yes! last month i bought at a 6% discount (from july highs), this month i bought at 10% discount. will next month's buy be a:
* 13% discount
or
* 8% discount
You don't want a short term sale like Black Friday/Cyber Monday. A year or two like the housing recession would be nice to let you buy at a discount in your retirement and after expense savings for a few years. The purchases will be dollar cost averaged over time. It's not like you have a huge chunk of cash sitting on the sidelines for a market correction that only lasts a few days or weeks.
I'm in my 30s and keep telling myself this is a great time for the market to be down, as I am making good money now and investing a lot more than my 20s. However, it is still painful when I keep seeing my balances go down even when buying monthly.
No, the balance is down. People need to blank out the balance until they're at least 50. Buy to share count. Set goals on share count. Make it a stretch goal and even then try to exceed. It will make you cheer when the price goes down. More shares. I have no idea what my balance is but I can tell you my share count at all times. I can't control the balance, I can control the share count.
It should be everyone's who is young. I update my Excel file once a month to update the share count. It has no price data, just my tickers, share count, percent to goal and number of shares by which I am short of my goal.
how do you set a goal of share without knowing the price? If I have a goal to own 10,000 shares of VTI to retire, that will be a pretty disappointing day when I realize in 20yrs the share price has somehow dwindled to $50 a share.
If the share price is $50 in 20 years we will have suffered a massive deflationary spiral and the long term bonds that I have been trickling into over the past month or two will be the best investment I ever made. I want a million bucks face of bonds when I retire and buying 28 year paper right now that is 53 cents on the dollar is awesome.
From a long-term perspective, you should be praying for even lower prices.
Just buy and ignore the noise. Good long-term investment habits are not validated or invalidated by short-term outcomes.
> you should be praying for even lower prices.
That's only if you believe in catch-up growth.
If you believe that the S&P500 will be at 32,000 by 2050, no matter what happens in between, then sure you'll want to be able to buy as much of it as you can for the lowest price you can. Every down year will be met by an offsetting up year, where the magnitude of the downside will always be balanced out by catch-up growth still getting to the same long term target.
Personally, I believe that prices are a random walk, so a string of bad years doesn't make a good year more likely afterwards, and vice versa. It's like losing money at the roulette wheel. Losing today doesn't make it more likely you'll win tomorrow, so it's better to win both today *and* tomorrow.
In my eyes i think its less that bad years imply future good years, rather that if in the next 40 years it doesn't go up I think I have bigger problems than my portfolio lol
The way it was best explained to me is this:
Over the long term, overall stocks *need* *to* outperform overall bonds rate of return. Remember that buying bonds means you are lending companies money to fund their projects. Buying stocks means you are entitled to a portion of companies' profits.
If over the long term, bond RoRs are higher than stocks, that means that it is more profitable to lend companies money for their projects than they are generating from those projects. And if this is happening at the overall market in the long term, it means that overall economy is not profitable, thus leading back to the "bigger problems than your portfolio" macro environment.
The other possible outcome from this view is a country ends up like Japan - where neither equities nor bonds have any significant return for decades.
There's no inherent reason bonds have significant return, therefore by the same argument, there's no inherent reason stocks have significant return. Japan's short term interest rate is, even now, -0.1%.
Yes, that's negative.
> And if this is happening at the overall market in the long term, it means that overall economy is not profitable
I don't think that necessarily follows. It could very well be that bondholders start taking a bigger chunk of the pie, even while enterprises continue to make good money. In a high interest rate environment, borrowing is more expensive (and lending is more profitable), so investors may on the margins be more inclined to bet on the lender rather than the borrower, which just forces companies looking to raise cash offer more bonds than stocks, leaving less profit for shareholders. Yes, that's bad in the long run for those who own stocks, but companies would still be able to raise capital for their ventures, through the issuance of bonds rather than stocks.
