If the Market has Bottomed

[ohio]

2 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

Time to throw all my money into GE now lmaoo

Lol.  It made a nice runup over the last month and has a price target of 12, so you never know.

But with all that debt, I may just stay away.  Lol

[ohio]

8 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

I guess I owe my guy some dinner...still up a biscuit under 15% since 1/20/17.

Make sure you get his favorite, a Big Mac and fries.  Lol

[HSFBfan]

1 minute ago, ohio said:

Lol.  It made a nice runup over the last month and has a price target of 12, so you never know.

But with all that debt, I may just stay away.  Lol

The new CEO is cutting certain divisions and what not. How do u figure out the price target??

[ohio]

Just now, HSFBfan said:

The new CEO is cutting certain divisions and what not. How do u figure out the price target??

I didn't.  Looked at average of analysists.  If the new CEO is successful, the target of 12 will be surpassed; if not the stock may get a bump but could pull back like it did with the previous CEOs.

I used to work at GE, and was a member of the IBEW.  So, I hope Culp is successful.

 

[HSFBfan]

4 minutes ago, ohio said:

I didn't.  Looked at average of analysists.  If the new CEO is successful, the target of 12 will be surpassed; if not the stock may get a bump but could pull back like it did with the previous CEOs.

I used to work at GE, and was a member of the IBEW.  So, I hope Culp is successful.

 

I've seen high estimates in the 20s and also estimates at 10. That's a huge gap of estimates. 

[ohio]

27 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

I've seen high estimates in the 20s and also estimates at 10. That's a huge gap of estimates. 

True.  It all depends on the success of the turnaround by the new CEO.  No one has a crystal ball, except maybe Troll's pet dog.

 

Got to call it a night, as I the jet lag is starting to kick in.

 

 

[zulu1128]

11 hours ago, ohio said:

Make sure you get his favorite, a Big Mac and fries.  Lol

That’s not his favorite, FWIW. 

[DarterBlue]

Stocks closed broadly and decisively higher on Friday on higher volume. This capped off a week in which the major indices rose from a little over 2% to almost 3%. In short it was a great week for the bulls. Despite being long, however, I somehow managed to lose $471.61on the week as both CROX and TEAM undermined my progress and offset good gains in CRM and a small gain in the MRK options.

 

Both CROX and TEAM responded less than positively to earnings and forward guidance. TEAM was particularly troubling as early gains in excess of 7% quickly reversed and became a 2.25% loss at the close. Now in truth, at 30 times revenues, TEAM is by all metrics overvalued as it would have to grow at current rates for the next 7 years to justify the valuation. Now while this is possible, it is far more likely it won’t. So why buy a stock like TEAM? The answer is simple. I am an intermediate term trend trader and TEAM has been a very strong stock. As an intermediate term trader, I don’t plan on being in a position more than a year at most and more likely than not, not that long. So, for me, regardless of what it does five years down the road, I don’t care.

 

Back to the market. On the day, the advance decline statistics continued their positive trend as there were 22-8 and 21-10 stocks up for every one down on the NYSE and NASDAQ, respectively. There were also nearly twice as many new highs on the day to new lows marking the first time since the bottom was put in Christmas Eve that those statistics have been really positive. The gains in the indices ranged from .98% on the NASDAQ 100 to 1.4% on the MID Cap index. From a bullish perspective you can’t ask for much more than this.

 

The next real test facing the bulls in my opinion comes in the month of February. Why February? First some perspective. The six month period from November through April has, since the Great Depression days, been the most bullish for stocks. In fact, some 80% of all market gains have occurred in that period. However, nestled within that six month period is the mediocre month of February. Last year was no different as those that have memory will recall that it was at the end of January last year that the market first signaled that all was not well. Should stocks continue their merry way through February, we should be in clear seas through mid-spring, perhaps hitting new all time highs again. However, a word to the wise, particularly since I don’t plan on posting during this period: The current strength has been artificially created. We should by all fundamental and technical metrics that I follow be in the midway stages of a vicious bear market. However the  FED capitulated to politics. For this reason, even if we do make new all time highs, I don’t expect this new Bull leg to last a very long time and we my well be in trouble again by mid year if not before.

[ohio]

10 hours ago, DarterBlue said:

Stocks closed broadly and decisively higher on Friday on higher volume. This capped off a week in which the major indices rose from a little over 2% to almost 3%. In short it was a great week for the bulls. Despite being long, however, I somehow managed to lose $471.61on the week as both CROX and TEAM undermined my progress and offset good gains in CRM and a small gain in the MRK options.

