Top is in

[Villanelle]

Boobs are bottoming out.  Braless top is in.

[TreeLeaf]

Boobs are bottoming out.  Braless top is in.

Wow there are boobs here now.

Usually that's a sign the top is off, or in..or something.

Wait - what were we talking about again? Lol 😂

[Adventine]

Free the top-tops!

[Mr. Green]

S&P 500 now 4.68% from ATH.

[Heckler]

I have a "Free hugs" T-shirt.  Fortunately, it must be worn to get free hugs, but it works great at big-top parties like Oktoberfest.

[Nicholas Carter]

Once again pulling this thread from relentless shitposting to a philosophical question that's actually interesting: What does it even mean for a market to top? The Nikkei 225 achieved an inflation adjusted value in 1993 that it did not return to until 2021. Does that 28 year period mean that 1993 should be considered a "top" in some way that actually changes the advice you would give to an investor in 1992? If yes, would you have the same advice for an American in 1998, right before seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation? If no, would you consider a market to have topped if it took 30, 40, or 80 years to return to all time highs?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Once again pulling this thread from relentless shitposting to a philosophical question that's actually interesting: What does it even mean for a market to top? The Nikkei 225 achieved an inflation adjusted value in 1993 that it did not return to until 2021. Does that 28 year period mean that 1993 should be considered a "top" in some way that actually changes the advice you would give to an investor in 1992? If yes, would you have the same advice for an American in 1998, right before seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation? If no, would you consider a market to have topped if it took 30, 40, or 80 years to return to all time highs?

Just me personally, waiting basically my whole adult life (28 years) for the top to be surpassed would feel like a top was in if I'd started investing in 1993, right at the end of the boom.  I can't even fathom.  Most of my expectation of investing in that scenario would involve saving vs. the exciting compound growth I have actually enjoyed.

I did start investing in 1996, quite a bit of that in the Nasdaq which had about a 10 year slump after the tech bubble burst.  I'd argue that the 'seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation' is a very technical way of making that period sound worse than it was.  There were still good returns if you were diversified (including international, real estate, and SP500) and inflation was low.  The Great Financial Collapse of 2008-9 was much worse in terms of a broad wipeout, but also came back relatively quickly and inflation was low during that time.  Both of those recessions turned out to be great 'buy the dip' opportunities if you stayed the course.

Just like the Great Depression changed a generation's outlook on saving, investing, and spending, the Japanese Lost Decade(s) similarly caused families to become much more conservative.  Those both seem 'Top Is In' events.  Sadly, you don't get a 'Top is In' warning until you've lost your stache, then lost more buying the dip and waiting for a top that doesn't return for decades (which feels like forever when you're like raising a family or wanting to retire but can't)...

[Wintergreen78]

Once again pulling this thread from relentless shitposting to a philosophical question that's actually interesting: What does it even mean for a market to top? The Nikkei 225 achieved an inflation adjusted value in 1993 that it did not return to until 2021. Does that 28 year period mean that 1993 should be considered a "top" in some way that actually changes the advice you would give to an investor in 1992? If yes, would you have the same advice for an American in 1998, right before seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation? If no, would you consider a market to have topped if it took 30, 40, or 80 years to return to all time highs?

Just me personally, waiting basically my whole adult life (28 years) for the top to be surpassed would feel like a top was in if I'd started investing in 1993, right at the end of the boom.  I can't even fathom.  Most of my expectation of investing in that scenario would involve saving vs. the exciting compound growth I have actually enjoyed.

I did start investing in 1996, quite a bit of that in the Nasdaq which had about a 10 year slump after the tech bubble burst.  I'd argue that the 'seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation' is a very technical way of making that period sound worse than it was.  There were still good returns if you were diversified (including international, real estate, and SP500) and inflation was low.  The Great Financial Collapse of 2008-9 was much worse in terms of a broad wipeout, but also came back relatively quickly and inflation was low during that time.  Both of those recessions turned out to be great 'buy the dip' opportunities if you stayed the course.

Just like the Great Depression changed a generation's outlook on saving, investing, and spending, the Japanese Lost Decade(s) similarly caused families to become much more conservative.  Those both seem 'Top Is In' events.  Sadly, you don't get a 'Top is In' warning until you've lost your stache, then lost more buying the dip and waiting for a top that doesn't return for decades (which feels like forever when you're like raising a family or wanting to retire but can't)...

