OT: Investing - Stocks/Mutual Funds/Bonds/Crypto

[DigitalFool]

Any experienced investor do fund research on morning star? A long time ago, I pretended to be good at it and ended up in a few funds that have loads. Of course, I understood the concept (and by all means strive for no load/low expense) but the returns just seemed so much better on some managed funds. For fun, I grabbed one of the ones I had: FAGOX (3.5% Load, 1.34% Exp, still rated 5 stars) and compared it to VOO (.03% exp ETF) and did a return analysis if you invested 10,000 in each 10 years ago today and reinvested all DIV, I ended up that even with high expenses and load, the managed fund outperformed the ETF index (42,586 vs 35,805).

I guess this is in response to the John Oliver bit, I wouldn't say that ALL managed investments are bad and if you want to just take a safe and easy way, ETF index or low expense mutual funds (Vanguard / Fidelity) are the way to go.

[humanrefutation]

Looks like the market is going to take another big tumble tomorrow. Futures are down big across tie board with oil prices down and a huge bump in COVID19 cases starting because of more proactive testing protocols.

[GBBucks]

Disagree entirely on ETF's that track indexes being the way to go.

Funds that track indexes and generally, most passive funds, show no discretion regarding the most important part of investing: PRICE and Valuation.

To earnings. To cash flow. To Book value. Whatever metric you think is important.

People that are price agnostic have suffered greatly throughout the history of stock markets. Even worse so when we consider inflation and the loss of purchasing power of their dollar over time.

There are many wrong times to get into the market. Look at this chart and you'll be able to find an incredible amount of years in which it would have taken you 10, 20, even 30 years to make back your initial investment, adjusted for inflation or not. Diversification and price sensitivity is the way to go. Incurring losses is the easiest way to lose the power of compounding returns. I don't think the world is ever going to get rid of economic and market cycles.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart

Pretty much almost top ticked the market with this post. Point still stands. Worried about what today brings.

SP at a curb limit for futures trading. 8am EST should see another move down to a curb limit followed by some pauses. Hoping it doesn't happen but we could pretty easily see a double digit % move down.

[crkone]

Annnnnnd trading has been halted.

[HaroldinGMinor]

Dow currently sits where it did on Nov 1, 2017.

Good thing I didn't listen to Larry Kudlow.

[crkone]

Annnnnnd trading has been halted.

Annnnd trading has resumed.

[sidney lanier]

Despite the oil news I think today is more about #coronuncertainty . (Don't bother looking for this hashtag on Twitter; I just made it up.)

There hasn't been a more textbook case of the uncertainty markets hate and have always hated than this one for a long time. Answers -- any answers, good or bad -- will stabilize things, but they don't appear to be coming anytime soon.

[humanrefutation]

Thing is, the number of COVID19 cases are going to explode here because testing protocols are getting far more broad in scope. Previously, CDC wouldn't test unless you had traveled to a country with a well-known COVID19 outbreak or were exposed to someone who had that diagnosis. Now it sounds like doctors get to use their discretion. This is a good thing. But major news media sources like to ferment mass hysteria because it drives traffic, so every time you see a spike in diagnoses, people freak out.

Truth is, there are probably going to be millions of people worldwide who get this virus who don't even realize it because of how mild-to-non-existent the symptoms are.

That is not to say that we shouldn't try to contain it - especially from more vulnerable populations - but I don't see this as a legitimate reason to spook the markets.

[Kerb Hohl]

Thing is, the number of COVID19 cases are going to explode here because testing protocols are getting far more broad in scope. Previously, CDC wouldn't test unless you had traveled to a country with a well-known COVID19 outbreak or were exposed to someone who had that diagnosis. Now it sounds like doctors get to use their discretion. This is a good thing. But major news media sources like to ferment mass hysteria because it drives traffic, so every time you see a spike in diagnoses, people freak out.

