View Full Version : Does anyone NOT invest?
I guess there are probably some people who can't invest due to financial circumstances, so maybe my question should be, Is there anyone who prefers not to invest? By "invest," I'm refering to investing in the stock market, bonds, CDs, etc.
I'm just wondering, since investing really is the way to go nowadays. But to be totally honest, I still can't figure it out. All I have is a little mutual fund IRA which isn't doing all that well, and right now I'm not even contributing to it. So I am one of those who is not investing!
slackercruster
5-26-11, 2:44pm
I am investing less and spending more. Am an old cruster, not much time left. Have enuf investments to live on a few times over. Spending the rest on health and wellbeing and not leaving all behind for my kid to spend for me.
I invested mainly in muni bonds then high grade etf / cef muni funds.
whatever my 401K and IRA accounts invest in, that's the extent of it for us. We don't have the motivation to follow things closely, and instead we just use the moderate risk levels of these two retirements options, and know that over a few decades we should be ok with the result. If not, then the whole country is probably gone to ruin anyway ...
we are slowly getting out of the stock market; dh who has an inside guide to the stock market now feels its made up of companies run by corporate criminals; yeah our money won't get alot of return but at least we won't have lost it like we did when the stock market crashed the last two? times; can't remember if it was twice; memory problems
Chalk me up as another who thinks wall street is run by sociopaths, and avoids most contact with the market for that reason.
Due in part to my age, I am very gradually shifting from stock to CDs. My credit union offers very competitive rates. When rates were at or near 5%, I locked in four and five year CDs. So, much of my IRA is still earning @5%.
It has occurred to me that when the Boomers retire they will start drawing from 401ks and IRAs. This will create a situation where more people are selling than buying, since Boomers are such a large demographic group. I plan to be out of the stock market within the next ten years.
Been in the market since way before 86. Used Peter Lynch's ideas to invest in what we knew, such as Microsoft. That was until the speculators took control. Have been in several markets that converted from specialists to speculators and that ruined each and every market type we found (coins, stamps, etc.). We made money or did not lose money but lost interest once money was the only reason to be there. You can see it in housing now and in the strange market shifts.
Now we are still 50% in the market but 50% out of it. The only way I can sleep at night (in addition to no debt). Using our rules we have met every goal we set in the early 80s and now are retired.
Do not live on 100% of your income.
Dont try to keep up with the Jones. Used is good, cheaper, and often better made.
Dont change for the sake of changing.
If you cannot decide what to do, use the 1/3 rule. 1/3 savings, 1/3 debt, 1/3 spending.
Dont wait until you retire to live but be balanced.
Balance in everything.
etc.
DH and I don't. Don't want to contribute to things we don't believe in, and the only way we can be sure of that is to not invest. Agree with puglogic.
I don't. Never have. I put my IRA's and 457K (like a 401K but for govmint employees) into CDs that are insured. I usually have averaged around 5% although some are still ghetting 7% because I locked them in for 5 years back when interest rates where higher. I agree that investing in stocks or mutual funds is the way to grow your money quicker, but I am adverse to financial risk - especially now that I'm retired - and like to know I can count on keeping what I have.
Chickadee
6-23-11, 12:31pm
Spartana, are you still getting those higher rates on the CD's today that you are purchasing? I thought the rates had gone way down on those, or am I confused as to what you are saying? I apologize if this is too personal a question; I was thinking though that the YMOYL strategy was to ladder CD's and keep rolling them over as you go. If the rates are down now, isn't that reducing the amount you are getting to live on (or will in the future anyway when the CD's mature...)?
Spartana, are you still getting those higher rates on the CD's today that you are purchasing? I thought the rates had gone way down on those, or am I confused as to what you are saying? I apologize if this is too personal a question; I was thinking though that the YMOYL strategy was to ladder CD's and keep rolling them over as you go. If the rates are down now, isn't that reducing the amount you are getting to live on (or will in the future anyway when the CD's mature...)?
Hey Chickadee - Welcome back!! I missed you on the old board (I'm Lindi, the former She-Rah). Unfortunately once my current 5 year CDs mature (soon) I will get a MUCH lower rate (like 2 %) on them then what I got when I first locked them in 5 years ago at a fixed rate of approx. 7%. I won't lock them up for 5 years next time though, probably just for a few months at a time, until the interest rates go back up again. I don't use the CDs to live on as I have a pension for that. They are just my "savings".
Chickadee
6-26-11, 11:55pm
Hey Lindi! I have loved reading your posts over the years. I am not the original Chickadee though, I used to be Chinamom on the old boards. It has taken me a while to get registered here and to start posting. I used to love reading Chickadee's posts as well and wasn't thinking about her when I took that name on here; it has to do with the name of my farm and I wanted to move out of the "mom" role, if that makes sense. I apologize for the confusion. (sorry!) :|( I need to do an intro post; I keep forgetting about that. I will go do that now.
Thank you for answering my question about your CD's. That makes sense. I was wondering how you were getting such great rates these days. :) Hopefully the rates will go back up to the 5% area someday again...
We don't "invest" -- or so I'm told. Everything we have for retirement (and we're retired) is in laddered CDs. They are all Roth IRA's as well. We're still getting an average of 5% return -- though, as CDs mature, this is falling.
We have held Treasuries as well, buying on the way up and selling on the way down. We've made a little extra that way, but nothing worth the trouble.
Our attitude is simple:
protect principal
lend (for a fixed return), don't gamble (for a potential return).
This, many investor friends have told me, "is not investing." But then, most of them are broke at the moment. We live comfortably, and sleep like babies.
miradoblackwarrior
6-12-12, 10:02am
Hi, all--
I agree with everything everybody said! I, too, am very wary of the stock market, and as I watch Europe implode, taking the US, China, and the entire world with it, I think that stocks are just too volatile. I didn't lose money in the last "crash," mostly because I don't have a lot of money to invest. I do have numerous "pockets"--CDs, 457b, money markets, and Roth. I also have a small stash of cash, again in various pockets. Investing into the very banks that so royally screwed us (and are still getting away with it) is just wrong, IMO. My money is in the credit union. Any other money I have put away I pretty much kissed goodbye when I put it away. I'm not feeling too secure right now.
Susan
I don't invest. I am a teacher in a right to work state (read: no unions allowed.) My pay is very low but I will get social security and a pension. Additionally, I took a pay cut 2 years ago and it was just reinstated for next year but I haven't moved up any steps on the salary scale for 3 years. I cannot afford to invest because I spend all my salary on living my very modest lifestyle.
I have been saving for the past year to purchase a new car this summer and pay cash. After the car is purchased, I am going to put $400+ per month extra to the principle of my mortgage. I am trying to cut down the repayment period by 8 or nine years so It's paid off in a little over 11 years instead of 20. I am hopeful that I can make this happen so that when I retire all my student loan debt will be gone as well as my mortgage and so I'll be able to live comfortably off my pension and my social security.
awakenedsoul
6-13-12, 6:02pm
I have a money market and an ING savings account. I never invested in the stock market. My father gave me some Chevron stock many years ago and I sold it for $84.00 a share. I have a pretty good sense of market timing in real estate and the stock market. I've been looking at land. There's a small lot near me that's on EBay for under $15,000. I think it would be a good investment, if it weren't for the neighbors. I've also thought about CD's and bonds. Suze Orman says that companies like water and power are pretty safe. That makes sense to me. I've also invested in fruit trees and seeds for my farm. I'm putting in a large orchard, and the return has been excellent!
We have a money market, a CD, a mutual fund in an IRA, and our savings accounts, plus then checking, and we obviously invest in our business.
I would like to do more CDs and money-market accounts, because I like the interest rates and the sense of "safety" that I feel around them.
I do. TIAA CREF for my retirement. It's a mix of "instruments." It has made good money for me over the long term. Better than if I had scouted out CDs over the years? Maybe, maybe not. If you have the time, talent, and inclination to find these great CD interest rates, then you can have the safety of insured deposits and a decent rate of return over the long term. My biggest "investment" throughout my life has been my career and my ability to make the money in the first place. Fortunately, I love what I do--whether it will all pan out when I retire I don't know, so I try to enjoy every day.
We invest as well. Both of us have deferred-compensation plans from our jobs (and I have another one from earlier employment) and they are invested primarily in equities. We have a little bit of investment property left. We also have CDs and money-market accounts. It's all apportioned as best we can and as appropriately as we can given the time and information available to us.
Since no one can predict the future accurately, it's hard to know just where to put the money. But I think we've convinced ourselves that, long-term, bank/credit union savings, money markets, and CDs may preserve the original invested amount, but won't keep up with inflation over time. So we leave those for the "emergency" funds and try to pick our mutual funds carefully.
goldensmom
6-14-12, 6:35pm
I don't invest, not a choice I just don't have anything to invest other than time.
I have less and less in mutual fund stock market type investments, but a lot of my nest egg is in bond and bond fund investments.
Although I do invest via my 401(k), here's another reason I'm wary:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/news/companies/insider_trading_sec/index.htm?iid=EL
If I had my durthers, I wouldn't invest, and I'd gain about 20 hours a week of free time. But, also, I'd lose an income-stream that supports me twice over. So I don't look at what I do as "investing". I look at it as a job that provides me with a decent living. Instead of pounding nails to build houses, or pulling wrenches to repair machinery, I price risk. But all are the same in their essentials: Effort creates reward.
However, were I rich enough to truly retire, I'd still engage markets for the fun of it, because the puzzles they offer are endlessly amusing.
"What is the best way, really, to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty?"
"Why can investing be learned, but never taught?"
"How much, really, is 'enough'"?
If "investing" is seen as something alien and foreign, then, of course, it becomes mysterious and unfathomable. But if the task is viewed as no different than buying bell peppers or broccoli at the grocery store, i.e., something does almost reflexively on a daily or weekly basis (or however one shops), then buying and selling in markets loses its emotional overtones and becomes just one more of the transactions that are part of life. "It might rain, so I'll take an umbrella with me." "The day is sunny and clear, so I'll ride my bike rather than walk." "This stock or bond might be a good investment, and that one probably isn't." It's all just a matter of expressing preferences and making choices.
loosechickens
6-15-12, 11:37pm
very good points, Junkman. Every day of our lives, we make decisions, take risks, develop expertise in making better choices or learning how to assess risk well. Investing our money is not one bit different. Nothing in life is risk free, and often, especially in money matters, many see some things as "risk free" that are anything but.
So many engage in dealing with money issues more from "fear of loss" than recognizing that risk is always present, and learning to MANAGE risk, ASSESS risk and understanding that there is no way at all to deal with money that is FREE of risk, is much more of a useful attitude.
We aren't paralyzed in our daily lives when we find it necessary to make decisions and assess risk of various actions, and dealing with money issues is no different. We just invest it with a lot more "fear of loss" than needs be.
We aren't paralyzed in our daily lives when we find it necessary to make decisions and assess risk of various actions, and dealing with money issues is no different. We just invest it with a lot more "fear of loss" than needs be.
Loosechickens,
A book that underscores your point is Justin Mamis', The Nature of Risk. He begins with a simple example, crossing the street, and builds from there, offering would-be investors a means by which to make their decisions.
At the other end of spectrum, which needs to be acknowledged as well, is the work being done in the field of behavioral finance and all the ways in which we humans, each and everyone of us, are disadvataged by our genetic inheritance. We make our decisions emotionally with our 'lizard brain' and then we use our front brain to justify them, and we pat ourselves on the back for acting 'rationally' when the opposite is really the case.
In most situations, depending on emotions to make decisions works well. But in markets, it can kill profits and trash accounts. As the Dalbar studies repeatedly document, most investors under-perform for being their own worst enemy. Two responses to that are possible, one of which surfaces in this thread, namely, management by avoidance, or the ostrich approach. The better approach, the eagle approach, is to deal with the problem head on and, as you suggest, to see investing as simply another part of the risk-taking we already do in our lives.
Where most people go wrong is in thinking that investing is as simple as its marketers (e.g., fund shops like Vanguard) want investors to think it is. To become a journeyman plumber require a four-year program of 200 hours of classroom instruction per year and 8,000 hours of field experience, followed up by a written and practical test at the end of which the apprentice gets his card but is still expected to be no more skilled than being able "to complete common tasks without supervision in a workman-like manner." What average investor has made that kind of effort? What successful investor has not? That's also part of the reason why so many argue that the grapes of investing are sour. They didn't find the learning easy, so they gave up. But this stuff is doable, and it ain't rocket science. If a person can buy his or her own broccoli and bell peppers, they can buy stocks, or bonds or whatever and do well by it. The dynamics of price, supply and demand, risk and reward, are exactly the same. What isn't the same is the head games they play on themselves, thereby becoming their own worst enemy. The recent Facebook IPO is a classic instance of this. As I wrote in another forum:
Before FB came to market, it could not have been known for sure that the price wouldn’t pop, creating instant, easy wealth for anyone who bought in. The odds were against that happening, for a wide variety of well-known, technical and fundamental reasons. But it couldn’t have been known that the price wouldn’t pop. What could have been known (and was widely known) was that the more favorable market-side was short, not long. That was the higher probability bet. But those who liked and used FB wanted to buy into the IPO, and they said they didn’t care if they initially lost money. Well, they are getting exactly what they wished for. They own shares, but those shares are now worth 24% less than they paid for them. As we go into the close on May 27, the BID is $28.70, which is a tad bit down from the IPO price of $38, suggesting they weren’t investing when they bought. They were merely gambling, and now they don’t have the honesty to admit that, nor, retrospectively, the common-sense to have set a stop.
So, let’s review what should have been done, so that lessons can be learned by which future mistakes could be avoided.
Whether it’s stocks, bonds, or whatever that are being bought, once the decision has been made to buy something, the next question is “How much?” If a reasonable guideline is that no position should be more than 5% of AUM, then buying 100 shares of FB at $38 would presuppose an account size of $76,000, or very close to the median net-worth for all investors. OK, so far, so good. To put on a 100-share position wouldn’t have been an outrageous thing to have done. The position wouldn’t have been too big. It would have been merely one of presumably nineteen other stock positions already held, and owning FB in that amount would have fallen within the customary rule of thumb that suggests that 20 positions, spread across industries, creates reasonable diversification.
But let’s say our would-be investor were convinced he or she was the next Warren Buffet, who scoffs at diversification, calling it “diworsification”. So let’s say our intrepid investor went 500 shares, arguing (not unreasonably) that “mere exposure isn’t the same thing as risk.” Well, that’s true, but such a statement presupposes that risk can be measured. In this case, it easily can be. Risk is the size of potential loss times the certainty of it occurring. But if you can’t quantify ‘likelihood’ (and ‘gut feeling’ isn’t quantifiable), then you have to assume that likelihood is a coin flip, and you have to focus on the other half of the equation, the size of the potential loss. That, too, cannot be known in advance, but limits can be set. In his books, William O’Neil suggests that 8% is a reasonable hard stop. “When a position moves against you by that much, you should assume that you made a mistake and get out.” Had the Facebook gamblers set hard stops at $35 dollars, they would have been kicked out around that price, suffering an (-8% loss), instead of the (-24%) loss they are now facing (and still don’t know what to do).
Everyone has a different account size, and everyone has a different emotional response to risk. So, hard and fast rules cannot be so easily suggested as O’Neil’s 8% guideline. But it’s very easy to run one’s own numbers in a spreadsheet and to determine where the limits are. Sometime, when you’re considering an investment, you might want to do just that. Rather than focus on how much return it might offer, you might want to focus on how much loss it could cause. If you can‘t see a way to manage the risk, you have to back way and look for a different opportunity. But if you can see a path to managing the risk, then a position can be sized and the order written.
The investment might work out, and it might not. But you won’t get yourself thrown out of the game for having over-bet your hand. Those who over-bet their account and who bought more of FB than prudence suggested they should are now suffering the torture of their greed and stupidity. Those who put on prudently-sized positions and set hard stops are now on the sidelines, waiting for the dust settle, and, if they choose, they can get back in at a much better price. Stocks or bonds, investment losses cannot be avoided. But they certainly can be controlled, and must be controlled, if capital is to be appreciated, instead of merely being spent on the emotional thrill of owning an IPO.
“Amateurs look first to their upsides. Pros look first to their downsides.”
As Mamis explains in his book, as dozens of market practitioners have explained in their books, there are dozens of ways to find a path to investment profits. All anyone has to do is going looking. Or, one could choose not to look. But in today's world of disappearing defined-benefit pension plans and increasing threat of elevated levels of inflation due to the Fed's easy money policies, that isn't a smart choice.
Charlie
http://www.bemanaged.com/2011/06/28/2011-dalbar-study-finds-that-investors-are-still-their-own-worth-enemy/
So many engage in dealing with money issues more from "fear of loss" than recognizing that risk is always present, and learning to MANAGE risk, ASSESS risk and understanding that there is no way at all to deal with money that is FREE of risk, is much more of a useful attitude.
You've expressed it much better than I did. When I first started reading this thread, the OP's question didn't make a lot of sense to me. Really, anyone with income beyond their expenses is an investor. The question is which balance of risk and reward you are willing to take on. Putting one's money in savings accounts and CDs is "investing" just as much as putting one's money on stocks, bonds, real estate, or "I'll Have Another" is "investing". While it's possible to assess some likelihood of risk versus reward, whether an investment is smart is truly determined only later on.
Putting one's money in savings accounts and CDs is "investing" just as much as putting one's money on stocks, bonds, real estate, or "I'll Have Another" is "investing". While it's possible to assess some likelihood of risk versus reward, whether an investment is smart is truly determined only later on.
(1) Savings accounts, CDs, and anything where the return of nominal-principal is guaranteed is NOT investing. That's merely cash-management. Unless there is a genuine possibility of loss, something isn't an investment, meaning "risk accepted in pursuit of reward."
(2) Smart investing (trading) is NOT scored on outcome, but on adherence to a plan. E..g, if an investment (or a trade) is done for mistaken reasons, but turns out well, it was a bad investment (or trade). If an investment (or trade) was done for sound reasons, but turns out badly, it was still a sound investment (or trade). It is the process that matters, not individual results. If the process is sound, money will be made, on average. If the process is unsound, then lucky trades will happen, but they cannot be sustained. Good investors earn their money with skill, not luck.
If you want an ordinary, everyday example of this, think about a card game like Euchre. When you are dealt a particular hand of cards, there is generally a sound way to pay that hand. If you play the hand that way, but lose, should the hand have been played differently? Investing is nothing but a game of probabilities, in which there are smart ways to bet the hand, and dumb ways that are still dumb even if, this time, they paid off. Yes, market results are unpredictable and can be capricious. But there are smart ways to invest that are still smart no matter particular results.
We have done very little investing outside of retirement accounts. Both major providers are very low fee.
In retirement accounts, we've stuck pretty close to 50% stock, 50% fixed income since the early 90s. Before the stock market top in the early 2000s, we were at about 60% fixed income. Right now, we're about 55% fixed income.
My accounts have traditionally been more conservatively managed than my wife's; the variations from 50/50 have generally been in my retirement. Next step is probably to make my accounts the ones with the higher stock percentages, as my wife expects to retire 3 or 4 years before I do. I expect we will have some stock investments (25-30%) even during retirement.
Overall, we don't have any serious regrets. Though having more money outside the retirement account handcuffs would make managing our daughter's college expenses and our aging fleet of cars easier. On the other hand, it may never have been saved without having been put into retirement accounts,
SteveinMN
6-17-12, 10:46pm
(1) Savings accounts, CDs, and anything where the return of nominal-principal is guaranteed is NOT investing. That's merely cash-management. Unless there is a genuine possibility of loss, something isn't an investment, meaning "risk accepted in pursuit of reward."
I'll accept your definition of investing, but I still think that anyone putting their money in CDs and savings accounts is accepting risk -- they may not be risking their principal, but they do risk the results not keeping up with inflation.
(2) Smart investing (trading) is NOT scored on outcome, but on adherence to a plan. E..g, if an investment (or a trade) is done for mistaken reasons, but turns out well, it was a bad investment (or trade). If an investment (or trade) was done for sound reasons, but turns out badly, it was still a sound investment (or trade). It is the process that matters, not individual results. If the process is sound, money will be made, on average. If the process is unsound, then lucky trades will happen, but they cannot be sustained. Good investors earn their money with skill, not luck.
Again, I can see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. I've spent most of my career working at different manufacturing companies. Improving processes, whether it is under the banners of Total Quality Management or Six Sigma or ISO certification or whatever, certainly has its merits. Understanding why something is being done is critical to improving it. But being able to repeat a dubious or downright bad process even to the nth degree is no guarantor of success. Following generally-accepted norms (the "smart way to bet the hand") also is no guarantor of success.
Was it smart for Apple to introduce a mobile phone? In 2012, clearly, we say 'yes'. But when the iPhone first came out, it was launched by a company with no telecommunications experience to speak of and on a carrier known for poor customer service. And Nokia, RIM (Blackberry), and Samsung were kicking out millions of smartphones on that same carrier and almost all the others. Conventional wisdom would have said, "who needs this?" Sure, good execution played a part. And yet....
Plenty of people (including several on this board, I'm sure) bought their homes at or near the height of the real estate bubble. They were following an investment practice that, till then, had been sound and had a proven track record. Yes, some markets got "frothy" (they're also the ones which fell the farthest). But even if one avoided the mania of flipping and didn't accept the lender's estimate of how big a house you could afford, many still got smacked by the burst bubble.
I'm not saying there's no difference between putting all your money in a money market or in stocks/bonds or even on a horse. But for years, putting money in low-interest/low-risk instruments like CDs was not smart. For years, buying a house was a reasonable way to put money into something which would be worth more later. By the end of 2007, the tables had turned on both strategies. Luck? Good investment/bad investment? Really simple for most people: did they make money with it? And, if they did (even if they didn't, really), was it a better outcome than their other choices?
Steve,
Years and years ago, long before American Century bought out Benham Funds, I had the privilege and pleasure of attending a lecture put on by one of its principals. He posed this question to the audience.
“Tell me, if you can, which is truly the riskiest investment?”
We raised our hands and offered answers like, “emerging markets, gold, etc.” But he laughed and said.
“Nope, you’ve all got it wrong. The riskiest investment is cash.”
We were shocked. Here was the principal one of the leading mutual fund companies in the country, known far and wide for their money-market funds and their ‘capital preservation funds’, telling us that what he made the bulk of his money selling us was far riskier than whatever else we were buying from him or anyone else. Obviously, you understand the point he was making, namely, the fact that while cash might be safe in the short run, in the long run it fails to keep up with inflation, and that creates very serious risk for those who choose its putative safety.
The huge mistake most investors make is to try to substitute a cash-management strategy for the whole of an investment strategy. They want ‘safety’, and they think that buying CDs and such is safe. As you argue (and I agree), CDs and such preserve nominal principal, but they put purchasing-power at risk. That’s why I define ‘principal-protected instruments'’ as 'cash-equivalents’, and that’s why I own no more of them than are needed to create an emergency fund and/or facilitate portfolio liquidity.
Charlie
I still have my former employers 401K account but haven't been able to contribute anything to it. It's set up for the approximate year when I'll retire, so it's mostly stocks now.
Many years ago I was making quite a bit of money when CD rates were high---laddering and moving here and there. If I had some steady extra income coming in, I'd probably start a Roth IRA. I don't understand much about investments and don't trust anyone to do it for me.
I don't understand much about investments and don't trust anyone to do it for me.
pony mom,
Yours is a common dilemma, but it’s not an unsolvable one. My bet is that you don’t understand much about auto repair, either, but you trust others to do it for you. Same-same with many of the services we all use, chiefly medical services. We might “understand” the concept of surgery, but we don’t do our own.
But many of the others things we pay people to do for us, such as rewiring a kitchen or bathroom, really aren’t hard to do. We just haven’t gotten around to learning how to do it for ourselves, or we’re making more money with our time, and we’d rather buy the convenience of hiring others to do it for us. (E.g., I’ll re-roof and re-wire, but I won’t repair my own car. I just don’t like the process enough to learn how to do it.)
Investing is no different. It can be learned, or it can be hired out. The question is whether the effort to learn how to invest will pay off? Most people are betting that it won’t for them. In their past, they made a feeble effort to learn. They failed, so they gave up. But who is most harmed by that decision, and shouldn't it be revisited from time to time to determine if it is still valid? There is a saying that goes like this, "Today is the first day of the rest of your life." As never before, markets are more accessible to small investors, and there are far more resources and opportunities. So investing is far easier to learn and no more expensive to begin than a walk to your local library.
Charlie
SteveinMN
6-18-12, 10:25pm
The huge mistake most investors make is to try to substitute a cash-management strategy for the whole of an investment strategy. They want ‘safety’, and they think that buying CDs and such is safe. As you argue (and I agree), CDs and such preserve nominal principal, but they put purchasing-power at risk. That’s why I define ‘principal-protected instruments'’ as 'cash-equivalents’, and that’s why I own no more of them than are needed to create an emergency fund and/or facilitate portfolio liquidity.
Charlie, with that explanation, you and I are in full agreement.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.