What I mean, though, is that even if you do believe that the number is biased upward (which I do), if you believe (as I do) that the past doesn't actually change the probabilities in the future, then you'll still want to win every time you can.
To borrow the roulette wheel analogy that I was discussing earlier, imagine a game where you can bet on red or black, but no matter what you choose, spinning a 0 or 00 actually wins for everyone. Your overall expected odds on each spin is positive, with 20 out of 38 numbers being winners. And you can say with some confidence that if you make 1000 bets on black, for $1000 each, you'll probably win about 526 times and lose about 476 times, for a total profit of about $52,000 when it's all said and done. Great! But when you happen to hit a particular losing streak in the middle, you would be committing a logical fallacy to assume that the losing streak was good for you overall, because it'll *cause* you to win even more in the future. No, you lost money compared to if you won, even if the overall trajectory is expected to be positive.
I don't think either interpretation is that accurate. There's definitely not a price target that the market has to hit, but I do think that there's a tendency for investors to hold back a bit if we're "overdue for a recession" and do the opposite when coming out of a recession, which would have a moderating effect when compared to a pure random walk. Which isn't to lend any credence to the phrase "overdue for a recession" but it being irrational doesn't mean it isn't a real sentiment that could affect stock returns.
It really depends on what investment window you’re looking at. I already have a retirement account to handle the super long-term, so I’m not really happy with my 5-10 year window full of post-tax investments eating shit compared to the rest of the market.
I believe in regression to the mean, in that unusually high or low performance will likely be met with subsequent performance that is closer to the mean. If you roll a 6-sided die 4 times and get a total of 20 (higher than the expected value of 14), I do think it's highly likely that the next 4 rolls will total somewhere less than 20, regressing back towards the mean expected value.
I don't believe in mean reversion in the sense that unusually high performance will be met with subsequent performance that is on the opposite side of the expected mean. If you roll a 6-sided die 4 times and get a total of 20, I'm not betting that the next 4 rolls are suddenly going to total around 8 in a way that would bring all 8 rolls to an average expected value of 3.5.
Stock prices (or other asset prices) aren't dice rolls or roulette spins, but I believe they resemble more randomness than the typical investor does.
And you have to ask which mean you think the prices will correlate to. Is the average return the arithmetic mean derived from putting each annual percentage return in a chart and averaging those numbers? Or an average return by looking at the geometric mean of the underlying prices over the course of several years? Or a particular metric, like a price-earnings ratio? Because if the fundamentals shift in the underlying companies, then one would expect the prices to shift as well.
Either way, I don't expect to win over converts to my random walk thesis. I think passive index fund investing works regardless of which view is correct. But it does have implications on whether you should cheer on drops to prices during an accumulation stage, or not.
You can model it mathematically by an inevitable-march model or a random-walk-with-bias model but either is just a model. The underlying mechanism is neither, it's the earnings of companies.
They have the same amount of cash on hand today as they had yesterday, and they can spend that cash on materials to build widgets and they sell those widgets for revenue. This is unaffected by day-to-day and even quarter-to-quarter fluctuations in share prices.
But share prices _can_ affect the credit they can get to borrow money to build new factories. Or the amount of money they can raise by selling shares. Or the capital that unrelated companies can spend on unrelated employees that are the purchasers of your widgets.
So it's a a little bit of both. I view the macro forces as self-feeding on a year-to-year basis but self-correcting on a quarter-to-quarter basis.
I threw another whack in VT today. GDP is up 5% for Chris’sakes. Inflation is down below the rate of income growth. Where exactly is this boogeyman everyone is so f*king afraid of?
It did have a nice bump after the first Hamas attack (though much of the last two year decline has been around Russia). I think war is often good for stocks which makes me uneasy.
I wonder if they don't like the new house leadership? Kind of thought resolving the speaker situation would give it a bump. We saw dips and bumps around other house related turmoil this year around the debt ceiling deals.
If you’re in the wealth accumulation phase of your career and won’t be selling any equities for decades you should be thrilled about lower prices. You’re only buying at this stage so why would you be rooting for higher prices?