Truth is, there are probably going to be millions of people worldwide who get this virus who don't even realize it because of how mild-to-non-existent the symptoms are.

That is not to say that we shouldn't try to contain it - especially from more vulnerable populations - but I don't see this as a legitimate reason to spook the markets.

Well I see both sides of it.

More testing - yes good and agree with you. South Korea is proving to us that this thing is probably another widespread flu that is slightly more dangerous. As long as we keep it from overloading the health systems, I mean, I don't want to just brush off death of vulnerable people, but it is not the threat to the world as we know it as is being propagated by some. South Korea is spiking the cases but the mortality rate is very low because they're actually getting an accurate report of how many people have it.

But I do see a reason for it to spook the market. If China shuts down for weeks, months...where do our goods come from? If we all have to work from home and the internet becomes unreliable and goes down. If everyone is quarantined and not buying any goods. If nobody is traveling and buying things in tourism...isn't that bad? Then the companies see worsened reports and profits and lay people off...

[MickeyDavis]

This is why trying to time the market is dumb. Lots of people got out and have been buying back "on the dips". Well it's still "dipping". Meanwhile I just keeping buying in with my 401K every 2 weeks and I haven't changed any of my allocation percentages.

[HaroldinGMinor]

are probably going to be millions of people worldwide who get this virus who don't even realize it because of how mild-to-non-existent the symptoms are.

That is not to say that we shouldn't try to contain it - especially from more vulnerable populations - but I don't see this as a legitimate reason to spook the markets.

But millions will get it and get sick thus missing work (not to mention all the people that will die from it...because that won't be a small number if this keeps growing). There is already a HUGE financial impact to this thing and it hasn't really even exploded here in the US. My company canceled all work-related travel for the month, SXSW is canceled as are a number of huge conferences across the country (HIMSS typically has about 37,000 people attend. Not this year. Ace Hardware canceled its 14,000 person event in Chicago as did the always fun World Congress of Cardiology 18,000 attendees). Once the rate of new cases starts doubling each day you are going to see the real impact of this thing.

[MickeyDavis]

Yeah I'm lucky I can work from home but obviously most people can't. And lots don't get sick time or if they do it's not much. That's why so many will continue to go to work when they're sick. When you live paycheck to paycheck as so many do you can't afford unpaid time off.

[Kerb Hohl]

are probably going to be millions of people worldwide who get this virus who don't even realize it because of how mild-to-non-existent the symptoms are.

That is not to say that we shouldn't try to contain it - especially from more vulnerable populations - but I don't see this as a legitimate reason to spook the markets.

But millions will get it and get sick thus missing work (not to mention all the people that will die from it...because that won't be a small number if this keeps growing). There is already a HUGE financial impact to this thing and it hasn't really even exploded here in the US. My company canceled all work-related travel for the month, SXSW is canceled as are a number of huge conferences across the country (HIMSS typically has about 37,000 people attend. Not this year. Ace Hardware canceled its 14,000 person event in Chicago). Once the rate of new cases starts doubling each day you are going to see the real impact of this thing.

Yeah, well as HR said, new cases are about to double each day no matter what, which will probably spike panic in the US. The test kits are being distributed en masse and we can be ready for a huge spike in confirmed cases, regardless of if it is actually spreading in a worse fashion.

[HaroldinGMinor]

are probably going to be millions of people worldwide who get this virus who don't even realize it because of how mild-to-non-existent the symptoms are.

That is not to say that we shouldn't try to contain it - especially from more vulnerable populations - but I don't see this as a legitimate reason to spook the markets.

But millions will get it and get sick thus missing work (not to mention all the people that will die from it...because that won't be a small number if this keeps growing). There is already a HUGE financial impact to this thing and it hasn't really even exploded here in the US. My company canceled all work-related travel for the month, SXSW is canceled as are a number of huge conferences across the country (HIMSS typically has about 37,000 people attend. Not this year. Ace Hardware canceled its 14,000 person event in Chicago). Once the rate of new cases starts doubling each day you are going to see the real impact of this thing.

