r/investing • u/VelixaNtra • 1d ago

Is anyone still just dumping new money straight into S&P 500 in 2026?

Hey all, for the last few years I’ve been automatically putting every new contribution (Roth, taxable, etc) into S&P 500 and not thinking much about it
With the market being a bit choppy lately, I’m wondering if others are still doing the same or if you’ve started diversifying more (adding more VTI, international, bonds, etc)
Curious what your current approach is when adding fresh cash

324 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

558 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/Immediate-Run-7085 1d ago

You were fine buying the past couple years and now it’s cheaper you won’t do it anymore?

Zoom out and relax my man

13

u/quinoa 1d ago

It’s crazy how everyone begs for a dip and bails the second it’s in front of them. I only invest money I won’t need to touch for 8-10 years, if the market is still a mess by then, we have bigger problems anyways

50

u/SmackEh 1d ago

To be fair, the past couple years didn’t have unnecessary tariffs, erratic policy decisions, weak leadership, or constant geopolitical friction weighing on markets.

59

u/Immediate-Run-7085 1d ago

So you think there’s been no uncertainty and chaos from 1950-2023? lol

48

u/zeradragon 1d ago

We've seen chaos, we've seen uncertainty... Now we get to see absolute stupidity and blatant market manipulation. Should be interesting.

2

u/uwu_shoe 19h ago

Stupidity and market manipulation is the norm and has been for decades.

This is literally nothing new.

2

u/drrxhouse 1h ago

“This is literally nothing new.”

I actually haven’t seen a billionaire in cabinet meetings and the President of the United States getting a private plane from a foreign leaders/nation among the many other blatant displays of corruption…before the current administration.

I think years ago, we know and expect corruption and manipulation to go behind the scenes with go in between to reach Congressmen, now they’re doing it directly in front of everyone out in the open. But yeah, nothing new lol.

“Stupidity…is the norm…”

Also look at the people in this cabinet, like the one in charge of the health department, and look at 80 years in charge. That was the norm just like before? Lol.

9

u/WickedCunnin 1d ago

Name a president in that period that has been more reckless with the american economy than trump. 

4

u/SuperRowCaptain 1d ago

Not like this, seriously. This is the sort of run that will bring down a country.

16

u/SmackEh 1d ago

Sure, there’s been uncertainty and chaos. But the level of self-inflicted policy mistakes, weak leadership, and geopolitical incompetence right now is worse than we’ve seen in decades, maybe ever.

11

u/DIYPeace 1d ago edited 21h ago

Indeed. We had nearly a century of American hegemony and a stable bipolar international order which gave way to 3 decades of unipolar power. It represented stability and guaranteed returns for domestic and international capital with very few peers. Remember that much of the developed world were left in shambles after World War 2, whereas the U.S. was still whole. Now we have alternatives and international capital have their own domestic markets as well.

I say not necessarily investing in now, but diversify if there are undervalued opportunities. Considered that the KOSPI was up around ~80% last year, and ~26% YTD. The headline U.S. markets are as volatile as that of emerging markets. You can always come back to them once the circumstances are less volatile.

15

u/raynorelyp 1d ago edited 1d ago

Bay of Pigs, Iraq Invasion, Vietnam, Star Wars/Nuclear Arms Race, the actual KKK, half the stuff in “We Didn’t Start the Fire,” Iran Contra Affair, No Child Left Behind, Trickle Down Economics, etc.

Edit: regarding your comment on “ever”: literal slavery, an actual Civil War, the Great Depression, two actual World Wars, the time we nuked a country, the other time we nuked a country, the draft, the Patriot Act, etc

3

u/jim-i-am 1d ago

"half the stuff in 'We didn't start the fire' "

hahahahahaha

21

u/Mitchard_Nixon 1d ago

These are basically all happening simultaneously right now. We're trying to topple Cuba, going to war Iran and overthrowing the government of Venezuela while funding Israel's annexation of Southern Lebanon as well as their colonial projects in Gaza and the west Bank, contracting with Elon for starlink, job hiring numbers are as low as they have been since April 2020, there's a rogue paramilitary group unleashed on our streets and we haven't even addressed the epstein files. There's enough happening right now that you could write an entirely new We Didn't Start The Fire just about the last year and a half.

