Firebirdparts
Best tackle for his weight the old school ever had
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2014
- Messages
- 4,532
- Likes
- 8,020
Gosh no. I'm not stupid. At that age, if you're 100% equities, you look around for money to buy more stock, but you don't have any. And I didn't have any. In Y2K I just had to hang on, and I learned some things. For one thing I learned that you can get mentally in a state where you don't want to look at your account or deal with it, and that's bad.huh, did you sell when we had a drop of 50% ?
Since you asked, though, I will tell this mild story. I work at Eastman, and so in 2009 it Eastman got down to about $18/share (split since then). Now imagine, if you can, the dividend back then was $1.76. I'm serious. It's pretty easy to look around and see manufacturing is humming along just like normal. Feel free to have any philosophy you want about this observation.
All the money I had, basically, was in my 401k, but luckily I can buy Eastman stock in my 401k. It's a fund they run just for employees and I guess that's pretty common. So I want to sell whatever went down the least and buy Eastman. And that was the ol' standby Fidelity Contra. I guess that was about a third of the account. It doesn't really matter.
In retrospect, two problems:
1. I should have converted everything to Eastman, but Enron was fresh in my mind. There is uncompensated risk.
2. I should have held on basically forever. If a stock triples, you feel like "thank goodness, all my problems are solved, I'll need to sell this" but today, the stock is actually about 13X what it was. That's a lot. You don't know how to see that coming, even from the inside.
Anyway, it all worked out. I'd done some things right and some things wrong. I try to tell young guys that losing half my net worth twice was an example of something I did right. Feel free to miss the point of that. The reason I tell them that is that I think people can think better if they're shocked. It's not their problem, so they don't mind being hit with the challenge of a crisis of rationalization about my problem. Again, feel free to miss the point entirely.
One of the things that bothers me about this is that morons who get paid to write, maybe even famous morons, will write "The stock market was basically flat from 2000 to 2010". These are morons. There's no fundamental significance to the height of that peak and the depth of that valley and the distance between them. I guess I already said that.