tracks the larger market.  Risky, but over 5+ years unlikely to lose money, and will likely have a better rate of return than anything else (6% or higher is reasonable to expect).  Five years is long enough that it's vanishingly unlikely to lose money over the time period, and fairly likely to make a good return. Accept the higher risk here for the greater return; and don't cringe when the market falls, as it will go up again.  Then, when you get close to your target date, start pulling money out of it and into CDs or safer investments during up periods.
"When asking about rate of return it is imperative to specify the time period. Average over all time? Average over the last 10 years? I've heard a good rule of thumb is 8-10% on average for all stocks over all time. That may be overstated now given the current economic climate. You can also look up fund sheets/fact sheets for major index funds. Just Google ""SPY fund sheet"" or ""SPY fact sheet"". It will tell you the annualized % return over a few different periods."
The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent -John Maynard Keynes The stocks could stagnate and trade in a thin range, or decline in value. You assume that your stocks will offer you ANY positive return for every month over 24 months. Just one month of negative returns puts you underwater. Thats whats wrong with it.  Even if you identified any stock that has been up every month for a consecutive 24 months in the past, there is nothing that says it will be so in the future, and a broad market selloff will effect both indexes as well as individual stocks.  Literally any adverse macroeconomic event in the next two years will put you underwater on your loan, no matter how much research you do on individual stocks.
The standard answer on any long term stock is hold on during the rough times.  You have not lost anything until you sell.  If your concern is just that you are not certain where the stock price is headed, unless you need the money now and can not afford to hold on to the stock then I would hold it.
"Good for you! At your age, you should definitely consider investing some of your hard-earned and un-needed money in stocks with the long-term goal of having your retirement funded. The time horizon that you'd have would be vastly superior to that of millions of others, who will wait until their thirties or even forties to begin investing in stocks, giving your compound interest prospects the extra time anyone needs for a spectacular vertical incline in your later years. Make sure to sign up to automatically re-invest the dividend payouts of your stocks, please. (If you don't already know how being young and investing well in your early years is more powerful than starting out ten to twenty years later, do a little research on ""Compound Interest""). Make sure you monitor your investments. Being young means you have time to correct your investments (sell and buy other assets) if the businesses you initially selected are no longer good investments."