Yeah, well as HR said, new cases are about to double each day no matter what, which will probably spike panic in the US. The test kits are being distributed en masse and we can be ready for a huge spike in confirmed cases, regardless of if it is actually spreading in a worse fashion.

Right I'm speaking more as to why the markets are getting spooked.

[humanrefutation]

Thing is, the number of COVID19 cases are going to explode here because testing protocols are getting far more broad in scope. Previously, CDC wouldn't test unless you had traveled to a country with a well-known COVID19 outbreak or were exposed to someone who had that diagnosis. Now it sounds like doctors get to use their discretion. This is a good thing. But major news media sources like to ferment mass hysteria because it drives traffic, so every time you see a spike in diagnoses, people freak out.

Truth is, there are probably going to be millions of people worldwide who get this virus who don't even realize it because of how mild-to-non-existent the symptoms are.

That is not to say that we shouldn't try to contain it - especially from more vulnerable populations - but I don't see this as a legitimate reason to spook the markets.

Well I see both sides of it.

More testing - yes good and agree with you. South Korea is proving to us that this thing is probably another widespread flu that is slightly more dangerous. As long as we keep it from overloading the health systems, I mean, I don't want to just brush off death of vulnerable people, but it is not the threat to the world as we know it as is being propagated by some. South Korea is spiking the cases but the mortality rate is very low because they're actually getting an accurate report of how many people have it.

But I do see a reason for it to spook the market. If China shuts down for weeks, months...where do our goods come from? If we all have to work from home and the internet becomes unreliable and goes down. If everyone is quarantined and not buying any goods. If nobody is traveling and buying things in tourism...isn't that bad? Then the companies see worsened reports and profits and lay people off...

It sounds like China's has significantly slowed the transmission of the disease, so I don't see a possibility of them shutting down. It'll get worse here as it gets better there. So I don't share your concern about China shutting down. The other concerns you mention range from possible (more people working from home) to extremely unlikely (the internet going down and everyone being quarantined and no goods being bought). I guess I'll deal with those possibilities as they present themselves as reasonable likelihoods.

To be clear, though, I'm saying that the increase in positive diagnoses is a natural consequence of loosening testing protocols, and is a good thing. The only way we can contain it is to actually test people for it.

[Kerb Hohl]

Thing is, the number of COVID19 cases are going to explode here because testing protocols are getting far more broad in scope. Previously, CDC wouldn't test unless you had traveled to a country with a well-known COVID19 outbreak or were exposed to someone who had that diagnosis. Now it sounds like doctors get to use their discretion. This is a good thing. But major news media sources like to ferment mass hysteria because it drives traffic, so every time you see a spike in diagnoses, people freak out.

Truth is, there are probably going to be millions of people worldwide who get this virus who don't even realize it because of how mild-to-non-existent the symptoms are.

That is not to say that we shouldn't try to contain it - especially from more vulnerable populations - but I don't see this as a legitimate reason to spook the markets.

Well I see both sides of it.

More testing - yes good and agree with you. South Korea is proving to us that this thing is probably another widespread flu that is slightly more dangerous. As long as we keep it from overloading the health systems, I mean, I don't want to just brush off death of vulnerable people, but it is not the threat to the world as we know it as is being propagated by some. South Korea is spiking the cases but the mortality rate is very low because they're actually getting an accurate report of how many people have it.

But I do see a reason for it to spook the market. If China shuts down for weeks, months...where do our goods come from? If we all have to work from home and the internet becomes unreliable and goes down. If everyone is quarantined and not buying any goods. If nobody is traveling and buying things in tourism...isn't that bad? Then the companies see worsened reports and profits and lay people off...