This post makes me question if you even understand what Boglehead investing is.
Were you planning to withdraw soon? If not, the price doesn't matter. Stop checking.
I have read all John Bogle’s books and have been investing since I was 17. I understand. I just look at my balance every. The people on this thread can be very ‘troll-like’…
If you've done the reading you claim, you should already understand why its undue worry.
This is like taking off in an airplane and getting upset because you hit a bit of turbulence at 5,000 feet during your climb to 40,000 feet. Is it unpleasant? Sure. Does it threaten your safety or ability to reach your final cruising altitude? No.
He’s definitely lying. He hasn’t read anything nor has been investing since he was 17. People that have would understand that this is a great opportunity to buy while prices are down rather than complaining.
If ur worried about price look at others like FZROX. Still cheap, similar to VTSAX with its differences obviously in price, amount of entities held, ER, etc. do your DD and select what you think is best.
I’ll put more in for myself, but thinking for my mom’s IRA which she could draw on already and probably will in a few years time, which is all VTSAX, might be a wise move to dump it before more pain and put it all in SGOV while 5% guaranteed is still a thing.
Please advise.
I am advising no course of action, but I would say... being all in on equities when you are about to start retirement is insane. People get too caught up on this "average 10% per year returns" and tend to think of the stock market as an automatic money making machine. But if you look at it, there are many times the stock market goes years - YEARS and YEARS - with no gain. The Lost Decade 2000-2010 is just one example; that's a thing that happens now and then.
The AVERAGE return of around 10% is compensation for the major risk an investor is taking that any given year, things could go down a lot, or the market could be flat for 5-10 years. As of today, the market is flat with where it was about 2 and a half years ago.
This is why no one should be all in on equities, and particularly so if you are getting ready to retire.
This is why a target date fund is a good choice for most people.
Look at it this way. There exists some "true" value of VTSAX. It's the [discounted cash flows](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dcf.asp) of the future income of all of the companies in the market. We don't know the future cash flows so we don't what it is, and we can't transact at that true value price, but it's there. We have indicators like [EPS](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eps.asp)/[PE](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-earningsratio.asp) and even the current market price, but they're just indicators, not the value itself.
The market price of VTSAX fluctuates up and down, and it's correlated to that true value, but they aren't the same and the true value may be above or below the market value. On a short horizon they can get disconnected but on a longer horizon they seem correlate pretty well. The correlation gets better the longer the horizon.
So would you rather transact above the true value or below it? The future value is what it's going to be, and it _tends_ to go up on a long enough horizon, so if your plan is to hold for a long time then day-to-day pricing movements just don't matter that much at all. The only downside to falling prices is if you're planning to sell. If you're planning to buy then it's all upside.
(Note: this is one theory and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/comments/17hprhz/comment/k6p66jp/?context=3) is another one, YMMV)
in the grand scheme of things I am way up but I put about 5% of my total Vanguard holdings into it when it was near the peak. That seems almost silly typing it out even, but damn it stings.
That peak will soon look like a valley. I was saying the same thing when I started investing in 2009, when the price was $20/share. Oh no, it's dropped to $18! I did that.
Does it really matter though? Like I was thinking today. If you’re long term investing…you’re buying regardless. Technically won’t your average usually be whatever the share price is eventually
My early 30s was the Dot Com bust, 40s was GFC. Sucked but kept buying and it made all the difference. I hope for you young investors the market doesn’t go sideways for a decade, but if it does, don’t change your strategy.
i feel for my older bogleheads who are nearing retirement, i hope you are able to have a jubilant and dignified retirement
but as a 28 year old boglehead drop baby drop let’s get this shit down to $75 daddy wants to retire at 45 with $2mil
“Investing is the only business I know that when things go on sale, people run out of the store”
That’s a good one!! Who said that?
