Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Road Cycling (https://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   Addiction 2022.3 (https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=1254494)

seedsbelize2 07-14-22 01:16 PM

I thought this phase of my career was past. I just got the RideWithGPS app, again, to keep track of my average and max speed, now that I'm back on the old route. I have a time trial built into it so I don't have to count the ride across Tixkokob and one other village in both directions. 20 km with no topes. I'm 15 pounds lighter than I was last time. And I have two healthy knees. Vamos a ver.
Another great ride in the books. It was not overly hot. Quite pleasant.

seedsbelize2 07-14-22 01:18 PM


Originally Posted by BillyD (Post 22574291)
I’d love to throw all the ingredients into an instapot, and Mrs BD keeps offering, but I don’t see how all those textures will work out effectively. For sample, shouldn’t the veggies have some fiber left instead of coming out mush? I have to experiment some.

Fiber remains in mush.

seedsbelize2 07-14-22 01:21 PM


Originally Posted by indyfabz (Post 22574135)
Some co-workers here with me in the Philly office today. I'm usually alone. Means I have to wear long pants. :mad:

Fixed

Mojo31 07-14-22 01:27 PM


Originally Posted by datlas (Post 22574573)
Ok, this might get a little P&R, but it's really economic in nature...

I would think that MOST savers know they should have roughly 100 minus their age as a percentage of savings in the stock market. The rest should be in safer places like bonds etc.

So why are all my 70-something patients telling me they are all stressed out because they are losing their shirt in the market?? If you are 75, you should really only have 25% of your assets in the market anyway.

Am I missing something here??

I think rules like that only apply to people who will have to rely on their total savings to live as they would like after they no longer work. For example, I have about 70% in the market whereas under your rule that should only be 35%. But, we have a portion of our equity holdings in buffered mutual fund investments that protect against the downside while capping the potential upside, which allows us the higher potential return of the market. And I still have a much higher than average income and expect to do so for the next 3 to 5 years. We also have some passive income that will not end at retirement. We are simply in a position where we can continue to take market risk.

On the other hand, I agree with you with respect to retirees. The ones that do not take steps to protect the principal likely either handle their investments themselves or have a family member do so, and those people are probably not very sophisticated financially.

I get a weekly report of our investments, and hate seeing the drops. But, that just means its time to put more in!

datlas 07-14-22 01:30 PM


Originally Posted by Mojo31 (Post 22574597)
I think rules like that only apply to people who will have to rely on their total savings to live as they would like after they no longer work. For example, I have about 70% in the market whereas under your rule that should only be 35%. But, we have some buffered mutual fund investments that protect against the downside while capping the potential upside, which allows us the higher potential return of the market. And I still have a much higher than average income and expect to do so for the next 3 to 5 years. We also have some passive income that will not end at retirement. We are simply in a position where we can continue to take market risk.

On the other hand, I agree with you with respect to retirees. The ones that do not take steps to protect the principal likely either handle their investments themselves or have a family member do so, and those people are probably not very sophisticated financially.

Understood. The market gyrations are not really important to me medically, but if patients are over-leveraged in the market it's going to affect their mental health.

I have no problem with a bear market. It happens. It's a great time to sit tight and keep buying.

seedsbelize2 07-14-22 01:32 PM


Originally Posted by datlas (Post 22574573)
Ok, this might get a little P&R, but it's really economic in nature...

I would think that MOST savers know they should have roughly 100 minus their age as a percentage of savings in the stock market. The rest should be in safer places like bonds etc.

So why are all my 70-something patients telling me they are all stressed out because they are losing their shirt in the market?? If you are 75, you should really only have 25% of your assets in the market anyway.

Am I missing something here??

I keep zero percent in the market. A gambler I am not. Unlike your patients, I like to sleep at night.

seedsbelize2 07-14-22 01:36 PM

Might be nap time

datlas 07-14-22 01:38 PM


Originally Posted by seedsbelize2 (Post 22574605)
I keep zero percent in the market. A gambler I am not. Unlike your patients, I like to sleep at night.

That's your choice and it's reasonable, especially for someone who is older and/or risk adverse.

But realize that the market is not a scam or a losing proposition like a casino, where on average, you will end up losing your money. The market is not a fixed sum game, it does give the potential for good returns, on average.

genejockey 07-14-22 01:47 PM


I keep zero percent in the market. A gambler I am not. Unlike your patients, I like to sleep at night.