 

Both CROX and TEAM responded less than positively to earnings and forward guidance. TEAM was particularly troubling as early gains in excess of 7% quickly reversed and became a 2.25% loss at the close. Now in truth, at 30 times revenues, TEAM is by all metrics overvalued as it would have to grow at current rates for the next 7 years to justify the valuation. Now while this is possible, it is far more likely it won’t. So why buy a stock like TEAM? The answer is simple. I am an intermediate term trend trader and TEAM has been a very strong stock. As an intermediate term trader, I don’t plan on being in a position more than a year at most and more likely than not, not that long. So, for me, regardless of what it does five years down the road, I don’t care.

 

Sorry to hear that.  Hopefully they will turnaround for you.

It seems that you have had better success when you played put and call options on indexes.  You have a knack for them.

Individual stocks can be very fickle even when the fundamentals are strong.   Just look at XOM, since 2009; it's been flat while the S&P 500 has gone up several fold.  All it takes is just one individual stock to ruin your who account.   

 

[ohio]

 

Just now, ohio said:

Sorry to hear that.

It seems that you have had better success when you play put and call options on indexes.  You have a knack for them.

Individual stocks can be very fickle even when the fundamentals are strong.   Just look at XOM, since 2009; it's been flat while the S&P 500 has gone up several fold.  All it takes is just one individual stock to ruin your who account.

 

Question for you?

With a margin account, is it possible to short the biggest gainers (micro caps) if the had a large one or two day runup.   For example, would you have been able to have shorted DRYS a few years ago, after it had a ridiculous runup.  It seems to me that most biggest gainers get slammed hard after a day or two runup.

[ohio]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 8:15 AM, zulu1128 said:

That’s not his favorite, FWIW. 

How about these foods?

 

[zulu1128]

1 hour ago, ohio said:

How about these foods?

 

He’s a steak/seafood guy. 

That said, your effort is noted. 👍

[DarterBlue]

1 hour ago, ohio said:

Sorry to hear that.  Hopefully they will turnaround for you.

It seems that you have had better success when you played put and call options on indexes.  You have a knack for them.

Individual stocks can be very fickle even when the fundamentals are strong.   Just look at XOM, since 2009; it's been flat while the S&P 500 has gone up several fold.  All it takes is just one individual stock to ruin your who account.   

 

Regarding hope, as a successful trader once said, "it's a four letter word." Seriously, both CROX and TEAM are on fairly short leashes. A couple more bad days, especially if the market continues to be positive, and I will abandon them for better horses. Despite my indiscipline with FND last summer, I usually rigorously adhere to my mental stops. 

Historically, I have made more money long than short. Perhaps that's because in past campaigns I have dealt with individual issues on the short side and not indices, just as I have gone long individual issues. This go around, I abandoned the individual issue thing on shorts and concentrated on the indices, first via index ETFs and in early fall via options on the indices. Regarding my historic success with longs, most of it was with individual issues, usually stocks, but occasionally options. I have generally prided myself with being able to spot stocks that have very good 3 month to 18 month price momentum in them. So far, this go around, two of the four positions have not worked as well as I would have hoped, while with the MRK options the jury is still out. I do have room for a fifth position if the market remains strong and was debating whether to buy an index ETF, most likely the MDY, or buy Leap Options on the index. I may heed your advice and go for the leaps putting less capital to work in the process. With that said, I am not yet ready to give up on buying individual issues, as what I do should work over time and number of trades. It may be that I may have to swap out CROX and TEAM, but if I do and market conditions remain positive, at this stage I will replace them with other strong stocks. 

Regarding ruining my account you are right. An individual stock can do that. That is why I never commit more than 8 to 10% percent of my capital to any one issue. And I usually try and avoid taking more than a 10% loss on such trades. So, with adequate risk management in place, I can get dinged but never destroyed. Mike McCallum, Jamaica's greatest fighter IMHO, was famous for never being knocked out despite fighting many very tough fighters well into the grandpa stage of his career. Some thought he took a punch well. But having worked out at the same gym (Guinness gym) when he trained there as an amateur back in the mid 1970s, I can tell you that the secret to his taking punches well was to never get hit flush. He had this great ability to roll with the punches and not give his opponents good angles. That served him very well as a professional. Likewise, I try and not give any individual position the opportunity to destroy (knock me out) me.  