To be serious for just a moment - from a historical chart it looks like the Nikkei declined or was essentially flat until 2012, but has risen steadily for the last decade. I’d be interested in seeing what total returns look like for someone who spent the last 30 years making monthly contributions to it.

My suspicion is that the returns would not look good to the people around here who expect 10%+ per year, but would be better than you think.

You did make me curious about a 60/40 stock/bond strategy. It looks like the 10-year total return for the S&P Japan bond market is 0.5%/year. This looks painful, but I’d still be interested in seeing how a 60/40 or 80/20 strategy impacts total returns and volatility.

This would temper people’s hopes that they can work for 10 years then retire and live off investments (unless they have a massively high savings rate), but I expect someone in Japan with a 30 year timeframe would have been OK.

Anyone want to actually do the math? I’m too lazy, so at this point this is just speculation.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Once again pulling this thread from relentless shitposting to a philosophical question that's actually interesting: What does it even mean for a market to top? The Nikkei 225 achieved an inflation adjusted value in 1993 that it did not return to until 2021. Does that 28 year period mean that 1993 should be considered a "top" in some way that actually changes the advice you would give to an investor in 1992? If yes, would you have the same advice for an American in 1998, right before seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation? If no, would you consider a market to have topped if it took 30, 40, or 80 years to return to all time highs?

Just me personally, waiting basically my whole adult life (28 years) for the top to be surpassed would feel like a top was in if I'd started investing in 1993, right at the end of the boom.  I can't even fathom.  Most of my expectation of investing in that scenario would involve saving vs. the exciting compound growth I have actually enjoyed.

I did start investing in 1996, quite a bit of that in the Nasdaq which had about a 10 year slump after the tech bubble burst.  I'd argue that the 'seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation' is a very technical way of making that period sound worse than it was.  There were still good returns if you were diversified (including international, real estate, and SP500) and inflation was low.  The Great Financial Collapse of 2008-9 was much worse in terms of a broad wipeout, but also came back relatively quickly and inflation was low during that time.  Both of those recessions turned out to be great 'buy the dip' opportunities if you stayed the course.

Just like the Great Depression changed a generation's outlook on saving, investing, and spending, the Japanese Lost Decade(s) similarly caused families to become much more conservative.  Those both seem 'Top Is In' events.  Sadly, you don't get a 'Top is In' warning until you've lost your stache, then lost more buying the dip and waiting for a top that doesn't return for decades (which feels like forever when you're like raising a family or wanting to retire but can't)...

To be serious for just a moment - from a historical chart it looks like the Nikkei declined or was essentially flat until 2012, but has risen steadily for the last decade. I’d be interested in seeing what total returns look like for someone who spent the last 30 years making monthly contributions to it.

My suspicion is that the returns would not look good to the people around here who expect 10%+ per year, but would be better than you think.

You did make me curious about a 60/40 stock/bond strategy. It looks like the 10-year total return for the S&P Japan bond market is 0.5%/year. This looks painful, but I’d still be interested in seeing how a 60/40 or 80/20 strategy impacts total returns and volatility.

This would temper people’s hopes that they can work for 10 years then retire and live off investments (unless they have a massively high savings rate), but I expect someone in Japan with a 30 year timeframe would have been OK.

Anyone want to actually do the math? I’m too lazy, so at this point this is just speculation.

The problem with doing all that sort of back-testing style analysis is that you wouldn't understand how it felt to actually be investing during those years.  It's easy to cherry pick and get a sense that everything worked out fine as long as you DCA'ed even when it seemed like you were just throwing good money after bad, failed to catch a falling knife, etc.  but most people do actually give up after a decade of having lost a big chunk of their stache.

[solon]

Once again pulling this thread from relentless shitposting to a philosophical question that's actually interesting: What does it even mean for a market to top? The Nikkei 225 achieved an inflation adjusted value in 1993 that it did not return to until 2021. Does that 28 year period mean that 1993 should be considered a "top" in some way that actually changes the advice you would give to an investor in 1992? If yes, would you have the same advice for an American in 1998, right before seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation? If no, would you consider a market to have topped if it took 30, 40, or 80 years to return to all time highs?

Just me personally, waiting basically my whole adult life (28 years) for the top to be surpassed would feel like a top was in if I'd started investing in 1993, right at the end of the boom.  I can't even fathom.  Most of my expectation of investing in that scenario would involve saving vs. the exciting compound growth I have actually enjoyed.