Originally Posted by seedsbelize2 (Post 22574611)
Might be nap time

So, you also like to sleep during day?

MoAlpha 07-14-22 01:53 PM


Originally Posted by Mojo31 (Post 22574597)
I think rules like that only apply to people who will have to rely on their total savings to live as they would like after they no longer work. For example, I have about 70% in the market whereas under your rule that should only be 35%. But, we have a portion of our equity holdings in buffered mutual fund investments that protect against the downside while capping the potential upside, which allows us the higher potential return of the market. And I still have a much higher than average income and expect to do so for the next 3 to 5 years. We also have some passive income that will not end at retirement. We are simply in a position where we can continue to take market risk.

On the other hand, I agree with you with respect to retirees. The ones that do not take steps to protect the principal likely either handle their investments themselves or have a family member do so, and those people are probably not very sophisticated financially.

I get a weekly report of our investments, and hate seeing the drops. But, that just means its time to put more in!

Exactly. We are older than you and are still at ~70% equities if you don't count the house. I also collect a military-type pension which would fund a double-wide lifestyle in a scenic Red state.

In times like these, I don't peek at the numbers and just do what I'm told. 2008 was much scarier, financially at least.

genejockey 07-14-22 01:54 PM


Originally Posted by seedsbelize2 (Post 22574605)
I keep zero percent in the market. A gambler I am not. Unlike your patients, I like to sleep at night.


Originally Posted by datlas (Post 22574616)
That's your choice and it's reasonable, especially for someone who is older and/or risk adverse.

But realize that the market is not a scam or a losing proposition like a casino, where on average, you will end up losing your money. The market is not a fixed sum game, it does give the potential for good returns, on average.

We-elll......
While I wouldn't go so far as to call it a scam, it is essentially gambling. It will go up when people expect it to go up and down when people expect it to go down, largely because of those expectations.

datlas 07-14-22 01:57 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22574636)
We-elll......
While I wouldn't go so far as to call it a scam, it is essentially gambling. It will go up when people expect it to go up and down when people expect it to go down, largely because of those expectations.

well....it depends on how you define gambling. There is some risk involved, so maybe. But it's clearly NOT in the same league as gambling in a casino or gambling on the horse races etc., because those are zero sum games where one person's winnings comes from another person's losses.

Prolly.

LesterOfPuppets 07-14-22 01:58 PM


Originally Posted by datlas (Post 22574573)
Ok, this might get a little P&R, but it's really economic in nature...

I would think that MOST savers know they should have roughly 100 minus their age as a percentage of savings in the stock market. The rest should be in safer places like bonds etc.

So why are all my 70-something patients telling me they are all stressed out because they are losing their shirt in the market?? If you are 75, you should really only have 25% of your assets in the market anyway.

Am I missing something here??

Oooh, I'm a little more aggressive than that. 65% in the market whereas I should only have 45% by that rule of thumb.

gnome 07-14-22 02:00 PM


Originally Posted by WhyFi (Post 22574457)
When I was still in NYC, the city used to employ falconers to scare pigeons away from some parks... Until one of the hawks grabbed someone's chihuahua. Oops.

fair trade. after all a chihuahua is basically a rat anyway.

datlas 07-14-22 02:00 PM


Originally Posted by MoAlpha (Post 22574634)
In times like these, I don't peek at the numbers and just do what I'm told. 2008 was much scarier, financially at least.

I think so. I hope so. This reminds me, I have an aunt who lost 50% of her savings in 2008. She could not accept any further risk, so she told me she was selling and getting out of the market.

I tried to explain to her she should BUY low and SELL high, but she was not ok with that. She would have done fine if she sat tight, but she sold it all.

Mojo31 07-14-22 02:03 PM


Originally Posted by MoAlpha (Post 22574634)
Exactly. We are older than you and are still at ~70% equities if you don't count the house. I also collect a military-type pension which would fund a double-wide lifestyle in a scenic Red state.

In times like these, I don't peek at the numbers and just do what I'm told. 2008 was much scarier, financially at least.

Agreed, but I think you and I are essentially the same age. I hit 65 in about 2 months. You might be a year older. My wife's age might make us much younger in the aggregate.

2008 was much scarier. That's the year we bought our current house for well below the amount the builder spent building it. Good times!