[DarterBlue]

2 hours ago, ohio said:

 

Question for you?

With a margin account, is it possible to short the biggest gainers (micro caps) if the had a large one or two day runup.   For example, would you have been able to have shorted DRYS a few years ago, after it had a ridiculous runup.  It seems to me that most biggest gainers get slammed hard after a day or two runup.

Yes, but maybe no. What do I mean? Yes, nothing stops you from shorting any marginable stock regardless of its price performance. However, some stocks are notoriously difficult to borrow. And to short a stock the broker must have access to borrowing the stock from either a client (customer) or from its own positions in the stock. Very often some of those big movers are very difficult to borrow. So, you may be better off buying puts on them. Of course you could also write naked calls. But if you did that and your timing was not spot on, you could destroy your account doing so, as your losses could exceed your account value if the trade went against you.  

[ohio]

2 hours ago, DarterBlue said:

Regarding hope, as a successful trader once said, "it's a four letter word." Seriously, both CROX and TEAM are on fairly short leashes. A couple more bad days, especially if the market continues to be positive, and I will abandon them for better horses. Despite my indiscipline with FND last summer, I usually rigorously adhere to my mental stops. 

Historically, I have made more money long than short. Perhaps that's because in past campaigns I have dealt with individual issues on the short side and not indices, just as I have gone long individual issues. This go around, I abandoned the individual issue thing on shorts and concentrated on the indices, first via index ETFs and in early fall via options on the indices. Regarding my historic success with longs, most of it was with individual issues, usually stocks, but occasionally options. I have generally prided myself with being able to spot stocks that have very good 3 month to 18 month price momentum in them. So far, this go around, two of the four positions have not worked as well as I would have hoped, while with the MRK options the jury is still out. I do have room for a fifth position if the market remains strong and was debating whether to buy an index ETF, most likely the MDY, or buy Leap Options on the index. I may heed your advice and go for the leaps putting less capital to work in the process. With that said, I am not yet ready to give up on buying individual issues, as what I do should work over time and number of trades. It may be that I may have to swap out CROX and TEAM, but if I do and market conditions remain positive, at this stage I will replace them with other strong stocks. 

Regarding ruining my account you are right. An individual stock can do that. That is why I never commit more than 8 to 10% percent of my capital to any one issue. And I usually try and avoid taking more than a 10% loss on such trades. So, with adequate risk management in place, I can get dinged but never destroyed. Mike McCallum, Jamaica's greatest fighter IMHO, was famous for never being knocked out despite fighting many very tough fighters well into the grandpa stage of his career. Some thought he took a punch well. But having worked out at the same gym (Guinness gym) when he trained there as an amateur back in the mid 1970s, I can tell you that the secret to his taking punches well was to never get hit flush. He had this great ability to roll with the punches and not give his opponents good angles. That served him very well as a professional. Likewise, I try and not give any individual position the opportunity to destroy (knock me out) me.  

Hope can be a devastating word, if all evidence contradicts your position.  Especially waiting for a stock to reverse a trend.

Individual stocks are great in a long bull market, or a quick turnaround; especially if you can pick the ten or twenty baggers.  So it's wise to buy and hold a winner, but even wiser to get rid of a loser.  You're right about indexes being more profitable when shorted.

Wise advice.  Something that I have to learn as I let myself hold too large a position on an individual stock or ETF.

Talk about a blast from the past.  The "Bodysnatcher" was known for going after the midsection, but he also had a good jab and an outside game.  But most of his fights were in the inside, but his movement was so good that his opponents still couldn't knock him out.  And he didn't box of off his back foot.

Like some boxers...um....Floyd something boring...lol...

What's even more amazing that in the last stage of his career he fought in his heaviest weight class.  And still he didn't get tagged hard enough to go down.

Here's his fight with "the Lonestar Cobra"  Memories.

 

[ohio]

2 hours ago, DarterBlue said:

Yes, but maybe no. What do I mean? Yes, nothing stops you from shorting any marginable stock regardless of its price performance. However, some stocks are notoriously difficult to borrow. And to short a stock the broker must have access to borrowing the stock from either a client (customer) or from its own positions in the stock. Very often some of those big movers are very difficult to borrow. So, you may be better off buying puts on them. Of course you could also write naked calls. But if you did that and your timing was not spot on, you could destroy your account doing so, as your losses could exceed your account value if the trade went against you.  

