earnings yield... not div yield.
Hello,
I would love to hear the opinion of you guys about how to invest $900K today.
Let say I'm in my mid 40s, one child on the way, no propriety or homes, 110K in a traditional IRA and an health condition that it might allows to let me work for no more than 10 years.
I have tried briefly with day-trading and swing trading as side of my job, but results were definitely not encouraging and don't want to burn more cash.
I asked a financial advisor but her annual fee would be way more than the annual health insurance premium or the kindergarten annual fee!!
How you guys would employ the cash I have?....Any suggestions would be really appreciated.
Not sure where you’re getting the idea that stocks are better value relative to bonds if earnings yield is greater than bond yields.. the difference you’re seeing is the risk premium embedded in stocks.
If yields are equal that’s a sign of macro-level price dislocation.. getting an equal return from an instrument regarded as closest thing to a risk free investment vs. stock indexes that have shown the propensity for 50%+ drawdowns is nowhere near equal value.
Your premise is devoid of an understanding of things like the value provided by reduction in volatility drag.. or increased stability of future caah flows, just to name a few. Optimal investing is a lot more sophisticated than just seeking the highest annual return you can find in a vacuum imo.
For a risk neutral party that is certainly true. Just like it's true that buying a deep OTM call on a random liquid stock is the same as buying a bond if you're considering risk adjusted returns....the volatility of the call (massive drawback) is canceled by the potentially high return (massive positive). Markets are pretty efficient when it comes to risk adjusted return, so you can really make this argument about almost any asset vs any other. However it doesn't make the assets equivalent when it comes to parties who are more risk averse than risk neutral, which would presumably include the OP with their $900K nest egg.the volatility (a draw back) is canceled by the growth rate (a positive).... that's the idea behind the fed model, which says the SP forward earning yield should roughly equal the 10-year yield.
For a risk neutral party that is certainly true. Just like it's true that buying a deep OTM call on a random liquid stock is the same as buying a bond if you're considering risk adjusted returns....the volatility of the call (massive drawback) is canceled by the potentially high return (massive positive). Markets are pretty efficient when it comes to risk adjusted return, so you can really make this argument about almost any asset vs any other. However it doesn't make the assets equivalent when it comes to parties who are more risk averse than risk neutral, which would presumably include the OP with their $900K nest egg.
investing in markets is not easier than trading the marketsHello,
I would love to hear the opinion of you guys about how to invest $900K today.
Let say I'm in my mid 40s, one child on the way, no propriety or homes, 110K in a traditional IRA and an health condition that it might allows to let me work for no more than 10 years.
I have tried briefly with day-trading and swing trading as side of my job, but results were definitely not encouraging and don't want to burn more cash.
I asked a financial advisor but her annual fee would be way more than the annual health insurance premium or the kindergarten annual fee!!
How you guys would employ the cash I have?....Any suggestions would be really appreciated.
For a risk neutral party that is certainly true. Just like it's true that buying a deep OTM call on a random liquid stock is the same as buying a bond if you're considering risk adjusted returns....the volatility of the call (massive drawback) is canceled by the potentially high return (massive positive). Markets are pretty efficient when it comes to risk adjusted return, so you can really make this argument about almost any asset vs any other. However it doesn't make the assets equivalent when it comes to parties who are more risk averse than risk neutral, which would presumably include the OP with their $900K nest egg.