‘I’m 100% in equities. … You’re never going to make enough money if you have 40% of your money in bo

[murray t turtle]

Becky is a smart girl and I wouldn't bet against her... matter of fact myself have been all-in since around 2005, before which bonds actually provided reasonable yields.

you need an accurate count of long/short among the dumb money.... individual stories like this are not indicators...

there are indicators out there... google trends, twitter trends etc..

%%
40% bonds seems excessive. Art Cashin sometimes has some good cash trends remarks. Becky Quick is quicker+ better looking.Mr Cashin missed much of the uptrend this year; but may be right on a pullback this March, 2020?? [Source CNBC internet , after hours;not CNBC TV live] LOL................................................................................

 

[henry76]

She maybe smart but it was a stupid thing to say.

 

[2FT]

Correction: you are never going to make big money if you have 100% in a balanced equities portfolio.

 

[Saltynuts]

Correction: you are never going to make big money if you have 100% in a balanced equities portfolio.

What do you mean by balanced equities portfolio 2FT? Thanks!

 

[2FT]

SPY



I was wrong to not mention leverage though. My point was that unless you are levered, being "all in equities" in the traditional balanced portfolio sense will take a long time make you rich, unless you already are rich, in which case it just makes you richer. Eventually, you will have to put half what you have into a hopeful 10 bagger, or a 20 bagger, to get rich. Or several compounded 5 baggers over a few years. Whatever.

So when someone says "you are never going to make enough with 40% in bonds", they are right. But you are never going to make enough having 100% in unlevered SPY either. Unless you already are rich, or have a lot of time. Retiring rich at 65 is like a silver medal. The first of the losers.

ps, in case you didn't notice, the secret to getting rich is already being rich, and being prepared to risk half of it to get much richer. If you lose half, who cares, you are still rich. It's the first part of this plan which is hardest.

 

[Saltynuts]

SPY



I was wrong to not mention leverage though. My point was that unless you are levered, being "all in equities" in the traditional balanced portfolio sense will take a long time make you rich, unless you already are rich, in which case it just makes you richer. Eventually, you will have to put half what you have into a hopeful 10 bagger, or a 20 bagger, to get rich. Or several compounded 5 baggers over a few years. Whatever.

So when someone says "you are never going to make enough with 40% in bonds", they are right. But you are never going to make enough having 100% in unlevered SPY either. Unless you already are rich, or have a lot of time. Retiring rich at 65 is like a silver medal. The first of the losers.

ps, in case you didn't notice, the secret to getting rich is already being rich, and being prepared to risk half of it to get much richer. If you lose half, who cares, you are still rich. It's the first part of this plan which is hardest.

Ah, got it 2FT. Thanks!

 

[S2007S]

Who cares? If you are a Musk fan and bought TSLA after IPO you would be up 20X, laughing all the way to the bank.

Actually reminded me of AAPL after Jobs took it back.

I'm going to short starting monday. Tsla is trading like a tech company when it's an auto company.

 

[ironchef]

I'm going to short starting monday. Tsla is trading like a tech company when it's an auto company.

I will loan you my TSLA stocks to short.

Just kidding. I don't own TSLA, should have, could have.