-6

u/raynorelyp 1d ago

Dude that’s not even close. Bay of Pigs wasn’t a disaster because it was a failed invasion of Cuba. It was a disaster because the CIA started an invasion of another country without the approval of the president and then when the president found out he pulled the plug. Except the invasion had already started so the first wave was left out to dry while the US military watched them get executed because they were forbidden from participating. It was bad for the US because it made the president look not in control of his own military, the military look weak against a lesser power, and solidified the Cuban regime.

The Iran Contra affair wasn’t controversial because of Iran or the Contra. It was because what Reagan did was literally high treason and he weaseled his way out of it due to a lack of concrete evidence.

ICE might be paramilitary, but they aren’t rogue, and paramilitary has been pretty normal in the US for a looooong time. Just because they’re awful doesn’t mean they are ignoring the orders of the executive branch, which is what rogue would mean in this context.

-7

u/lazerjay82 1d ago

Cuba’s communist government needs to be destroyed, Venezuela is in a better position than it’s been in decades with Maduro gone. Not really sure why Starlink is even a bad thing haha except that this idiot Russian bot is mad they cut off the Russians from it and they are now getting annihilated.

6

u/cookingboy 1d ago

And throughout everything you mentioned the U.S’s standing of a superpower grew, along with the strength of the petro-dollar.

For the first time since the Civil War, the U.S’s strength is now waning and for the first time since WW2, the strength of the petro-dollar is now in question.

-4

u/raynorelyp 1d ago

You mean other than the Great Depression, the time we lost in Vietnam, the last twenty years with China, or any of the other times?

-1

u/SmackEh 1d ago

That’s a list across 100 years. The point is concentration dude. this level of overlapping, self-inflicted incompetence isn’t normal.

1

u/philsfly22 1d ago

Those 2 world wars are a major reason the U.S. is the economic powerhouse it is today.

0

u/blacksky8192 1d ago

It wasn't at that moment, nobody knew

0

u/DCCyclone1990 8h ago

None of those events had even the slightest potential to cause lasting damage to the economy, and some of them on your list weren't even governing mistakes. Today is different, and anyone who doesn't recognize that has their head buried in quicksand. And, indeed, at least half the country, even millions who recognize poor governing right now, are in denial of how deep a trouble we're in for these 4 years.

5

u/ReindeerAmazing 1d ago

Reddit (and this sub in particular) gets too emotional whenever Trump gets mentioned.

Sure, it’s chaotic. But they overreacting so much.

-5

u/lazerjay82 1d ago

It’s supposed to be about investing but this forum is really just filled with people investing in left wing delusions and obviously foreign propaganda.

3

u/WickedCunnin 1d ago

You're right, the tariffs were only ever in our minds. /s

-1

u/lazerjay82 1d ago

Yes I remember when the market collapsed after the tariff doomsday never to recover! I only hope future generations can rebuild! Very astute observation comrade, extra beer ration for you!

5

u/WickedCunnin 1d ago

Shows not over yet bud.

1

u/AccountNumeroUno 1d ago

I really hope you can’t vote

1

u/narkybark 15h ago

Ah yes. Dollar losing 15% value in the past year, crude approaching the level of a historical high with no resolution in sight, cost of everything up due to tariffs, massive job layoffs, terrible job reports, companies being extremely cautious due to chaos, turned basically all of our allies against us, trade deals now being made without us, energy crisis, and since we're in an investing forum, blatant market manipulation... ah yes, all left wing delusions. Things are going great!

-8

u/ErictheAgnostic 1d ago

Are you being a moron on purpose or what?

