Positive expectancy to being long stocks.
- Thread starter areyoukidding?
- Start date
Go back and read the Motley Fool stuff from the late 90s to right before the crash. See what they considered the good names.
They said Cisco at any price and had a nation believing them.
John Bogle came out and said for Cisco to justify its P.E. it would have to be larger than Japan within 10 years.
Motley Fool guys said Bogle did not understand. I made one comment explaining how stupid the Fools were and got shouted down.
Was AOL a good name. How emc, lucent, intc, msft, nt.
Good names are guesses in the long run. How about, coke, mcd, gm, ford.
Go back and see who were the top names in 60s and 70s. many of them are out of business.
They said Cisco at any price and had a nation believing them.
John Bogle came out and said for Cisco to justify its P.E. it would have to be larger than Japan within 10 years.
Motley Fool guys said Bogle did not understand. I made one comment explaining how stupid the Fools were and got shouted down.
Was AOL a good name. How emc, lucent, intc, msft, nt.
Good names are guesses in the long run. How about, coke, mcd, gm, ford.
Go back and see who were the top names in 60s and 70s. many of them are out of business.
i get your point, its just for a 10 year horizon or more you have to be long stocks and real estate. that doesnt mean you buy them at the top though.
But you did breakeven. So you didnt lose. And that doesnt take into account what would have happened if you averaged down.
Once again proving Just Buy Stocks, you cannot lose.
well said....everything is an opportunity cost. why have your $$$ tied up long term in a poorly timed investment when you could be making it work for you now?
so if you buy stocks and real estate right now is it the top? figuring that out is the hard part.