I did start investing in 1996, quite a bit of that in the Nasdaq which had about a 10 year slump after the tech bubble burst.  I'd argue that the 'seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation' is a very technical way of making that period sound worse than it was.  There were still good returns if you were diversified (including international, real estate, and SP500) and inflation was low.  The Great Financial Collapse of 2008-9 was much worse in terms of a broad wipeout, but also came back relatively quickly and inflation was low during that time.  Both of those recessions turned out to be great 'buy the dip' opportunities if you stayed the course.

Just like the Great Depression changed a generation's outlook on saving, investing, and spending, the Japanese Lost Decade(s) similarly caused families to become much more conservative.  Those both seem 'Top Is In' events.  Sadly, you don't get a 'Top is In' warning until you've lost your stache, then lost more buying the dip and waiting for a top that doesn't return for decades (which feels like forever when you're like raising a family or wanting to retire but can't)...

To be serious for just a moment - from a historical chart it looks like the Nikkei declined or was essentially flat until 2012, but has risen steadily for the last decade. I’d be interested in seeing what total returns look like for someone who spent the last 30 years making monthly contributions to it.

My suspicion is that the returns would not look good to the people around here who expect 10%+ per year, but would be better than you think.

You did make me curious about a 60/40 stock/bond strategy. It looks like the 10-year total return for the S&P Japan bond market is 0.5%/year. This looks painful, but I’d still be interested in seeing how a 60/40 or 80/20 strategy impacts total returns and volatility.

This would temper people’s hopes that they can work for 10 years then retire and live off investments (unless they have a massively high savings rate), but I expect someone in Japan with a 30 year timeframe would have been OK.

Anyone want to actually do the math? I’m too lazy, so at this point this is just speculation.

The problem with doing all that sort of back-testing style analysis is that you wouldn't understand how it felt to actually be investing during those years.  It's easy to cherry pick and get a sense that everything worked out fine as long as you DCA'ed even when it seemed like you were just throwing good money after bad, failed to catch a falling knife, etc.  but most people do actually give up after a decade of having lost a big chunk of their stache.

That's true. But the value in doing backtesting like this would be to prove (or disprove) to yourself that the strategy really does work, even in the worst imaginable scenario.

[Wintergreen78]

Once again pulling this thread from relentless shitposting to a philosophical question that's actually interesting: What does it even mean for a market to top? The Nikkei 225 achieved an inflation adjusted value in 1993 that it did not return to until 2021. Does that 28 year period mean that 1993 should be considered a "top" in some way that actually changes the advice you would give to an investor in 1992? If yes, would you have the same advice for an American in 1998, right before seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation? If no, would you consider a market to have topped if it took 30, 40, or 80 years to return to all time highs?

Just me personally, waiting basically my whole adult life (28 years) for the top to be surpassed would feel like a top was in if I'd started investing in 1993, right at the end of the boom.  I can't even fathom.  Most of my expectation of investing in that scenario would involve saving vs. the exciting compound growth I have actually enjoyed.

I did start investing in 1996, quite a bit of that in the Nasdaq which had about a 10 year slump after the tech bubble burst.  I'd argue that the 'seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation' is a very technical way of making that period sound worse than it was.  There were still good returns if you were diversified (including international, real estate, and SP500) and inflation was low.  The Great Financial Collapse of 2008-9 was much worse in terms of a broad wipeout, but also came back relatively quickly and inflation was low during that time.  Both of those recessions turned out to be great 'buy the dip' opportunities if you stayed the course.

Just like the Great Depression changed a generation's outlook on saving, investing, and spending, the Japanese Lost Decade(s) similarly caused families to become much more conservative.  Those both seem 'Top Is In' events.  Sadly, you don't get a 'Top is In' warning until you've lost your stache, then lost more buying the dip and waiting for a top that doesn't return for decades (which feels like forever when you're like raising a family or wanting to retire but can't)...

To be serious for just a moment - from a historical chart it looks like the Nikkei declined or was essentially flat until 2012, but has risen steadily for the last decade. I’d be interested in seeing what total returns look like for someone who spent the last 30 years making monthly contributions to it.

My suspicion is that the returns would not look good to the people around here who expect 10%+ per year, but would be better than you think.