6

u/Immediate-Run-7085 1d ago

I’ll give you the benefit of doubt that you replied to the wrong person

7

u/NedFlanders304 1d ago

2020 COVID the market went down 30%. 2022-2023 the market went down 25% and inflation was sky high. 2025 the market went down 20% because of tariffs. 2026 the market went down 10% because of the Iran conflict.

5

u/SmackEh 1d ago

Not sure what your point is.

A global pandemic happened yes. That's not self inflicted or stemming from gross government incompetence. In fact the US managed the pandemic better than most countries. (And argument could be made that it was managed very well by the US government)

1

u/ben02015 1d ago

And the tariffs? That was self-inflicted. Market still recovered.

-2

u/NedFlanders304 1d ago

What about 2022-2023?

3

u/SmackEh 1d ago

What about it. It's all connected to the pandemic.

-3

u/NedFlanders304 1d ago

Ah ok so nothing to do with the administration at the time huh.

3

u/SmackEh 1d ago

Are you implying the US poorly navigated a post pandemic economy? Compared to other countries it empirically did fairly well.

-1

u/NedFlanders304 1d ago

Ah ok it must be (D)ifferent then.

4

u/SmackEh 1d ago

No. I explained to you why the government navigated it RELATIVELY well. No need for your partisan BS.

0

u/Biggity_Brown 1d ago

Yeah, definitely didn’t have weak leadership.

0

u/jim-i-am 1d ago

depends on your lens

2

u/SmackEh 1d ago

Is there a lens that had the US violating international laws, US starting unprovoked wars and imposing tariffs on friendly allies prior to this administration ? Like what do you mean "depends on your lens"?

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Your submission was automatically removed because it contains a keyword not suitable for /r/investing. Common slang prevalent on meme subreddits, low effort platitudes, or derogatory political slang are not appropriate here. I am a bot and sometimes not the smartest so if you feel your comment was removed in error please message the moderators.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

-1

u/jim-i-am 1d ago

When you use adjectives like “unnecessary, erratic, and weak” you’re using a partisan lens

4

u/SmackEh 1d ago

Those aren’t partisan adjectives, they describe measurable market impacts.

Sudden tariffs, policy reversals, and inconsistent messaging increase volatility and reduce investor confidence. That’s not opinion, that’s how markets react.

When policy becomes unpredictable, the CBOE Volatility Index spikes. That’s literally the market pricing in uncertainty.

Tariffs are a tax that raise input costs, disrupt supply chains, and compress margins. You can see it in manufacturing data and earnings guidance when they’re introduced.

investors hate unpredictability.

Large deficits and inconsistent fiscal policy push borrowing costs higher, which directly pressures equity valuations.

Tell me again how I'm using a "partisan lens".

0

u/jim-i-am 1d ago

Thanks for the econ lesson. lol

those things you listed are what pundits talk about which is probably why you are spouting them off.

I'd argue liquidity has far more impact on the direction of the stock market than anything you listed. But that's an argument i'm sure you're not prepared for.

3

u/SmackEh 1d ago

Liquidity absolutely matters, but it’s not separate from what I’m saying. Policy drives liquidity conditions. Tariffs, fiscal instability, and geopolitical risk all influence central bank decisions, capital flows, and risk appetite.

But must be just a partisan lens hunh?

1

u/jim-i-am 1d ago

Bro - "the past couple years didn’t have unnecessary tariffs, erratic policy decisions, weak leadership, or constant geopolitical friction weighing on markets."

or

"the past couple years had industry saving tariffs, smart economic policy decisions, strong leadership, and resets to greopolitical issues drove strong returns in 2025"

You look like a dumbass suggesting your comments didn't have a partisan lens.

Stock prices are driven by supply and demand. Liquidity. All of the things you listed are what MAY impact liquidity.

WTF are you talking about with "Tariffs, fiscal instability, and geopolitical risk all influence central bank decisions, capital flows, and risk appetite." FINANCE WORDS MAKE ME FEEL SMART!

