Langfristig nicht gebrauchtes Kapital = 100% investiert = Cashquote Null (Notfall Sparschwein außen vor, da langfristig potentiell benötigt!)
Langfristig nicht gebrauchtes Kapital = 80% investiert = Cashquote 20%
Warum Cashquote > Null halten?
Weil man auf etwas lukratives spekuliert, auf dass die Wartezeit (Cash Halten) natürlich mindestens mitkompensiert werde, eher, logo!, ein sattes PLUS erzielt.
Und da finde ich den Artikel aus #55* für mich interessant, weil er zeigt, dass man im Extremfall trotzdem immer noch gut dasteht.
20.000$ investiert 1987
(1) kleine Zeit nach dem Black Monday
(2) am Freitag vor dem Black Monday
28 Jahre später:
(1) 293.000$ mit 10,12% return p.a.
(2) 245.000$ mit 9,4% return p.a.
Klar (1) steht besser da, LUCKY HIM, aber soooo viel schlechter steht (2) auch nicht da! Und dies beschreibt den Extremfall mit volle Kanne Kapital sofort zum best- und schlechtmöglichsten Zeitpunkt rein. Macht kaum einer, eher stetiges Investieren.
Meine persönliche, grundsätzliche Lehre:
Langfristig nicht gebrauchtes Kapital = 100% investiert = Cashquote Null
Weiter oben schrieb ich was vom Versuchen Cashquote > Null zu generieren, aber ach, was soll der hassle? Das aktuelle WEC Experiment (Cashquote > Null um WEC billiger abzugreifen, weil ich soooooo schlau bin .... ) macht mich auch nicht wirklich ... zufrieden?
___________
*
"Let’s take a look at what that would have done for you over the following 28 years.
Let’s say you decided to put all $20,000 in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), which is an index fund based on the S&P 500. And let’s say you gave it one day for things to cool off and put all $20K in on October 20, 1987. If we fast-forward to August 21, 2015, you’d have $293,128 sitting there for you. That’s an annualized return of 10.12%. Boy, you’d owe your best friend a lot of money, right?
Not quite.
Compare that to the person who lacked a crystal ball and decided to invest all $20K in VFINX the very Friday before Black Monday, on October 16, 1987. Just imagine the feeling in that person’s stomach when they woke up Monday to find out that their investment just took a major haircut. Well, this is where time in the market comes to save the day.
That same $20K invested in VFINX on October 16, 1987 would currently be worth $245,530. That’s an annualized return of 9.42%.
A difference of almost $50,000 shouldn’t be understated, but what do we see here? We see someone who still did incredibly well. An annualized rate of return still near 10%. While I’m not factoring in taxes or inflation, I also factored in a scenario where someone would invest all of their money all in one day, and that day happened to be the very day before one of the worst stock market crashes in history (the crash has its own name, after all).
But investing all of your money on the very worst day possible is highly, highly unlikely. It’s far more likely and reasonable to assume that you’re dollar cost averaging your way into stocks. And this smooths the results out even more, to the point where timing the market is almost negligible.
Time in the market is more important than timing the market because you have control over time in the market. Meanwhile, you can’t control timing the market. Longer periods of time provide an effect where short-term fluctuations almost disappear. The longer the period, the less short-term fluctuations show up."
Langfristig nicht gebrauchtes Kapital = 80% investiert = Cashquote 20%
Warum Cashquote > Null halten?
Weil man auf etwas lukratives spekuliert, auf dass die Wartezeit (Cash Halten) natürlich mindestens mitkompensiert werde, eher, logo!, ein sattes PLUS erzielt.
Und da finde ich den Artikel aus #55* für mich interessant, weil er zeigt, dass man im Extremfall trotzdem immer noch gut dasteht.
20.000$ investiert 1987
(1) kleine Zeit nach dem Black Monday
(2) am Freitag vor dem Black Monday
28 Jahre später:
(1) 293.000$ mit 10,12% return p.a.
(2) 245.000$ mit 9,4% return p.a.
Klar (1) steht besser da, LUCKY HIM, aber soooo viel schlechter steht (2) auch nicht da! Und dies beschreibt den Extremfall mit volle Kanne Kapital sofort zum best- und schlechtmöglichsten Zeitpunkt rein. Macht kaum einer, eher stetiges Investieren.
Meine persönliche, grundsätzliche Lehre:
Langfristig nicht gebrauchtes Kapital = 100% investiert = Cashquote Null
Weiter oben schrieb ich was vom Versuchen Cashquote > Null zu generieren, aber ach, was soll der hassle? Das aktuelle WEC Experiment (Cashquote > Null um WEC billiger abzugreifen, weil ich soooooo schlau bin .... ) macht mich auch nicht wirklich ... zufrieden?
___________
*
"Let’s take a look at what that would have done for you over the following 28 years.
Let’s say you decided to put all $20,000 in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), which is an index fund based on the S&P 500. And let’s say you gave it one day for things to cool off and put all $20K in on October 20, 1987. If we fast-forward to August 21, 2015, you’d have $293,128 sitting there for you. That’s an annualized return of 10.12%. Boy, you’d owe your best friend a lot of money, right?
Not quite.
Compare that to the person who lacked a crystal ball and decided to invest all $20K in VFINX the very Friday before Black Monday, on October 16, 1987. Just imagine the feeling in that person’s stomach when they woke up Monday to find out that their investment just took a major haircut. Well, this is where time in the market comes to save the day.
That same $20K invested in VFINX on October 16, 1987 would currently be worth $245,530. That’s an annualized return of 9.42%.
A difference of almost $50,000 shouldn’t be understated, but what do we see here? We see someone who still did incredibly well. An annualized rate of return still near 10%. While I’m not factoring in taxes or inflation, I also factored in a scenario where someone would invest all of their money all in one day, and that day happened to be the very day before one of the worst stock market crashes in history (the crash has its own name, after all).
But investing all of your money on the very worst day possible is highly, highly unlikely. It’s far more likely and reasonable to assume that you’re dollar cost averaging your way into stocks. And this smooths the results out even more, to the point where timing the market is almost negligible.
Time in the market is more important than timing the market because you have control over time in the market. Meanwhile, you can’t control timing the market. Longer periods of time provide an effect where short-term fluctuations almost disappear. The longer the period, the less short-term fluctuations show up."