You did make me curious about a 60/40 stock/bond strategy. It looks like the 10-year total return for the S&P Japan bond market is 0.5%/year. This looks painful, but I’d still be interested in seeing how a 60/40 or 80/20 strategy impacts total returns and volatility.

This would temper people’s hopes that they can work for 10 years then retire and live off investments (unless they have a massively high savings rate), but I expect someone in Japan with a 30 year timeframe would have been OK.

Anyone want to actually do the math? I’m too lazy, so at this point this is just speculation.

The problem with doing all that sort of back-testing style analysis is that you wouldn't understand how it felt to actually be investing during those years.  It's easy to cherry pick and get a sense that everything worked out fine as long as you DCA'ed even when it seemed like you were just throwing good money after bad, failed to catch a falling knife, etc.  but most people do actually give up after a decade of having lost a big chunk of their stache.

That's true. But the value in doing backtesting like this would be to prove (or disprove) to yourself that the strategy really does work, even in the worst imaginable scenario.

Exactly - the reason the majority of people under-perform the market is because they don’t have a plan and they get emotional. The entire reason you want to look at history is to understand what will work and what won’t work.

I agree it would be extremely difficult to stick with a plan if you see 10+ years of declining markets. Don’t you think it would be valuable to know?

Hey! Someone did the math so we do know how it would work out. https://www.afrugaldoctor.com/home/japans-lost-decades-30-years-of-negative-returns-from-the-nikkei-225

It looks like someone who dollar-cost-averaged into the Nikkei over 30 years would have an average return of about 5% per year. That isn’t great, but it would beat losing money, panicking, locking in your losses, then sticking everything in a savings account for the rest of your life. I had co-workers in 2006 who did that.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

It looks like someone who dollar-cost-averaged into the Nikkei over 30 years would have an average return of about 5% per year. That isn’t great, but it would beat losing money, panicking, locking in your losses, then sticking everything in a savings account for the rest of your life. I had co-workers in 2006 who did that.

Did you mean another year?  In 2006, the S&P 500 rose +16%.  The only people selling were featured in "The Big Short".

[EscapeVelocity2020]

...
That's true. But the value in doing backtesting like this would be to prove (or disprove) to yourself that the strategy really does work, even in the worst imaginable scenario.

Exactly - the reason the majority of people under-perform the market is because they don’t have a plan and they get emotional. The entire reason you want to look at history is to understand what will work and what won’t work.

I agree it would be extremely difficult to stick with a plan if you see 10+ years of declining markets. Don’t you think it would be valuable to know?

Hey! Someone did the math so we do know how it would work out. https://www.afrugaldoctor.com/home/japans-lost-decades-30-years-of-negative-returns-from-the-nikkei-225

It looks like someone who dollar-cost-averaged into the Nikkei over 30 years would have an average return of about 5% per year. That isn’t great, but it would beat losing money, panicking, locking in your losses, then sticking everything in a savings account for the rest of your life. I had co-workers in 2006 who did that.

In reality, most investors would give up on their domestic market and start investing more internationally, at least as much as they are able.  It would be awfully hard to see the rest of the world markets soaring and not diversify.

Although 'staying the course' is the golden rule of investing, the Nikkei is an example of where this was demonstrably suboptimal, as opposed to increased exposure to many other global assets (I would imagine there is a Japanese mutual fund that follows the S&P500).  US investors are spoiled by our domestic market being 'The Market', but many international investors have a harder decision of how much to allocate to our market and have limitations to the degree that they are able.  It was very interesting living in Norway and Dubai and talking to my colleagues about investing and retirement!  Governments want their citizens to invest domestically and restrict  international investing, as well as international companies having more traditional pension set ups...  but this is probably going off topic.

Top still in.

[Wintergreen78]

...
That's true. But the value in doing backtesting like this would be to prove (or disprove) to yourself that the strategy really does work, even in the worst imaginable scenario.

Exactly - the reason the majority of people under-perform the market is because they don’t have a plan and they get emotional. The entire reason you want to look at history is to understand what will work and what won’t work.

I agree it would be extremely difficult to stick with a plan if you see 10+ years of declining markets. Don’t you think it would be valuable to know?

Hey! Someone did the math so we do know how it would work out. https://www.afrugaldoctor.com/home/japans-lost-decades-30-years-of-negative-returns-from-the-nikkei-225

It looks like someone who dollar-cost-averaged into the Nikkei over 30 years would have an average return of about 5% per year. That isn’t great, but it would beat losing money, panicking, locking in your losses, then sticking everything in a savings account for the rest of your life. I had co-workers in 2006 who did that.