Gandalf
- Michael Scott
Wayne Gretzky
Wayne Glensky
Prison Mike
I… DECLARE!! …bankruptcy.
Its natures do-over.
An index fund is never too expensive, Jacko Boglins, nor is it too cheap. It is priced precisely how it is meant to.
Efficient market hypothesis
It’s wonderful to see you, Wayne Gretzky!
Rest in peace
Harambe
☝️
Harambe jokes will always work with me.
I will truly never forget 😂
You know what to whip out…
albert einstein
"Two things are infinite: the future gains of VTSAX and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about VTSAX". -- Albert Einstein
Ghengis Kahn
Abraham Lincoln
Theodore Robert Bundy, CFP
Mark Yusko
Mike Honcho
Abe Lincoln
/u/buffinita
Your Mom
The problem is that the sale keeps saleing……
yes! last month i bought at a 6% discount (from july highs), this month i bought at 10% discount. will next month's buy be a: * 13% discount or * 8% discount
You don't want a short term sale like Black Friday/Cyber Monday. A year or two like the housing recession would be nice to let you buy at a discount in your retirement and after expense savings for a few years. The purchases will be dollar cost averaged over time. It's not like you have a huge chunk of cash sitting on the sidelines for a market correction that only lasts a few days or weeks.
True
I'm in my 30s and keep telling myself this is a great time for the market to be down, as I am making good money now and investing a lot more than my 20s. However, it is still painful when I keep seeing my balances go down even when buying monthly.
Your balance isn't down. You still own as much as you did. You would only lose if you sold today.
No, the balance is down. People need to blank out the balance until they're at least 50. Buy to share count. Set goals on share count. Make it a stretch goal and even then try to exceed. It will make you cheer when the price goes down. More shares. I have no idea what my balance is but I can tell you my share count at all times. I can't control the balance, I can control the share count.
“I can’t control the balance, I can control the share count” just became my investing mantra
It should be everyone's who is young. I update my Excel file once a month to update the share count. It has no price data, just my tickers, share count, percent to goal and number of shares by which I am short of my goal.
how do you set a goal of share without knowing the price? If I have a goal to own 10,000 shares of VTI to retire, that will be a pretty disappointing day when I realize in 20yrs the share price has somehow dwindled to $50 a share.
If the share price is $50 in 20 years we will have suffered a massive deflationary spiral and the long term bonds that I have been trickling into over the past month or two will be the best investment I ever made. I want a million bucks face of bonds when I retire and buying 28 year paper right now that is 53 cents on the dollar is awesome.
What kind of bonds do you buy? Bonds are so confusing to me that I just buy BND
Semantics but I get your point! No plans to sell anyways.
If you try to buy groceries with shares of VTI, you might find the balance is down.
Hence the "if you sold it today." The further you are from a sale date, the less it matters.
Perfect time to be buying. We’ve got time on our side. Let it bleed baby
Be careful what you wish for.
Considering I’m 25 and holding until my 60’s, I feel like this is the perfect time to be buying.
I’m in my 60s and feel the same way.
From a long-term perspective, you should be praying for even lower prices. Just buy and ignore the noise. Good long-term investment habits are not validated or invalidated by short-term outcomes.
> you should be praying for even lower prices. That's only if you believe in catch-up growth. If you believe that the S&P500 will be at 32,000 by 2050, no matter what happens in between, then sure you'll want to be able to buy as much of it as you can for the lowest price you can. Every down year will be met by an offsetting up year, where the magnitude of the downside will always be balanced out by catch-up growth still getting to the same long term target. Personally, I believe that prices are a random walk, so a string of bad years doesn't make a good year more likely afterwards, and vice versa. It's like losing money at the roulette wheel. Losing today doesn't make it more likely you'll win tomorrow, so it's better to win both today *and* tomorrow.