It sounds like China's has significantly slowed the transmission of the disease, so I don't see a possibility of them shutting down. It'll get worse here as it gets better there. So I don't share your concern about China shutting down. The other concerns you mention range from possible (more people working from home) to extremely unlikely (the internet going down and everyone being quarantined and no goods being bought). I guess I'll deal with those possibilities as they present themselves as reasonable likelihoods.

To be clear, though, I'm saying that the increase in positive diagnoses is a natural consequence of loosening testing protocols, and is a good thing. The only way we can contain it is to actually test people for it.

Yeah, I may have been misunderstood but I almost completely agree with you. I am generally a "very low panic" type of person with this.

I am also not an pandemic expert but I do wonder how you can actually contain this thing. Like, OK, you get cases way down in a community and then you send people back to work. Isn't it very possible to start it right back up again if a handful of people still had it? That is my confusion/question about China, though it's more to me not being an expert on the topic. If countries are able to slow the spread by tracking and quarantine as South Korea is doing, then I am even less in fear of this.

[humanrefutation]

are probably going to be millions of people worldwide who get this virus who don't even realize it because of how mild-to-non-existent the symptoms are.

That is not to say that we shouldn't try to contain it - especially from more vulnerable populations - but I don't see this as a legitimate reason to spook the markets.

But millions will get it and get sick thus missing work (not to mention all the people that will die from it...because that won't be a small number if this keeps growing). There is already a HUGE financial impact to this thing and it hasn't really even exploded here in the US. My company canceled all work-related travel for the month, SXSW is canceled as are a number of huge conferences across the country (HIMSS typically has about 37,000 people attend. Not this year. Ace Hardware canceled its 14,000 person event in Chicago as did the always fun World Congress of Cardiology 18,000 attendees). Once the rate of new cases starts doubling each day you are going to see the real impact of this thing.

The death rate for COVID 19 is about 3% of test cases - and it's, in all likelihood, far lower simply because the fact that you will have millions people who will get it and recover without ever being tested for it. The flu is at about 0.1%, by comparison.

So let's say the actual mortality rate is closer to 1%, with the vast majority being people out of the workforce already because of age or other chronic illnesses.

That is absolutely a tragedy - personally, to anyone who loses a loved one. But does that have major economic consequences? Probably not.

[Kerb Hohl]

are probably going to be millions of people worldwide who get this virus who don't even realize it because of how mild-to-non-existent the symptoms are.

That is not to say that we shouldn't try to contain it - especially from more vulnerable populations - but I don't see this as a legitimate reason to spook the markets.

But millions will get it and get sick thus missing work (not to mention all the people that will die from it...because that won't be a small number if this keeps growing). There is already a HUGE financial impact to this thing and it hasn't really even exploded here in the US. My company canceled all work-related travel for the month, SXSW is canceled as are a number of huge conferences across the country (HIMSS typically has about 37,000 people attend. Not this year. Ace Hardware canceled its 14,000 person event in Chicago as did the always fun World Congress of Cardiology 18,000 attendees). Once the rate of new cases starts doubling each day you are going to see the real impact of this thing.

The death rate for COVID 19 is about 3% of test cases - and it's, in all likelihood, far lower simply because the fact that you will have millions people who will get it and recover without ever being tested for it. The flu is at about 0.1%, by comparison.

So let's say the actual mortality rate is closer to 1%, with the vast majority being people out of the workforce already because of age or other chronic illnesses.

That is absolutely a tragedy - personally, to anyone who loses a loved one. But does that have major economic consequences? Probably not.

The question/fear that everyone has is that it will overload health systems unless drastic measures are taken. Is taking 2 weeks to shut down a city/cancel NCAA tournament (play with no crowd) or SXSW events enough? If that's it, we'll get by. If it's something that other countries we rely on cannot get under control or we cannot control for much longer than that...not good.

Overloading health systems might make the mortality rate go higher. A somewhat healthy 55 year old that would otherwise recover with a respirator for a few days/hours may not get access to one and die.