In reality, most investors would give up on their domestic market and start investing more internationally, at least as much as they are able.  It would be awfully hard to see the rest of the world markets soaring and not diversify.

Although 'staying the course' is the golden rule of investing, the Nikkei is an example of where this was demonstrably suboptimal, as opposed to increased exposure to many other global assets (I would imagine there is a Japanese mutual fund that follows the S&P500).  US investors are spoiled by our domestic market being 'The Market', but many international investors have a harder decision of how much to allocate to our market and have limitations to the degree that they are able.  It was very interesting living in Norway and Dubai and talking to my colleagues about investing and retirement!  Governments want their citizens to invest domestically and restrict  international investing, as well as international companies having more traditional pension set ups...  but this is probably going off topic.

Top still in.

I agree with - you. If I had lived and worked in Japan during those 30 years hopefully I would have invested globally. But, even someone who only invested in Japanese markets would have been OK if they stuck with a plan, kept their expenses low, and invested their savings in a broad-based index.

This is also another example of the benefits of diversification. Google tells me the total capitalization of the Japanese market is $6,718 billion While the total capitalization of the US market is $46,199 billion. The US market is much bigger than the Japanese market, so a US-only investment plan is still capturing more of the total world market than a Japanese-only plan.

[maizefolk]

I agree with - you. If I had lived and worked in Japan during those 30 years hopefully I would have invested globally. But, even someone who only invested in Japanese markets would have been OK if they stuck with a plan, kept their expenses low, and invested their savings in a broad-based index.

This is also another example of the benefits of diversification. Google tells me the total capitalization of the Japanese market is $6,718 billion While the total capitalization of the US market is $46,199 billion. The US market is much bigger than the Japanese market, so a US-only investment plan is still capturing more of the total world market than a Japanese-only plan.

It's worth remembering that, at the time of the peak, Japanese companies' market caps were roughly equal to the entire USAs market cap.



That both gives a sense of the size of the bubble, but in late 1980s Japan, a person might have reasonably argued a domestic japan focused investment strategy made sense for the same reason some folks argue with can skip international diversification today (Japan was a big fraction of the global market cap and had historically better returns than the "international" (e.g. US plus the rest of the non-Japanese world).

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Exactly Maizefolk, I wasn't going to wade in to the quagmire of trying to convince folks looking at past returns of a failed 'modern day Rome' about how experiencing all of it in real time makes these investing decisions all but impossible.  For all we know, the US is following in these footsteps ("history might not be repeating, but rhymes").  You think you can inoculate yourself against it, but then you hear fellow American investors saying that, even when presented with all the data - 'But, even someone who only invested in Japanese markets would have been OK if they stuck with a plan, kept their expenses low, and invested their savings in a broad-based index.'  LOL

If commenters really think that 5% returns are satisfactory, then they should be 100% Treasuries right now - https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us  That is 5% risk free (with the right mix of short and long term)!

[SwordGuy]

If I remember correctly, at one time before the Japanese bubble popped, Tokyo real estate had a higher value than the entire US real estate market.   If not that high, it was certainly crazy high.

[ChpBstrd]

Once again pulling this thread from relentless shitposting to a philosophical question that's actually interesting: What does it even mean for a market to top? The Nikkei 225 achieved an inflation adjusted value in 1993 that it did not return to until 2021. Does that 28 year period mean that 1993 should be considered a "top" in some way that actually changes the advice you would give to an investor in 1992? If yes, would you have the same advice for an American in 1998, right before seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation? If no, would you consider a market to have topped if it took 30, 40, or 80 years to return to all time highs?

Good question: What is a top?

Presumably the top is the highest price paid before a period of falling prices. But the top is in all the time if your defined period of falling prices is short enough, so to define a top is to define period of time. I.e. On a two-day basis the top is in very frequently, but on a two decade basis the top is very rarely in. No one should care if at 2 p.m. I proclaim the top is in for today, but if I claim the top is in for the next 2 years that's a much more interesting claim.

Likewise, it is unfair to the person predicting the top is in to require that the top be in for all eternity. What they really mean to say is that stock prices will fall after this point for a significant period of time. Yet we have never defined this period of time, so the claim cannot be operationalized or proven/debunked. I.e. if @thorstach said in December 2021 that the top was in for the next year, they would have been correct, but if they said in December 2021 that the top was in for the next five years we'd still be waiting on the outcome. With no timeframe defined, we are left to debate whether the top is really in or not.

Thus I propose we vote on a sitewide standard for top talk. I cannot insert a poll here, but here are some options:

a) The top is in means for one year
b) The top is in means for two years
c) The top is in means for three years
d) The top is in means for five years

[maizefolk]

If I remember correctly, at one time before the Japanese bubble popped, Tokyo real estate had a higher value than the entire US real estate market.   If not that high, it was certainly crazy high.

That's certainly be consistent with this quote:

"At their peak, prices in central Tokyo were such that the 1.15 square kilometer Tokyo Imperial Palace grounds were estimated to be worth more than all the land in the entire state of California."

Doing some unit conversion and inflation correction it sounds like real estate in Tokyo peaked around $50,000/square foot (in today's dollars).

[Michael in ABQ]

If I remember correctly, at one time before the Japanese bubble popped, Tokyo real estate had a higher value than the entire US real estate market.   If not that high, it was certainly crazy high.

That's certainly be consistent with this quote:

"At their peak, prices in central Tokyo were such that the 1.15 square kilometer Tokyo Imperial Palace grounds were estimated to be worth more than all the land in the entire state of California."

Doing some unit conversion and inflation correction it sounds like real estate in Tokyo peaked around $50,000/square foot (in today's dollars).

Ultimately land value reflects what can be built on it. There is nothing that could ever be built on that land to justify that cost. Prime land on the Las Vegas strip is maybe $500/SF, even in downtown Manhattan it might reach the low thousands of dollars per square foot (though really it's based more on the total floor area that can be built).

It looks like a 31,000 SF lot in downtown Hong Kong sold for almost $100,000 per square foot in 2017. But that was an outlier with even the most expensive markets in the world only reaching about $5,000 per square foot.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Once again pulling this thread from relentless shitposting to a philosophical question that's actually interesting: What does it even mean for a market to top? The Nikkei 225 achieved an inflation adjusted value in 1993 that it did not return to until 2021. Does that 28 year period mean that 1993 should be considered a "top" in some way that actually changes the advice you would give to an investor in 1992? If yes, would you have the same advice for an American in 1998, right before seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation? If no, would you consider a market to have topped if it took 30, 40, or 80 years to return to all time highs?

Good question: What is a top?

Presumably the top is the highest price paid before a period of falling prices. But the top is in all the time if your defined period of falling prices is short enough, so to define a top is to define period of time. I.e. On a two-day basis the top is in very frequently, but on a two decade basis the top is very rarely in. No one should care if at 2 p.m. I proclaim the top is in for today, but if I claim the top is in for the next 2 years that's a much more interesting claim.

Likewise, it is unfair to the person predicting the top is in to require that the top be in for all eternity. What they really mean to say is that stock prices will fall after this point for a significant period of time. Yet we have never defined this period of time, so the claim cannot be operationalized or proven/debunked. I.e. if @thorstach said in December 2021 that the top was in for the next year, they would have been correct, but if they said in December 2021 that the top was in for the next five years we'd still be waiting on the outcome. With no timeframe defined, we are left to debate whether the top is really in or not.

Thus I propose we vote on a sitewide standard for top talk. I cannot insert a poll here, but here are some options:

a) The top is in means for one year
b) The top is in means for two years
c) The top is in means for three years
d) The top is in means for five years

It has finally happened, we can't even agree on what we mean when we say 'the top is in'...  I guess y'all know what that means

[Wintergreen78]

Once again pulling this thread from relentless shitposting to a philosophical question that's actually interesting: What does it even mean for a market to top? The Nikkei 225 achieved an inflation adjusted value in 1993 that it did not return to until 2021. Does that 28 year period mean that 1993 should be considered a "top" in some way that actually changes the advice you would give to an investor in 1992? If yes, would you have the same advice for an American in 1998, right before seven years of the US indices failing to beat inflation? If no, would you consider a market to have topped if it took 30, 40, or 80 years to return to all time highs?

Good question: What is a top?

Presumably the top is the highest price paid before a period of falling prices. But the top is in all the time if your defined period of falling prices is short enough, so to define a top is to define period of time. I.e. On a two-day basis the top is in very frequently, but on a two decade basis the top is very rarely in. No one should care if at 2 p.m. I proclaim the top is in for today, but if I claim the top is in for the next 2 years that's a much more interesting claim.

Likewise, it is unfair to the person predicting the top is in to require that the top be in for all eternity. What they really mean to say is that stock prices will fall after this point for a significant period of time. Yet we have never defined this period of time, so the claim cannot be operationalized or proven/debunked. I.e. if @thorstach said in December 2021 that the top was in for the next year, they would have been correct, but if they said in December 2021 that the top was in for the next five years we'd still be waiting on the outcome. With no timeframe defined, we are left to debate whether the top is really in or not.

Thus I propose we vote on a sitewide standard for top talk. I cannot insert a poll here, but here are some options:

a) The top is in means for one year
b) The top is in means for two years
c) The top is in means for three years
d) The top is in means for five years

It has finally happened, we can't even agree on what we mean when we say 'the top is in'...  I guess y'all know what that means

It means the top is in?

[BicycleB]

Babel top is in

[Alternatepriorities]

Thus I propose we vote on a sitewide standard for top talk. I cannot insert a poll here, but here are some options:

a) The top is in means for one year
b) The top is in means for two years
c) The top is in means for three years
d) The top is in means for five years

This is clearly apocryphal. The top is in for however long it needs to be for the profit to stand justified…

[dragoncar]

Thus I propose we vote on a sitewide standard for top talk. I cannot insert a poll here, but here are some options:

a) The top is in means for one year
b) The top is in means for two years
c) The top is in means for three years
d) The top is in means for five years

This is clearly apocryphal. The top is in for however long it needs to be for the profit to stand justified…

forever and ever amen

[Wintergreen78]

This article says the SP 500 will go up by about 10% per year for the next ten years. It has reasons and charts with lines on them and everything. But the author does warn that there could be volatility on the way.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-outlook-secular-bull-market-cycle-sp500-triple-technicals-2023-8

I’m having trouble accepting this idea, because of course the top is in.

[dragoncar]

This article says the SP 500 will go up by about 10% per year for the next ten years. It has reasons and charts with lines on them and everything. But the author does warn that there could be volatility on the way.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-outlook-secular-bull-market-cycle-sp500-triple-technicals-2023-8

I’m having trouble accepting this idea, because of course the top is in.

I mean that’s pretty much what it’s always done.  This time it’s different though.  Because this time the top is in

[ChpBstrd]

This article says the SP 500 will go up by about 10% per year for the next ten years. It has reasons and charts with lines on them and everything. But the author does warn that there could be volatility on the way.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-outlook-secular-bull-market-cycle-sp500-triple-technicals-2023-8

I’m having trouble accepting this idea, because of course the top is in.

Technical analysis top is in.

[Alternatepriorities]

This article says the SP 500 will go up by about 10% per year for the next ten years. It has reasons and charts with lines on them and everything. But the author does warn that there could be volatility on the way.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-outlook-secular-bull-market-cycle-sp500-triple-technicals-2023-8

I’m having trouble accepting this idea, because of course the top is in.

I mean that’s pretty much what it’s always done.  This time it’s different though.  Because this time the top is in

We are closing in on 10,000 posts here for this very reason... The top is in as it always has been and always will be. May the thread live forever even through these dark days while we flounder below the GOAT MOAT.

[dragoncar]

We are closing in on 10,000 posts here for this very reason... The top is in as it always has been and always will be. May the thread live forever even through these dark days while we flounder below the GOAT MOAT.

Oh crap this threads going to make senior mustachian before I do

[ATtiny85]

We are closing in on 10,000 posts here for this very reason... The top is in as it always has been and always will be. May the thread live forever even through these dark days while we flounder below the GOAT MOAT.

Oh crap this threads going to make senior mustachian before I do

Challenge accepted.

[Zamboni]

then top is definitely in

[Radioherd88]

Got a large chunk of inheritance to invest, but since the top is in, can't convince myself to invest more than 20% of it for now.

First world problems - our investments for the past 8 years are enjoying the top at least.

I'm pretty conservative and like to hedge, so would rather wait and see what happens next few months and risk missing out on more gains (since i'll get those gains for what i have).

Top is in...so Radioherd is only partially in...for now.. lol

[Must_ache]

Top is in.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Guess we finally called the top correctly and are done.  Good job everyone, cheers!

[Glenstache]

Got a large chunk of inheritance to invest, but since the top is in, can't convince myself to invest more than 20% of it for now.