Thanks.  I just may talk to my broker about the availability of such stocks.

Not sure that I am brave enough to play naked calls.  So, I don't see my self touch them.

[DarterBlue]

8 hours ago, ohio said:

Hope can be a devastating word, if all evidence contradicts your position.  Especially waiting for a stock to reverse a trend.

Individual stocks are great in a long bull market, or a quick turnaround; especially if you can pick the ten or twenty baggers.  So it's wise to buy and hold a winner, but even wiser to get rid of a loser.  You're right about indexes being more profitable when shorted.

Wise advice.  Something that I have to learn as I let myself hold too large a position on an individual stock or ETF.

Talk about a blast from the past.  The "Bodysnatcher" was known for going after the midsection, but he also had a good jab and an outside game.  But most of his fights were in the inside, but his movement was so good that his opponents still couldn't knock him out.  And he didn't box of off his back foot.

Like some boxers...um....Floyd something boring...lol...

What's even more amazing that in the last stage of his career he fought in his heaviest weight class.  And still he didn't get tagged hard enough to go down.

Here's his fight with "the Lonestar Cobra"  Memories.

 

This was the better version of the fight from a commentary standpoint. I, too, had the fight dead even through 4. The HBO guys, which included, Sugar Ray Leonard, had Curry well ahead. McCallum went to elementary school with a very good friend of mine. As we worked out at the same gym over a two year period, I saw a lot of the early amateur McCallum. He was never someone I got to know well. However, I greatly respected what he could do from watching him work out and seeing some of his early amateur fights against some tough Cubans and Central Americans. In an indirect way he influenced my future, as watching him, I realized I did not have what it took to make a run as a professional fighter.

Mike understated his age by about two years when he fought professionally. He should have gone pro after the 1976 Olympics when he lost in the third stage against Marlon Starling (I believe) Sugar Ray Leonard won Gold in that Olympics but in a lower weight class than McCallum. Instead Mike chose to stay an amateur hoping for Gold in 1980 in Moscow. During the two years prior to 1980 he fought the Golden Gloves circuit in the USA as his good friend boxer, Clint Jackson, got him to the States and took care of him till he got settled. Well in Moscow, the week before the games, he came down with appendicitis and could not fight. Thus, four years of a professional career were squandered.

Mike grew up in Papiene and Waterhouse, two very rough neighborhoods one North and the other West of Kingston. Shelly Ann Frazier, one of Jamaica's premier sprinters was also from Waterhouse. There is an underground movie "Shotters" that features Waterhouse prominently. Today Mike is a well respected boxing trainer in Nevada. He never did get his big money fights, but, retrospectively, he did get the recognition he deserved. 

[ohio]

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 5:58 AM, DarterBlue said:

This was the better version of the fight from a commentary standpoint. I, too, had the fight dead even through 4. The HBO guys, which included, Sugar Ray Leonard, had Curry well ahead. McCallum went to elementary school with a very good friend of mine. As we worked out at the same gym over a two year period, I saw a lot of the early amateur McCallum. He was never someone I got to know well. However, I greatly respected what he could do from watching him work out and seeing some of his early amateur fights against some tough Cubans and Central Americans. In an indirect way he influenced my future, as watching him, I realized I did not have what it took to make a run as a professional fighter. 

Mike understated his age by about two years when he fought professionally. He should have gone pro after the 1976 Olympics when he lost in the third stage against Marlon Starling (I believe) Sugar Ray Leonard won Gold in that Olympics but in a lower weight class than McCallum. Instead Mike chose to stay an amateur hoping for Gold in 1980 in Moscow. During the two years prior to 1980 he fought the Golden Gloves circuit in the USA as his good friend boxer, Clint Jackson, got him to the States and took care of him till he got settled. Well in Moscow, the week before the games, he came down with appendicitis and could not fight. Thus, four years of a professional career were squandered.

Mike grew up in Papiene and Waterhouse, two very rough neighborhoods one North and the other West of Kingston. Shelly Ann Frazier, one of Jamaica's premier sprinters was also from Waterhouse. There is an underground movie "Shotters" that features Waterhouse prominently. Today Mike is a well respected boxing trainer in Nevada. He never did get his big money fights, but, retrospectively, he did get the recognition he deserved. 