I get no pension. :notamused:

MoAlpha 07-14-22 02:03 PM


Originally Posted by datlas (Post 22574650)
I think so. I hope so. This reminds me, I have an aunt who lost 50% of her savings in 2008. She could not accept any further risk, so she told me she was selling and getting out of the market.

I tried to explain to her she should BUY low and SELL high, but she was not ok with that. She would have done fine if she sat tight, but she sold it all.

2008 was an institutional crash with major financial entities going bust. There's none of that now. I am also old enough to remember the 70s in financial terms. I am much more worried about the economic and financial fallout of political instability.

MoAlpha 07-14-22 02:04 PM


Originally Posted by Mojo31 (Post 22574654)
Agreed, but I think you and I are essentially the same age. I hit 65 in about 2 months. You might be a year older. My wife's age might make us much younger in the aggregate.

2008 was much scarier. That's the year we bought our current house for well below the amount the builder spent building it. Good times!

I get no pension. :notamused:

Ah, right. I keep thinking I'm older than everyone.

Mojo31 07-14-22 02:06 PM


Originally Posted by datlas (Post 22574640)
well....it depends on how you define gambling. There is some risk involved, so maybe. But it's clearly NOT in the same league as gambling in a casino or gambling on the horse races etc., because those are zero sum games where one person's winnings comes from another person's losses.

Prolly.

I agree with you. But, I do enjoy a good few days of Blackjack. Sometimes Craps too.

Mojo31 07-14-22 02:06 PM


Originally Posted by MoAlpha (Post 22574656)
Ah, right. I keep thinking I'm older than everyone.

You may not be much older, but I'll bet your not any slower!

Mojo31 07-14-22 02:10 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22574636)
We-elll......
While I wouldn't go so far as to call it a scam, it is essentially gambling. It will go up when people expect it to go up and down when people expect it to go down, largely because of those expectations.

It is gambling if you look at a stock and pick it based on whether you think it will go up or down based on popularity and things of that nature without researching the business and fully understanding what it does. But, it is not really gambling if you invest after studying the financials of the company, its history, and its trends. Its really no different than when I left one law firm to start my own. I knew the financial history of my book of business, what clients would stay with me based on my relationship with them, analyzed the costs, and created a business plan. Sure, there was some risk since I would not have a salaried pay check, but it was not a gamble.

genejockey 07-14-22 02:13 PM


Originally Posted by datlas (Post 22574640)
well....it depends on how you define gambling. There is some risk involved, so maybe. But it's clearly NOT in the same league as gambling in a casino or gambling on the horse races etc., because those are zero sum games where one person's winnings comes from another person's losses.

Prolly.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, gambling is
the betting or staking of something of value, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain, on the outcome of a game, a contest, or an uncertain event whose result may be determined by chance or accident or have an unexpected result by reason of the bettor’s miscalculation.

So, really, buying stock fits the definition. It is entirely possible to lose all the money you bet on invest in a stock, because of unforeseen events. Valentine had it right when he said, in "Trading Places", "I get it! Y'all are a couple of bookies!"

That said, over the long term, it has yielded a pretty good return, and it is generally safer than betting on dogs or horses or which slot in a wheel a marble falls in.

Bah Humbug 07-14-22 02:14 PM


Originally Posted by datlas (Post 22574573)
Ok, this might get a little P&R, but it's really economic in nature...

I would think that MOST savers know they should have roughly 100 minus their age as a percentage of savings in the stock market. The rest should be in safer places like bonds etc.

So why are all my 70-something patients telling me they are all stressed out because they are losing their shirt in the market?? If you are 75, you should really only have 25% of your assets in the market anyway.

Am I missing something here??

It's greed/ financial FOMO. While the market is going up, especially by a lot, it's hard to keep money out of it because you don't want to give up "free money". And around when it feels irrational to not put ALL your money in the stock market/ housing market/ tulips/ whatever... it's going to start coming down.

genejockey 07-14-22 02:15 PM


Originally Posted by Mojo31 (Post 22574663)
It is gambling if you look at a stock and pick it based on whether you think it will go up or down based on popularity and things of that nature without researching the business and fully understanding what it does. But, it is not really gambling if you invest after studying the financials of the company, its history, and its trends. Its really no different than when I left one law firm to start my own. I knew the financial history of my book of business, what clients would stay with me based on my relationship with them, analyzed the costs, and created a business plan. Sure, there was some risk since I would not have a salaried pay check, but it was not a gamble.

That's like saying it's gambling if you pick a horse to bet on based on its name, but not if you base it on its previous race results.