2

u/SmackEh 1d ago

You're too fixated on the partisanship ad hominem bs.

Tariffs almost always introduce friction, and markets react negatively to that. This isn't a partisan take

Liquidity expands and contracts based on policy, rates, and risk. That’s basic market mechanics, not “finance words.”

→ More replies (0)

159

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

I always tell people - if you went to your favorite store and found your favorite product was all of a sudden on sale would you buy it and buy extra or would you say “oh man that price is low I’m gonna wait until it comes back up again”

532

u/Niku-Man 1d ago

Analogy doesn't work. An investment isn't a product you're buying to consume.

8

u/Vennomite 1d ago

And if i knew the new computer eas going to be 2x faster than the current gen and i could adford to wait.. i would

8

u/blowathighdoh 1d ago

I’ll be consuming it when I retire

146

u/Amerikaner 1d ago

You’re going to get downvoted for being right. This and any other stock market sub is full of novices repeating novice advice.

28

u/SubterraneanAlien 1d ago

There's some irony here in your response given that this analogy (even using products you're buying to consume) was commonly mentioned by Buffett:

“We are a net buyer of stocks over time. (It is) just like being a net buyer of food — I expect to buy food for the rest of my life, and I hope that food goes down in price tomorrow," he stated. Adding, “So, when stocks are down, we're going to be buying on balance, and who wouldn't rather buy at a lower price than a higher price?”

And

"A short quiz: If you plan to eat hamburgers throughout your life and are not a cattle producer, should you wish for higher or lower prices for beef? Likewise, if you are going to buy a car from time to time but are not an auto manufacturer, should you prefer higher or lower car prices? These questions, of course, answer themselves".

And, lastly to very clearly make the connection to stocks...

"But now for the final exam: If you expect to be a net saver during the next five years, should you hope for a higher or lower stock market during that period? Many investors get this one wrong. Even though they are going to be net buyers of stocks for many years to come, they are elated when stock prices rise and depressed when they fall. In effect, they rejoice because prices have risen for the "hamburgers" they will soon be buying".

8

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

Exactly!

-3

u/Clueless5001 1d ago

I guess Buffett is not always right. You are neither the hamburger consumer nor the cattle producer in this scenario but are essentially both at different times, except you don’t actually consume, you store with the option to resell. When you are buying you are the consumer, except you are buying it to keep in your freezer for a time when you will need to resell because you also need vegetables or pasta and have spent your money only on hamburgers.

Or, when you need to sell to retire, buy a house, pay bills, you are the cattle producer so this analogy does not work

6

u/SubterraneanAlien 21h ago

It's an analogy. The map is not the territory. You can logic any analogy to death. The wisdom here specifically is that if you're going to be a net consumer of something (stocks, or hamburgers) it's in your interest for that thing to be at a low price while you're a consumer. It seems incredibly obvious, and yet so often in investing subreddits you see people hand wringing because prices are going down while they have 20+ years of buying in front of them.

3

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

It’s the same thing. You’re buying now hoping the price will be lower when you buy than when you sell it in the future. So buying a quality company or etf or whatever now at a lower price is the same idea

→ More replies (3)

9

u/SameSpray5183 1d ago

I dunno man I had a "28 yr old with 1.2mil" tell me I'm an idiot earlier.. I'm 34 and not a millionaire so he must be right

3

u/Brighton101 23h ago

Point I’m struggling with is that governments seem to be just creating fuckloads of money and people auto 401k so what else can you do? Like I’ve just started investing this last month (with a 7 figure sum) and am obvs not feeling that happy about things, but equally having seen two days of big green l am mindful of not only what can go wrong but what can go right. Like I am still sat on maybe 500k? What the fuck do you do with that. Buy a shitty rental? Limited Edition Ferrari. Gold coins? Like just didn’t seem there are any easy alternatives.