Young people have dreams, but sooner or later they may have to realize that they just may not materialize.  Too bad you couldn't turn pro.  But at least you realized at an early age that you were meant to do something else.  Too many people don't realize that until mid age or later.  I remember a guy who used to workout at a gym that I went to who kept on trying to become a Cleveland Brown until his early 30s, but year in year out he could not make the cut. Don't know what happened to him but I know he never became a pro footballer.

Yikes.  The whole US team were restricted from competing in Moscow due to politics.  That's when I first learned to hate politicians.

Tough neighborhoods produce some of the best athletes.  My high school is in one of the worst areas of Cleveland and it produced Olympians Jesse Owens and Harrison Dillard.  When I have time I may check out "shotters".

Thanks for sharing.

 

[DarterBlue]

1 hour ago, ohio said:

Young people have dreams, but sooner or later they may have to realize that they just may not materialize.  Too bad you couldn't turn pro.  But at least you realized at an early age that you were meant to do something else.  Too many people don't realize that until mid age or later.  I remember a guy who used to workout at a gym that I went to who kept on trying to become a Cleveland Brown until his early 30s, but year in year out he could not make the cut. Don't know what happened to him but I know he never became a pro footballer.

Yikes.  The whole US team were restricted from competing in Moscow due to politics.  That's when I first learned to hate politicians.

Tough neighborhoods produce some of the best athletes.  My high school is in one of the worst areas of Cleveland and it produced Olympians Jesse Owens and Harrison Dillard.  When I have time I may check out "shotters".

Thanks for sharing.

 

I knew Mike had the potential to be a contender from when he was 18. I also realized that even though I tried to lean many of his moves, I could not replicate them effectively enough. If I was going to be a fighter, I had to realistically believe I could "be a contender." Watching Mike in the gym made me conclude mine was a pipe dream. So I moved on. 

Yes, things were very tense between the USA and the USSR at that time. Mike would have almost certainly won the gold with the USA being absent. Unfortunately, he could not compete due to illness.

They sure do. I think that is at least a part of the reason the USA's men's national soccer team does not and probably will not in the near future have a chance of making it far into the knockout stages of the World Cup. There is a certain hunger that burns in the soul of the poor that few middle and upper class kids have when it comes to sports. 

You are welcome. It brings back memories of my youth. Mike was of my generation as I reckon he was a year maybe a year and a half older than me. 

[ohio]

2 minutes ago, DarterBlue said:

I knew Mike had the potential to be a contender from when he was 18. I also realized that even though I tried to lean many of his moves, I could not replicate them effectively enough. If I was going to be a fighter, I had to realistically believe I could "be a contender." Watching Mike in the gym made me conclude mine was a pipe dream. So I moved on. 

Yes, things were very tense between the USA and the USSR at that time. Mike would have almost certainly won the gold with the USA being absent. Unfortunately, he could not compete due to illness.

They sure do. I think that is at least a part of the reason the USA's men's national soccer team does not and probably will not in the near future have a chance of making it far into the knockout stages of the World Cup. There is a certain hunger that burns in the soul of the poor that few middle and upper class kids have when it comes to sports. 

You are welcome. It brings back memories of my youth. Mike was of my generation as I reckon he was a year maybe a year and a half older than me. 

In soccer, there is a good reason that countries like Brazil produce such good players.  Their young people have a burning desire to become pro players, and also to get themselves and their families out of poverty.

In the US, boxing used to be a vehicle to get out of poverty in the hoods, but the MMA seems to have put an end to that avenue, as there are fewer and fewer boxing gyms; and the US boxers are not as dominant as they once were.  Today the East Europeans seem to be the hungriest.

[DarterBlue]

55 minutes ago, ohio said:

In the US, boxing used to be a vehicle to get out of poverty in the hoods, but the MMA seems to have put an end to that avenue, as there are fewer and fewer boxing gyms; and the US boxers are not as dominant as they once were.  Today the East Europeans seem to be the hungriest.

That is exactly right. In boxing, it used to be the Irish (Jack Dempsey) then the Jews (Benny Leonard) and Italians (Jake Lamotta, Rocky Graziano, Rocky Marciano, etc.) in ghettos and working class neighborhoods. Then they were replaced by African Americans beginning in earnest in the 1950s with Sugar Ray Robinson, Floyd Patterson, and others. This lasted through the 1980s. In the 1990s a subtle shift started with some Eastern Europeans and even some white South Africans. Now Eastern Europeans seem the hungriest as you say. 

