My portfolio is the purple line with the large dots. The other two lines are the U.S. and Canadian markets. |
It is April 8th and the markets have closed. The worst is over for the moment. Oh, I fully expect there will be more dips to come but it is hard to believe we will revisit the incredibly deep recent low. The only thing louder than the roaring of the bear was the roaring of the media.
Surely, you read the stories about the "massive losses" suffered by those retirees who foolishly were too exposed to the market. Their portfolios needed more bonds, more cash, with the goal of diluting the volatility of the market.
"One dividend that always pays out and increases with time is knowledge," I read in a BNN piece. I wanted to raise my hand. I know another: Canada's biggest banks. They promise to never cut their dividends. (Instead, the issue more equity.) But, as a retiree investor I don't care. All I care about is the dividend and it will not be touched. Why did the writer not have the knowledge to know this?
I have a friend who is preparing for retirement. He says he is going to start playing in the market. Gaining experience. He's put about $20,000 aside for this purpose. He's read he should not be in the market with money he is not prepared to lose.
What an awful attitude. But he is simply repeating the standard advice the experts are pushing on television and in print. Never, absolutely never, approach the market with the attitude that losing money is O.K. It's not.
Some smart journalists should sit down at a table, six-feet apart, and brain-storm the question: What are the words and phrases relating to investing that should be investigated and possibly redefined? For instance, a BNN story equated risk with investing. "Everyone should understand risk is inherent when it comes to investing."
Is this really true? The world is a risky place. Risk is the background noise of life. Put your money in a safe GIC and watch its buying power slowly drain away. Or put your money in a good stock. In a good company. Remember, you are investing not gambling. And also remember, bear markets do not last forever. Many investors had fully recovered from the effects of the 1929 crash in just four years and almost all were in the black by the sixth or seventh year. (These are facts that are rarely mentioned.)
So, take on no risk and accept .6 of one percent on your savings. Or find some good companies that you believe can get through just about anything the world can throw at them and invest. I took the second path. And just see how my investments have done over the past few, short weeks. This portfolio earned 17.14%.
Heck, if I wanted, I could cash in my stocks, go to cash and remove 4% annually for the next four years. As it is, I will be taking a small part of my money off the table as the bull returns. I'm not greedy. Furthermore, I'll be ready to buy when the next dip or full correction occurs.
Let's start the brainstorming here. What terms should a good journalist investigate?
What is risk? (You might be surprised.)
What does the word growth mean when used as in growth stock, growth mutual fund, etc.?
Are bonds really necessary? They cut volatility but . . .
Is volatility always, or ever, bad?
Are corrections bad? . . . or good?
Are bear market worse? . . . or better?
There, you get the idea, make a comment. Go for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment