Another thought, you wait for the 30% dip and in the meantime stocks rose 40%
so you lost 10% did you not?
Good point. You want to sell before the high point then buy at the low.
Never will happen
So, you put some money in cash by selling then now wait
The market will contiunue to rise with certainty
if it rises 15% after you sell then drops 20% you will make 5% only if you buy at low but that will never happen either
My math is off but
my math isn’t the issue. The issue is you have to be right
twice:
- Sell before the drop.
- Buy before the rise.
If you sell and the market keeps going up 20%, you either buy back higher or wait forever. That opportunity cost can be brutal. Historically, stocks have positive drift, so cash drag is expensive.
better to rebalance
You set a target allocation — say 80% stocks / 20% cash or bonds.
When stocks rise and become 85%, you sell 5% to get back to 80%.
When stocks fall and become 75%, you buy 5% from cash.
You never predict the top or bottom but you sell high then buy low at a small scale .
That’s what robos do. That’s what some big players do, with nuances as they deal in billions, and what smart players do who just have millions
The belief that smart people with millions use exclusive investment firms who want millions to let you into their secret world or buy hedge funds is total nonsense. They do what someone with thousands should do. They do the balance dance or reserve fund technique . The zeros change, not the principle.
Pick an allocation you can live with, set rebalancing bands, and let the robo do the work or some etfs do it as well.
If you want to hold extra cash in case of major bear you can spend instead of selling you already have that
if cash/bonds are separate from the stocks
It is called using a cash reserve