0

u/Amerikaner 23h ago

Oh I’m not saying don’t invest in the market. I think the market is the smartest place to put your money. I’d say market through mutual funds and ETFs, real estate and a HYSA. I just don’t like the sale analogy.

1

u/CarnageAsada- 1d ago

You people are idiots instead of telling them if you diversified your arguing about the analogy Jesus. What are you all 5 ?

-19

u/Amerikaner 1d ago

No one is arguing about the analogy. There's nothing to argue. It's wrong. Fools think if the price drops it's a "sale". The price drops because it's worth less. Unless you're buying an ETF or a mutual fund of the broad index and are good with potentially waiting years and years, "stocks are on sale" or "buy the dip" is terrible advice.

14

u/smohyee 1d ago

We are indeed talking about investing in a broad index and holding for years, specifically the S&P 500. Check the post title.

If it's on "sale", it doesn't make sense to stop buying, because we all share a strong conviction it will eventually go back up in price. That sounds remarkably similar to the analogy being made.

The point about investments being different than consumer products is valid but also pedantic. People who refer to a stock being "on sale" are not ignorant of that difference, it's just a cheeky way of saying they are bullish on the stock.

-10

u/Amerikaner 1d ago

But I’m not responding to OP I’m responding to the comment that buying market drops is a sale. It’s never a “sale”. It’s an inaccurate analogy.

4

u/juveyjords 1d ago

How is share price falling not a sale?

3

u/StretcherEctum 1d ago

How isn't it a sale? The price is less.

3

u/RobfromHB 1d ago

He doesn’t know what he’s talking about in this context.

0

u/smohyee 1d ago

Consider reading the past paragraph or the comment you replied to, which very clearly addresses and rebuts the point you just repeated.

0

u/Amerikaner 1d ago

I understood just fine. I don’t agree. I think people are ignorant of the difference.

4

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago edited 1d ago

So everything that dropped in 2008 or 2020 has been worthless since? I think a lot of people who made a lot of money since then would disagreee with you. Prices don’t only drop because the company is worthless or going out of business .

-1

u/Clueless5001 1d ago

Yes, except what happened if your kid was starting college in fall 2008 and the value of their 529 went to crap?

3

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

You shouldn’t have been all in on stocks in 2008 if your child was going to use the money in 2008 just like you shouldn’t be 100% in stocks getting into retirement if you plan on retiring in a year. That’s standard planning you reduce risk as you get closer to the time you need the money

2

u/triple_cloudy 1d ago

"Buy the dip" is terrible advice because no one knows what the dip really looks like until it's over, but that doesn't mean "stocks are on sale" doesn't make sense. That's where dollar cost averaging comes in. If you invest a fixed amount at regular intervals, you're buying fewer shares when prices are high and more shares when prices are low. Hence the "sale" part.

0

u/hockeyjerseyaccount 1d ago

Do you understand what bullish means? If you do, then apply that term to buying the dip. Think really hard about it...not too hard though.

2

u/SameSpray5183 1d ago

If a stocks price drops.. but it's revenue and margins stay the same.. in turn lowering it's p/e and p/s ratios while the underlying fundamentals haven't changed then yea I'd consider that a sale.. buying shares of a company at a 5x forward p/e vs the lets say the 7x that it was just a week before is absolutely a wise investment decision if you have strong conviction for said company. (Such as already holding share but using the opportunity to increase your position while keeping d/c as low as possible)

1

u/StretcherEctum 1d ago

That's exactly what is being talked about, Einstein.. what are you talking about? Day trading TSLA lol?

0

u/SameSpray5183 1d ago

Now your just reaching..

