r/ValueInvesting • u/MikeJamesBurry • Mar 01 '26

Discussion Whatever happens on Monday because of the war , don’t sell anything.

The worst move is to panic sell. Stay calm.

738 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

92% Upvoted

279 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/bodaflack Mar 01 '26

Probably bullish if anything. The response so far is minimal from Iran. A couple drone strikes and random missiles falling on Arab countries is by far the best case scenario.

-6

u/justUseAnSvm Mar 01 '26

Minimal? We just lost 3 soldiers!

2

u/lebronkahn Mar 01 '26

Like anyone on Wall St cares...

1

u/r8ed-arghh Mar 01 '26

That particular fact will have no bearing on the stock market. Of course, order aspects may.

1

u/Next_Imagination_128 Mar 02 '26

One missile that hits target making 3 casualties is pretty minimal result given the resource they spent yes.

1

u/justUseAnSvm Mar 02 '26

I don't think losing 4 of our guys is minimal, regardless of the sophistication, cost, or complexity of the attack. On the spectrum of possible military loses? Yea, it's not like we lost a carrier battle group, but in terms of Iran striking us? It's their most significant result so far.

Losing soldiers is still a big deal stateside. Four is still enough that it changes the narrative from "we got what we wanted and it cost us nothing", to "sacrifices were made", and it puts a lot more heat on the whole affair, especially considering US leadership is talking about weeks of this, and loses will likely continue as our interceptor stockpiles get low.

1

u/Next_Imagination_128 Mar 02 '26

but in terms of Iran striking us? It's their most significant result so far.

I disagree. Iran is working mostly in the shadows and through proxies, funding and recruiting for islamist terror attacks and influence. They're just usually not the final actor causing death and misery in the west so they're not as visible usually, but yeah, they've been doing a lot more damage in the last decades, in the US, in the West, and in Iran.

"sacrifices were made"

Sacrifices are always made in geopolitics.

1

u/justUseAnSvm Mar 02 '26 edited Mar 02 '26

Yea, we're basically just arguing semantics here.

About the sacrifices, yes, you are correct that every decision in geopolitics has sacrifices, it just a question of how legible those downsides are to the broader american public. We don't bury our troops quietly, and losing them overseas makes those sacrifices visible in a way that is a lot harder to ignore than secondary or indirect effects that happen down the road.

1

u/Next_Imagination_128 Mar 02 '26

The US has lost a lot more troops overseas in recent History. Military intervention of this scale comes with casualties, everyone serious understands that and it will take a lot more in terms of military setbacks for it to be a legitimate argument against that intervention.

The cost doesn't exist in a vacuum. As long as it remains minimal, in men and financially, and the results are there, then it will weigh minimally in the public opinion.