First world problems - our investments for the past 8 years are enjoying the top at least.

I'm pretty conservative and like to hedge, so would rather wait and see what happens next few months and risk missing out on more gains (since i'll get those gains for what i have).

Top is in...so Radioherd is only partially in...for now.. lol

[Scandium]

This article says the SP 500 will go up by about 10% per year for the next ten years. It has reasons and charts with lines on them and everything. But the author does warn that there could be volatility on the way.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-outlook-secular-bull-market-cycle-sp500-triple-technicals-2023-8

I’m having trouble accepting this idea, because of course the top is in.

Wow. "could" is doing a lot of work in that headline

[ChpBstrd]

Guess we finally called the top correctly and are done.  Good job everyone, cheers!

But if the top WAS in then how is it true the top IS in?

E.g. Dinosoars ROAMED the Earth is not the same meaning as dinosaurs ROAM the Earth.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Guess we finally called the top correctly and are done.  Good job everyone, cheers!

But if the top WAS in then how is it true the top IS in?

E.g. Dinosoars ROAMED the Earth is not the same meaning as dinosaurs ROAM the Earth.

Totally true, no one should ever say the Top Was In, the paradox would tear apart reality.  It's unfortunate, because the top was in...  but at least the Top Is In!

[ChpBstrd]

Historical top is in:

[Wintergreen78]

Historical top is in:

I’ve read that caption 5 times and now my head hurts. Can you explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old, or a golden retriever?

[techwiz]

I first read it as "hysterical" not historical. 

Top is in!

[caracarn]

I’ve read that caption 5 times and now my head hurts. Can you explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old, or a golden retriever?

I think it means "Any gains over the last 70 years have been eventually erased by the next bear market".   Now that seems like BS as clearly the market is higher now than it was in 1950.

[Wintergreen78]

I’ve read that caption 5 times and now my head hurts. Can you explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old, or a golden retriever?

I think it means "Any gains over the last 70 years have been eventually erased by the next bear market".   Now that seems like BS as clearly the market is higher now than it was in 1950.

So it is saying that after stocks go up, they go back down again?

[PhilB]

I’ve read that caption 5 times and now my head hurts. Can you explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old, or a golden retriever?

I think it means "Any gains over the last 70 years have been eventually erased by the next bear market".   Now that seems like BS as clearly the market is higher now than it was in 1950.

So it is saying that after stocks go up, they go back down again?

It's only talking about gains after an inversion happens.  More importantly though, it's a pretty graph so it must be true.

[zolotiyeruki]

I’ve read that caption 5 times and now my head hurts. Can you explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old, or a golden retriever?

I think it means "Any gains over the last 70 years have been eventually erased by the next bear market".   Now that seems like BS as clearly the market is higher now than it was in 1950.

I think it means that gains after an inversion always get wiped out by a subsequent bear market.

[Wintergreen78]

I’ve read that caption 5 times and now my head hurts. Can you explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old, or a golden retriever?

I think it means "Any gains over the last 70 years have been eventually erased by the next bear market".   Now that seems like BS as clearly the market is higher now than it was in 1950.

I think it means that gains after an inversion always get wiped out by a subsequent bear market.

So, I’m just going to:
1 wait until there is not an inversion and the stock market market goes up.
2 100% into SP 500
3 Profit!
4 Stock market never goes down!!!

This plan is brilliant.

[ATtiny85]

I’ve read that caption 5 times and now my head hurts. Can you explain it to me like I’m a 5 year old, or a golden retriever?

I think it means "Any gains over the last 70 years have been eventually erased by the next bear market".   Now that seems like BS as clearly the market is higher now than it was in 1950.

I think it means that gains after an inversion always get wiped out by a subsequent bear market.

So, I’m just going to:
1 wait until there is not an inversion and the stock market market goes up.
2 100% into SP 500
3 Profit!
4 Stock market never goes down!!!

This plan is brilliant.

That plan forgets the solid law that The Top is In. I pity the fool who forgets that fact.

[Heckler]

Fear is back, VIX above 15, XIV breaking down. SPY to follow, earnings will be a reality check.

VIX has been above 15 in the first five months of 2023, and all but 3 days of August, and yet we are +100k NW since January 1. 

Epic thread sir @thorstach . Epic thread.  Chapeau.


<edit> +135,184 CAD invested to be exact.

[Heckler]

job top is in.