Boxing is a violent sport. You have to have confidence and a willingness to risk getting badly hurt, if you wish to succeed. It takes a special kind of person with a burning hunger to do this. If I had not had academic potential, perhaps I would have forced the issue despite realizing I could never be as good as Mike. But I had other options and decided to pursue them instead. 

BTW, if it were not for communism, Lazlo Papp, a Hungarian, may have been a champion in the 1960s. 

[ohio]

4 minutes ago, DarterBlue said:

That is exactly right. In boxing, it used to be the Irish (Jack Dempsey) then the Jews (Benny Leonard) and Italians (Jake Lamotta, Rocky Graziano, Rocky Marciano, etc.) in ghettos and working class neighborhoods. Then they were replaced by African Americans beginning in earnest in the 1950s with Sugar Ray Robinson, Floyd Patterson, and others. This lasted through the 1980s. In the 1990s a subtle shift started with some Eastern Europeans and even some white South Africans. Now Eastern Europeans seem the hungriest as you say. 

Boxing is a violent sport. You have to have confidence and a willingness to risk getting badly hurt, if you wish to succeed. It takes a special kind of person with a burning hunger to do this. If I had not had academic potential, perhaps I would have forced the issue despite realizing I could never be as good as Mike. But I had other options and decided to pursue them instead. 

BTW, if it were not for communism, Lazlo Papp, a Hungarian, may have been a champion in the 1960s. 

Hunger, necessity,  and lack are the 800 pound gorillas in the room, when it comes to achieving great things in life.

Without those three, one cannot become the best.  You see this drive in star athletes, famous actors, top coaches, entrepreneurs, successful investors, influential teachers and others.  

Boxing is savage, and it takes a burning desire as well as talent to become a champ.  In East Europe, incomes are much less than in the West.  The young people there train like crazy to make a living in the sport, like other groups used to in the past. 

Communism was a detriment for athletes when it came to turning pro.  Over the years the Soviets also had great hockey players that never capitalized on their talents in the NHL.  Also, can you imagine how many more players Cuba could have had in the MLB, if they were allowed to play.  But the communists did treat their athlete well.  Usually through perks.  Things like homes, cars, land....

[DarterBlue]

Stocks rounded out the week broadly higher Friday on higher volume. This brought the indices back to just shy or above breakeven on the week depending on the index. Overall, I view thee week’s action as positive. Not only did all the indices remain above their respective 50-day moving averages, but both the NYSE and NASDAQ exchanges remained significantly overbought. While being overbought is usually a sign that a pullback is imminent, at the beginning of new bull markets, which this may be one, overbought markets often do not have significant or sustained pullbacks. They remain overbought for substantial periods.

The market’s recent success has not translated into personal success largely due to the performance of the MRK call options. Since purchase these are now down over $6,400 and have lost a third of their value even though MRK the stock has only lost $3 or about 4% since purchase. Normally, options with nearly a year to run do not suffer such a sharp decline in their value. In this case it is due to declining interest rates and a reduction in the option’s implied volatility in addition to the poor price performance of the stock. The MRK losses offset unrealized gains in the three stock positions (two of the three are up and one modestly lower) of over $4,850. When we add this all up, so far, year to date, I am down $1,203.10. So, while the major indices are mostly up north of 5% year to date, I have underperformed and am in the red though I was right to go long. I will not tolerate this situation with MRK much longer and will cut bait in the upcoming week if it does not show signs of stabilizing.

Back to the overall market, I view the week as surprisingly positive, as there was every reason to have a decent pullback and even the Intel downside surprise did not dampen the day Friday. As noted before, we will likely have a serious test of this new, bullish action in the month of February. Should the market get through the upcoming month unscathed, I think it will be strong at least through April. The changing stance of the FED in response to political pressure and signs of emerging weakness in the world’s and USA’s economy has worked wonders in terms of fueling this rally despite the drama over the Government shutdown.

[THS2011]

My portfolio finished down 9.4% this year and 401K down 7.9%. And yes I own CAT so yesterday i coated my computer screen with projectile vomit. 

[DarterBlue]

10 hours ago, THS2011 said:

My portfolio finished down 9.4% this year and 401K down 7.9%. And yes I own CAT so yesterday i coated my computer screen with projectile vomit. 

I can relate. I have had a few situations like that go against me over the years. It's part of the market game. If I remember correctly, you are young. So if you are really a buy and holder, you should do fine.

My only advice, if you are a buy and holder, is that when you get into your forties, you should begin to reduce your stocks relative to your other investments.