Bah Humbug 07-14-22 02:17 PM


Originally Posted by datlas (Post 22574604)
Understood. The market gyrations are not really important to me medically, but if patients are over-leveraged in the market it's going to affect their mental health.

I have no problem with a bear market. It happens. It's a great time to sit tight and keep buying.

My end-of-June paycheck was the one that maxed out my 401k. The gravy starts flowing tomorrow.

genejockey 07-14-22 02:17 PM


Originally Posted by Bah Humbug (Post 22574668)
It's greed/ financial FOMO. While the market is going up, especially by a lot, it's hard to keep money out of it because you don't want to give up "free money". And around when it feels irrational to not put ALL your money in the stock market/ housing market/ tulips/ whatever... it's going to start coming down.

When somebody says, "Hold on - this tulip bulb is worth more than a mansion on the best street in Amsterdam? That's nuts!", you want to be the guy who just SOLD that bulb, not the guy who just BOUGHT it.

Mojo31 07-14-22 02:18 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22574665)
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, gambling is
the betting or staking of something of value, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain, on the outcome of a game, a contest, or an uncertain event whose result may be determined by chance or accident or have an unexpected result by reason of the bettor’s miscalculation.

So, really, buying stock fits the definition. It is entirely possible to lose all the money you bet on invest in a stock, because of unforeseen events. Valentine had it right when he said, in "Trading Places", "I get it! Y'all are a couple of bookies!"

That said, over the long term, it has yielded a pretty good return, and it is generally safer than betting on dogs or horses or which slot in a wheel a marble falls in.

This is where you miss the mark in calling stock investing "gambling." There is no game of chance and results are not the result of an accident. Again, to do it right, you have to study the investment and understand the business. As Warren Buffett said (or something like this), "I would never own a business I don't understand."

Mojo31 07-14-22 02:23 PM


Originally Posted by genejockey (Post 22574669)
That's like saying it's gambling if you pick a horse to bet on based on its name, but not if you base it on its previous race results.

No, businesses are not make or break on one event like a horse race.

If I bet on a Blackjack hand based on my last hand being 21, I'm still gambling because each hand is a unique game of chance. However, buying a stock is not based on the hope that one event today will make me rich or poor (although it could be if you buy it on a lark).

If I invest based on a company having 100 customers that have generated $XXXXXXXXXXXX over the last 10 or 20 years, it is likely to continue that business and either grow it, watch it remain the same, or shrink, but it's not going to go broke based on the happening of one event on one day.

Under your rationale, working in your position with your company is a gamble. But, it's not because its fortunes do not depend solely on a chance that it will make the right decision as one split moment in time.

genejockey 07-14-22 02:30 PM


Originally Posted by Mojo31 (Post 22574677)
This is where you miss the mark in calling stock investing "gambling." There is no game of chance and results are not the result of an accident. Again, to do it right, you have to study the investment and understand the business. As Warren Buffett said (or something like this), "I would never own a business I don't understand."

I think there's something about the word "gambling" that makes people want to deny that's what they're doing. But really, you're risking your time, your effort, and/or your money on something that's not entirely under your control, that DOES have an element of chance about it. Call it a 'calculated risk' if it makes you feel better about it, but in the end it's not all that different. You put money in a stock, even one you've carefully researched, and you're risking it on factors beyond your control. Companies do this all the time - they make business decisions based on the best available information, but they don't know the outcome, because it depends on factors outside their control - competitors, consumer sentiment, the state of the economy, etc. Think how many thriving small businesses went under because of COVID.

genejockey 07-14-22 02:31 PM


Originally Posted by Mojo31 (Post 22574683)
No, businesses are not make or break on one event like a horse race.

If I bet on a Blackjack hand based on my last hand being 21, I'm still gambling because each hand is a unique game of chance. However, buying a stock is not based on the hope that one event today will make me rich or poor (although it could be if you buy it on a lark).

If I invest based on a company having 100 customers that have generated $XXXXXXXXXXXX over the last 10 or 20 years, it is likely to continue that business and either grow it, watch it remain the same, or shrink, but it's not going to go broke based on the happening of one event on one day.

Under your rationale, working in your position with your company is a gamble. But, it's not because its fortunes do not depend solely on a chance that it will make the right decision as one split moment in time.

You might be surprised how many companies' fortunes turn on a single binary event.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:08 AM.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.