[humanrefutation]

Well I see both sides of it.

More testing - yes good and agree with you. South Korea is proving to us that this thing is probably another widespread flu that is slightly more dangerous. As long as we keep it from overloading the health systems, I mean, I don't want to just brush off death of vulnerable people, but it is not the threat to the world as we know it as is being propagated by some. South Korea is spiking the cases but the mortality rate is very low because they're actually getting an accurate report of how many people have it.

But I do see a reason for it to spook the market. If China shuts down for weeks, months...where do our goods come from? If we all have to work from home and the internet becomes unreliable and goes down. If everyone is quarantined and not buying any goods. If nobody is traveling and buying things in tourism...isn't that bad? Then the companies see worsened reports and profits and lay people off...

It sounds like China's has significantly slowed the transmission of the disease, so I don't see a possibility of them shutting down. It'll get worse here as it gets better there. So I don't share your concern about China shutting down. The other concerns you mention range from possible (more people working from home) to extremely unlikely (the internet going down and everyone being quarantined and no goods being bought). I guess I'll deal with those possibilities as they present themselves as reasonable likelihoods.

To be clear, though, I'm saying that the increase in positive diagnoses is a natural consequence of loosening testing protocols, and is a good thing. The only way we can contain it is to actually test people for it.

Yeah, I may have been misunderstood but I almost completely agree with you. I am generally a "very low panic" type of person with this.

I am also not an pandemic expert but I do wonder how you can actually contain this thing. Like, OK, you get cases way down in a community and then you send people back to work. Isn't it very possible to start it right back up again if a handful of people still had it? That is my confusion/question about China, though it's more to me not being an expert on the topic. If countries are able to slow the spread by tracking and quarantine as South Korea is doing, then I am even less in fear of this.

From my understanding, the basic ways are to isolate the sick, use vigorous cleaning protocols, and vaccination. Vaccines usually take about a year to get tested and approved, so that won't come anytime soon. Nice thing is, once you get it and survive it, you'll have a built-in immunity to getting the same strain again (absent a compromised immune system) for a while, so if you have a population that has already had COVID-19 and survived it, herd immunity should keep it from spreading within that population again even if you go to work with a sick person.

[Kerb Hohl]

It sounds like China's has significantly slowed the transmission of the disease, so I don't see a possibility of them shutting down. It'll get worse here as it gets better there. So I don't share your concern about China shutting down. The other concerns you mention range from possible (more people working from home) to extremely unlikely (the internet going down and everyone being quarantined and no goods being bought). I guess I'll deal with those possibilities as they present themselves as reasonable likelihoods.

To be clear, though, I'm saying that the increase in positive diagnoses is a natural consequence of loosening testing protocols, and is a good thing. The only way we can contain it is to actually test people for it.

Yeah, I may have been misunderstood but I almost completely agree with you. I am generally a "very low panic" type of person with this.

I am also not an pandemic expert but I do wonder how you can actually contain this thing. Like, OK, you get cases way down in a community and then you send people back to work. Isn't it very possible to start it right back up again if a handful of people still had it? That is my confusion/question about China, though it's more to me not being an expert on the topic. If countries are able to slow the spread by tracking and quarantine as South Korea is doing, then I am even less in fear of this.

From my understanding, the basic ways are to isolate the sick, use vigorous cleaning protocols, and vaccination. Vaccines usually take about a year to get tested and approved, so that won't come anytime soon. Nice thing is, once you get it and survive it, you'll have a built-in immunity to getting the same strain again (absent a compromised immune system) for a while, so if you have a population that has already had COVID-19 and survived it, herd immunity should keep it from spreading within that population again even if you go to work with a sick person.

Yeah, that is definitely all true. I guess I was just thinking it could start up in a new area of the city, new school, etc...each time, the risk decreases given overall people it can infect, but just seemed like it could spiral again even if some are immune. But that makes sense.