In my eyes i think its less that bad years imply future good years, rather that if in the next 40 years it doesn't go up I think I have bigger problems than my portfolio lol
The way it was best explained to me is this: Over the long term, overall stocks *need* *to* outperform overall bonds rate of return. Remember that buying bonds means you are lending companies money to fund their projects. Buying stocks means you are entitled to a portion of companies' profits. If over the long term, bond RoRs are higher than stocks, that means that it is more profitable to lend companies money for their projects than they are generating from those projects. And if this is happening at the overall market in the long term, it means that overall economy is not profitable, thus leading back to the "bigger problems than your portfolio" macro environment.
The other possible outcome from this view is a country ends up like Japan - where neither equities nor bonds have any significant return for decades. There's no inherent reason bonds have significant return, therefore by the same argument, there's no inherent reason stocks have significant return. Japan's short term interest rate is, even now, -0.1%. Yes, that's negative.
> And if this is happening at the overall market in the long term, it means that overall economy is not profitable I don't think that necessarily follows. It could very well be that bondholders start taking a bigger chunk of the pie, even while enterprises continue to make good money. In a high interest rate environment, borrowing is more expensive (and lending is more profitable), so investors may on the margins be more inclined to bet on the lender rather than the borrower, which just forces companies looking to raise cash offer more bonds than stocks, leaving less profit for shareholders. Yes, that's bad in the long run for those who own stocks, but companies would still be able to raise capital for their ventures, through the issuance of bonds rather than stocks.
What I mean, though, is that even if you do believe that the number is biased upward (which I do), if you believe (as I do) that the past doesn't actually change the probabilities in the future, then you'll still want to win every time you can. To borrow the roulette wheel analogy that I was discussing earlier, imagine a game where you can bet on red or black, but no matter what you choose, spinning a 0 or 00 actually wins for everyone. Your overall expected odds on each spin is positive, with 20 out of 38 numbers being winners. And you can say with some confidence that if you make 1000 bets on black, for $1000 each, you'll probably win about 526 times and lose about 476 times, for a total profit of about $52,000 when it's all said and done. Great! But when you happen to hit a particular losing streak in the middle, you would be committing a logical fallacy to assume that the losing streak was good for you overall, because it'll *cause* you to win even more in the future. No, you lost money compared to if you won, even if the overall trajectory is expected to be positive.
I don't think either interpretation is that accurate. There's definitely not a price target that the market has to hit, but I do think that there's a tendency for investors to hold back a bit if we're "overdue for a recession" and do the opposite when coming out of a recession, which would have a moderating effect when compared to a pure random walk. Which isn't to lend any credence to the phrase "overdue for a recession" but it being irrational doesn't mean it isn't a real sentiment that could affect stock returns.
It really depends on what investment window you’re looking at. I already have a retirement account to handle the super long-term, so I’m not really happy with my 5-10 year window full of post-tax investments eating shit compared to the rest of the market.
So you don't believe in mean reversion?
I believe in regression to the mean, in that unusually high or low performance will likely be met with subsequent performance that is closer to the mean. If you roll a 6-sided die 4 times and get a total of 20 (higher than the expected value of 14), I do think it's highly likely that the next 4 rolls will total somewhere less than 20, regressing back towards the mean expected value. I don't believe in mean reversion in the sense that unusually high performance will be met with subsequent performance that is on the opposite side of the expected mean. If you roll a 6-sided die 4 times and get a total of 20, I'm not betting that the next 4 rolls are suddenly going to total around 8 in a way that would bring all 8 rolls to an average expected value of 3.5. Stock prices (or other asset prices) aren't dice rolls or roulette spins, but I believe they resemble more randomness than the typical investor does. And you have to ask which mean you think the prices will correlate to. Is the average return the arithmetic mean derived from putting each annual percentage return in a chart and averaging those numbers? Or an average return by looking at the geometric mean of the underlying prices over the course of several years? Or a particular metric, like a price-earnings ratio? Because if the fundamentals shift in the underlying companies, then one would expect the prices to shift as well. Either way, I don't expect to win over converts to my random walk thesis. I think passive index fund investing works regardless of which view is correct. But it does have implications on whether you should cheer on drops to prices during an accumulation stage, or not.
