Maybe Vanguard folks are now feeling vindicated for their long term capital market forecast
1 Like
They may, they may not 
There are many scenarios where the next 10 years may see the S&P500 give 2-3% annualised.
Now if you want a GOOD LAUGH picture US policymakers kick non-US investors off IBKR, Iāll be exactly like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0lV6uMtcz8
1 Like
Hereās a funky mind-copulating thought I had last night: āif one stacks cash in anticipation for a fall in the market, or is planning to raid emergency funds to buy a dip, it makes no sense that they donāt just sell right nowā.
1 Like
I agree that if you have decided to stop buying stocks and accumulate cash in anticipation of a crash, then you probably ought to sell some stocks if you want to be perfectly rational and logical.
However humans are not logical nor rational. I for one have a rule that I will ānever sellā my equity exposure to avoid the potentially catastrophic risk of panic selling during a downturn. So for me to implement a reduction in equity exposure, my only option is to cease investing and hoard cash. (Iām not doing this though, itās just for argumentās sake)
5 Likes
Youāre exactly on point. I consider myself very pragmatic and rational, so do my family, friends and coworkers, however I felt I caught myself doing something illogical by saving cash - never stopped saving - since last June, since I did and still do believe in a crash, first due to P/E and now increasingly due to volatility in a euphoric market which, in my opinion, just needs a few sparks to burn up.
I plugged it all into gold last Monday but mostly thinking itāll run up counter to a dip in stocks so Iāll plug it in stocks when that happens. Have set some sell X/buy VWRL targets for VWRL which is my main investment.
Same, I donāt plan to ever be uninvested, if anything the only thing that stopped me selling is the idea that I am giving away dividends.
Wrong.
You hedge the fall of the market by stashing cash. If it crash, you have cash to buy it, if it doesnāt, you have your ETFs.
Thereās no real right or wrong, other than panic selling.
Edit: theoreticians will come and talk nebulous things like opportunity cost.
Edit 2: hedging I agree with conceptually, but in reality it also depends on the portfolioās size and saving rate. If one can save 2,000/month and their portfolio is 500k then the āhedgeā is not a hedge, itās peanuts.
2 Likes
I heard that argument before, and I donāt think it plays fair.
If you were 100% sure thereās a crash coming, you should be selling all stocks, and it would be illogical to still keep some. But you cantāt be 100% sure, everyone is guessing what will happen, and in that case, you stay invested in case the crash doesnāt come.
I havenāt heard it before, other than in my own head. Itās not an argument, just a thought. Of course nobody legally knows whatāll happen and when, otherwise thereād be acting upon and making a ton of money at it.
27 posts were merged into an existing topic: Thoughts on portfolio diversification [2025]
Fast forward to 2025 ā¦
(Source)
Beginning of tables turning or just a Trump induced hiccup?
Country breakdown:
(Source)
2 Likes
Insert why not both? meme
4 Likes
Coming for us now too.
I mostly have unspeakable things left to say about the whole Trump situation and I donāt think I remember the last time I felt as angry about world affairs.
4 Likes
I think this is not the first time that happens. The reason last time was the artificial keeping of low value for the Swiss Franc. That sounds absurd as the Swiss Franc is one of the only currency that performed better than the U.S. Dollar, but the Swiss National Bank then kept the CHF at an artificial low level to the EUR.
For the tax we have VAT on everything, even much lower than other countries. The U,S. has no countrywide VAT. This difference may count as an import tax U.S, exporters have to pay but Swiss exporters donāt.
The best outcome would be to send the VAT where it belongs; to hell. We could replace it by a cash flow tax for companies. But as this outcome is very unlikely I suppose the U.S. will simply add a tax of the same percentage to Swiss exports.
I hate those nonsense taxes, VAT has destroyed many businesses in Europe already. But the solution should be that we leave it and not that the U.S. charges it too!
3 Likes
I would say - all this shows one thing, US is not as exceptional as everyone seem to believe. When a country goes after every country in world to try to squeeze them, this clear shows they are desperate and not really strong
Having said that - I think this whole notion of complaining about trade imbalance is very childish. US folks donāt but foreign goods because of low tariffs , they buy them because they like them or they are cheap. Just by adding tariffs doesnāt change any of these facts.
For example -: if I want to buy NVDIA chips, would i produce them myself if CH were to add 100% tariffs. No
4 Likes
I really donāt get how VAT came into a debate about tariffs. Itās probably just because the US is one of a handful of country not having VAT so they donāt understand it.
VAT is a tax on consumers, not on companies, and itās agnostic to imports (US imports are taxed in the same way as internally produced items). If US wants to introduce VAT they can go for it (and actually itās more efficient than sales tax, because it doesnāt stack when things cross borders).
5 Likes
Also it doesnāt take into account the services flow, US is a huge exporter of services (I think trade balance might even be in favor of US when looking at goods & services instead of just goods).
1 Like
Yes they ignore it because they know Europe has no option but to use cloud services or other services which are from US.
Hopefully some new companies will be formed in Europe to compete
3 Likes
Letās focus on economic/policy issues? (I donāt see how that line of argument ends up with anything constructiveā¦)
3 Likes
As pointed out by @cubanpete_the_swiss: this is not the first time. And the Swiss National Bank openly admits that they intervene in the currency market, which, by the US, is a no-no, especially if the USD is part of it, even if only indirectly.
Your words in Godās ears. Iām not holding my breath, though.
Hereās the thing, though:
(a) the guy at the table with the biggest gun (by far) is Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam currently thinks heās being treated unfairly. Doesnāt really matter whether heās right or wrong as heās holding the biggest gun and thinks itās fair (to threaten) to use it.
(b) you can neither produce nor buy the latest NVIDIA chips unless Uncle Sam agrees, even if the single most critical chip producing equipment piece is made in the Nederlands by ASML and even if these chips are mostly (all?) manufactured in Taiwan by TSMC.
Uncle Sam says where ASML can export their equipment to and Uncle Sam says who can import NVIDIA chips (of course thereās loopholes and what not, but the playground rules are established by Uncle Sam, and enforcement is up to Uncle Sam).
As for the further remarks about this being āchildishā and not taking into account this view or that angle: youāre (IMO) mostly right, but does that matter to anyone actually deciding on these policies?
And when was life ever fair, to add insult to injury?
(Just to be clear: I think I mostly agree with you, Iām just challenging you on idealistic desires and views versus current Realpolitik and likely outcomes)
As suggested by @nabalzbhf, letās focus on economic/policy issues and trying to stay clear of mostly policial views.
4 Likes