<p>Long term is only long term in theory, if you have held for 10 years, then stock takes 30% haircut, does it really matter you have had it for 10 years?</p>
<p>Also in reply to BC , it is very easy to find an example to rebut any case…</p>
<p>Dstark , at some point we long term holders become short term holders for various reasons, college costs, retirement etc, so short term moves DO matter</p>
<p>Long-term investing works if the fundamentals support it.</p>
<p>Here’s another example: Berkshire’s purchase of Clayton Homes.</p>
<p>There have been several companies that I loved with great fundamental stories - many companies that I owned like this were bought out.</p>
<p>There are some companies with superb management teams that do really well over the long-term despite setbacks from time to time.</p>
<p>I don’t like Andrew Rice Sorkin much anymore because he has become a light weight, but I do like this article that he wrote.</p>
<p>[Why</a> Are Investors Fleeing Equities? Hint: It’s Not the Computers? - NYTimes.com](<a href=“Why Are Investors Fleeing Equities? Hint: It’s Not the Computers - The New York Times”>Why Are Investors Fleeing Equities? Hint: It’s Not the Computers - The New York Times)</p>
<p>This is an excessive tax rate proposal…</p>
<p><a href=“‘Les Riches’ in France Vow to Leave if 75% Tax Rate Is Passed - The New York Times”>‘Les Riches’ in France Vow to Leave if 75% Tax Rate Is Passed - The New York Times;
<p>And why are certain people, who commit fraud, and kill people as a result of the fraud, not criminals?</p>
<p><a href=“More Fraud Settlements for Companies, but Rarely Individuals - The New York Times”>More Fraud Settlements for Companies, but Rarely Individuals - The New York Times;
<p>Watched Sorkin this AM and he is Spot on on his views</p>
<p>“Dstark , at some point we long term holders become short term holders for various reasons, college costs, retirement etc, so short term moves DO matter”</p>
<p>These people should lessen their exposure to the markets as their needs become short term.</p>
<p>Even so…these computer glitches have very short term effects on the market. The 1987 crash is just a blip.</p>
<p>On what is Sorkin spot on? What did Sorkin talk about this morning? I am in the office by myself this week so I am watching the Olympics or Bloomberg instead of CNBC.</p>
<p>I never said Sorkin is not spot on in some areas.</p>
<p>I just posted an article by him. ;)</p>
<p>That new mall in town is resulting in a potential $187,000 in OSHA construction fines. It’s the construction companies that would be fined; not the mall operator. Many of these construction companies are relatively small but the fines are for things like for potential falls (doing siding and roof work), electrical issues, etc. I’m not aware of any serious (or non-serious for that matter) injuries in constructing the mall. But it looks like someone was poking around watching the construction while it was in progress and actually dinged these companies for what was probably normal behavior in their industries.</p>
<p>Interesting…</p>
<p>With his thoughts on why retail is NOT in stocks, and it isn’t really because of trading glitches, etc…</p>
<p>That is what I just posted. Lol </p>
<p>I guess I will stop posting links. :)</p>
<p>The problem with lessening your exposure to stocks, is if you use the so-called 4 year rule for college funds, (selling most stock ,mutual funds 4 years prior to freshmen year of college)… And your child is entering in 2011, so you shold have sold in 2007±, and that would have really hurt, but if you ignored the “rule” and hung on, you’d have been ok±…</p>
<p>Cramer says no money should be in the market that you need in 4 years, …which is probably a good idea,IF the marketnis IN your favor at that moment. ;)</p>
<p>Btw, markets closed off its highs. ;)</p>
<p>No rule is perfect. It is not easy to know when to get in and out of the market when your time horizon is a few years. You have to be able to predict the future.</p>
<p>I don’t remember reading five years ago that several countries would have negative Interest rates.</p>
<p>I think most people thought interest rates would soar as the budget deficit increased. Didn’t happen though, and investing would be a lot different if interest rates soared instead of crashed.</p>
<p>My main point is the machine problems, technical problems, and computer glitches are not
reasons to sell stocks. </p>
<p>An investor needs money in 4 years…investor go make a guess.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That happens probably 99% of the time.</p>
<p>For those that are keeping score…</p>
<p>So…we have one bear…PhillyFed…</p>
<p>And one bull who expects to turn bearish soon…at any time in the near future. Any time…
BCEagle91.</p>
<p>Correct?</p>
<p>Others can play…</p>
<p>Bearish to 12,000, then reevaluate…looking to be a Bull :)</p>
<p>But to clarify, i do have 40-50% long exposure to market, but triming it when we approach 13,500</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A play on aapl? I suppose the best time to have jumped into CRUS was BEFORE it reported, lol…</p>
<p>Elle, I was being sarcastic basically commenting on people buying at 52-week highs or rather multi-year highs.</p>
<p>Dstark, Im waiting for Phillyfeds 12000 because basically I have some dry powder on the side ready to pull the trigger on much lower entry points. </p>
<p>Huge percentage of retirement funds are in stable value funds and short-term bond funds. My core equity positions are staying intact, no plan to sell. The only exception was when my PGN merged with DUK and I decided to jump ship. Didnt want to risk my long-term gains.</p>
<p>I’ve seen analyses that show buying stocks that have hit 52 week highs perform better long term.</p>
<p>Here is one study, there are many more:[Don’t</a> Buy Low ? Buy High](<a href=“http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/resource_center/expert_insight/investing_strategies/stocks/dont_buy_low_buy_high.html]Don’t”>http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/resource_center/expert_insight/investing_strategies/stocks/dont_buy_low_buy_high.html)</p>