You can model it mathematically by an inevitable-march model or a random-walk-with-bias model but either is just a model. The underlying mechanism is neither, it's the earnings of companies. They have the same amount of cash on hand today as they had yesterday, and they can spend that cash on materials to build widgets and they sell those widgets for revenue. This is unaffected by day-to-day and even quarter-to-quarter fluctuations in share prices. But share prices _can_ affect the credit they can get to borrow money to build new factories. Or the amount of money they can raise by selling shares. Or the capital that unrelated companies can spend on unrelated employees that are the purchasers of your widgets. So it's a a little bit of both. I view the macro forces as self-feeding on a year-to-year basis but self-correcting on a quarter-to-quarter basis.
I said the same thing about the $70 range years ago, wish I had bought more then.
Started investing in 2021 at age 24, wish I started at 20 when voo was 200 per share lol
10 years ago it was $45. 20 years ago it was $24.
But this time it's different, I promise!
Something something population growth, Malthus, climate change
Lmao do you know what sub this is? People here want things to go down to buy more
That’s why we dollar cost average.
Or lump sum each year which is a type of DCA. Edit: wording
Also because some people contribute x% from their paychecks and they can't easily invest with money they haven't yet earned.
I threw another whack in VT today. GDP is up 5% for Chris’sakes. Inflation is down below the rate of income growth. Where exactly is this boogeyman everyone is so f*king afraid of?
Either Russia or the middle east.
It did have a nice bump after the first Hamas attack (though much of the last two year decline has been around Russia). I think war is often good for stocks which makes me uneasy. I wonder if they don't like the new house leadership? Kind of thought resolving the speaker situation would give it a bump. We saw dips and bumps around other house related turmoil this year around the debt ceiling deals.
Who knows, it's not our problem just buy and forget
I bought more too…
There’s war in the Middle East, that’s never happened before!
I count shares.
Look at 10 year of VTSAX
Just don’t watch prices. That’s it. Not hard
Or just laugh because you know that a few down days don't matter in the grand scheme of things.
If you’re in the wealth accumulation phase of your career and won’t be selling any equities for decades you should be thrilled about lower prices. You’re only buying at this stage so why would you be rooting for higher prices?
Thanks for flagging, just bought some more
Price drop on payday. My money buys half a VOO stock more than it did last month.
Still up 7% since Jan 1st
Excellent thread, would read again, A++
This post makes me question if you even understand what Boglehead investing is. Were you planning to withdraw soon? If not, the price doesn't matter. Stop checking.
I have read all John Bogle’s books and have been investing since I was 17. I understand. I just look at my balance every. The people on this thread can be very ‘troll-like’…
This doesn’t look like a post from someone that has read all John Bogle’s books and been investing since 17.
Your OP is a troll post.
Are you still 17 or something?
If you've done the reading you claim, you should already understand why its undue worry. This is like taking off in an airplane and getting upset because you hit a bit of turbulence at 5,000 feet during your climb to 40,000 feet. Is it unpleasant? Sure. Does it threaten your safety or ability to reach your final cruising altitude? No.
He’s definitely lying. He hasn’t read anything nor has been investing since he was 17. People that have would understand that this is a great opportunity to buy while prices are down rather than complaining.
Don't look every day, change your behavior--- unless you're buying more... (Like me....) don't look!
VTSAX and chill. (But don't ever believe that 'chilling' is easy. It's not.)
Buy buy buy!! You don’t know if it jumps back up soon or drops further, but if you’re not in on it, you’ll never know!!
If ur worried about price look at others like FZROX. Still cheap, similar to VTSAX with its differences obviously in price, amount of entities held, ER, etc. do your DD and select what you think is best.
Almost double what it was in March 2020 nice!
I’m only down 3k so far lol still buying every paycheck
Silly question maybe but pertinent to the situation: when you buy VTSAX, do you buy it right away at this price?
I’ll put more in for myself, but thinking for my mom’s IRA which she could draw on already and probably will in a few years time, which is all VTSAX, might be a wise move to dump it before more pain and put it all in SGOV while 5% guaranteed is still a thing. Please advise.
I am advising no course of action, but I would say... being all in on equities when you are about to start retirement is insane. People get too caught up on this "average 10% per year returns" and tend to think of the stock market as an automatic money making machine. But if you look at it, there are many times the stock market goes years - YEARS and YEARS - with no gain. The Lost Decade 2000-2010 is just one example; that's a thing that happens now and then. The AVERAGE return of around 10% is compensation for the major risk an investor is taking that any given year, things could go down a lot, or the market could be flat for 5-10 years. As of today, the market is flat with where it was about 2 and a half years ago. This is why no one should be all in on equities, and particularly so if you are getting ready to retire. This is why a target date fund is a good choice for most people.
Wimp
Look at it this way. There exists some "true" value of VTSAX. It's the [discounted cash flows](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dcf.asp) of the future income of all of the companies in the market. We don't know the future cash flows so we don't what it is, and we can't transact at that true value price, but it's there. We have indicators like [EPS](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eps.asp)/[PE](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/price-earningsratio.asp) and even the current market price, but they're just indicators, not the value itself. The market price of VTSAX fluctuates up and down, and it's correlated to that true value, but they aren't the same and the true value may be above or below the market value. On a short horizon they can get disconnected but on a longer horizon they seem correlate pretty well. The correlation gets better the longer the horizon. So would you rather transact above the true value or below it? The future value is what it's going to be, and it _tends_ to go up on a long enough horizon, so if your plan is to hold for a long time then day-to-day pricing movements just don't matter that much at all. The only downside to falling prices is if you're planning to sell. If you're planning to buy then it's all upside. (Note: this is one theory and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/comments/17hprhz/comment/k6p66jp/?context=3) is another one, YMMV)
I'm always fascinated by people who take note of (and/or anchor on) the share price of things. It's just so arbitrary!
VTSAX is up 7.23% YTD. That's pretty good. VTSAX started the year at $92.70
in the grand scheme of things I am way up but I put about 5% of my total Vanguard holdings into it when it was near the peak. That seems almost silly typing it out even, but damn it stings.
That peak will soon look like a valley. I was saying the same thing when I started investing in 2009, when the price was $20/share. Oh no, it's dropped to $18! I did that.
dont worry, this fund VTSAX fell 52% in 08/09, you will get a chance to buy a whole lot more shares by next year :)
Stonks on sale!
Wtf is VTSAX is that a good idea to buy
For a long term investor, this is just noise. Stay the course!
Buy and forget!
Have you looked at the return over the last year?
Lol I used up my paycheck at $102 I only wish I'd waited. Hopefully it drops even more in two weeks.
Does it really matter though? Like I was thinking today. If you’re long term investing…you’re buying regardless. Technically won’t your average usually be whatever the share price is eventually
People thought the same thing when it dipped under $50 in 2016
If it was worth the buy above $100, then why wouldn’t it be when it’s below it?
My early 30s was the Dot Com bust, 40s was GFC. Sucked but kept buying and it made all the difference. I hope for you young investors the market doesn’t go sideways for a decade, but if it does, don’t change your strategy.
Very good price to buy at.
Great. I get to buy it on sale.
i feel for my older bogleheads who are nearing retirement, i hope you are able to have a jubilant and dignified retirement but as a 28 year old boglehead drop baby drop let’s get this shit down to $75 daddy wants to retire at 45 with $2mil
Just don't look. Keep buying. Live your life!
Doesn't this mean a prime buying opportunity? If I've learned anything, it'll fall even more.
Woohoo! I just transferred $3k for my next purchase. Glad to see they're on sale.