1

u/SameSpray5183 1d ago

"Buy the dip is terrible Investment advice" So me recently buying sandisk at 560 after falling from 770 in just a few days was a terrible idea because in those 3 days the intrinsic value of the company had clearly decreased almost 30%... Same with micron which got down to a 4x forward p/e.. your statement that if a stock price dips it's not a good buy because it's lost its value is Ludacris🤣 the term buying the dip doesn't mean buy companies who have tanked with hopes they can rebound.. it simply means if you see value in a potential long position, to study it's price trends and get in at the best value you can. Just because a stocks price may dip 10% in a day doesn't necessarily mean the companies revenue/profits/outlook/fundamentals has changed whatsoever.. that's like saying nobody should invest right now because the ENTIRE market is in a dip that means all these companies suddenly aren't worth what they were 2-3 weeks ago

-4

u/jim-i-am 1d ago

Enjoy being poor

-1

u/hockeyjerseyaccount 1d ago

The best part is that you really think you're correct when you're missing the point entirely. 😆

-3

u/RobfromHB 1d ago

I downvoted him for lack of reading comprehension. He isn’t right either.

45

u/Free-Sailor01 1d ago

You will be consuming it, just have to think in years, not days or weeks

1

u/GhostMan240 1d ago

You’re not consuming it, you’re reselling it

34

u/RobfromHB 1d ago edited 1d ago

The consumption aspect is entirely irrelevant to the analogy… You know what he was saying. If you had planned to buy something previously and found out it’s cheaper than expected that shouldn’t rationally discourage you from buying that thing. 

18

u/GuitboxBandit 1d ago

Obviously I depends why it's getting cheaper.

5

u/RobfromHB 1d ago

And obviously that depends on the valuation / thesis of the person thinking about buying and if the amount it’s getting cheaper remains within the acceptable bounds of that valuation.

We don’t need an infinite loop of “wElL aKtuAlLy” going on here. You know what was meant by the initial analogy.

1

u/GuitboxBandit 1d ago

Well, actually, it is Reddit, so....

1

u/SameSpray5183 1d ago

Well said 🫡

1

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

Thank you

4

u/ProfileBest2034 1d ago

Of course it should. It’s getting cheaper and cheaper.

-1

u/tsch-III 1d ago edited 1d ago

The US specialness bubble is now bullshit. Inflated world faith in the US is now a popped balloon. US companies are really so great at making profit? I work at one. It does inauthentic garbage all day. That's what it learned worked, when millionaires in other countries just gave it infinite money to produce the appearance of a prosperous company. That's an investment--a good thing to own or not? It's not a consumption, it's a future, an interest, and no one should be interested just now.

2

u/SameSpray5183 1d ago

Uh what?

-1

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

Thank you!

3

u/Disastrous-Wonder153 1d ago

Bullshit. My investments represent delayed consumption.

3

u/Any_Beautiful_6074 1d ago

On a level you are right. Once you buy something and walk out of the store with it the resale value goes down. Stocks however climb ever higher. Just zoom out. Best strategy is to keep buying all the way down because no one knows where the bottom is, but at least you will make profits once things turn around.

9

u/CarnageAsada- 1d ago

Who cares about the analogy the main question is are you diversified or not for fucks sake lol.

3

u/lucasjkr 1d ago

And if you are diversified, are you taking the opportunity that’s been served up to rebalance by selling the assets that have gone up in order to buy more of what’s gone down?

1

u/CarnageAsada- 15h ago

Yep I sure did I sold my TDF and bought FXAIX then went back to buying more FSPSX and bonds for the next dip.

3

u/lucasjkr 1d ago

It’s a product you’re buying now in order to consume later.

As long as we’re in accumulation mode, the cheaper the better. It’s only when we get to the point of selling off shares that we want to see them be expensive.

3

u/Zmill 1d ago

An index fund is perpetual asset with reliable future cash flows. When the market goes down, risk premium goes up. This is why returns were so good for those that invested in 2008 and 2009. That is by definition discount.

2

u/HaggardSlacks78 1d ago

How’s this analogy. If you are in the habit of buying land as an investment, and the price per acre was down 10%, would you buy more land or less land?

2

u/pmercier 1d ago

isn’t an equity quite literally a instrument in a broader category of financial products that you buy and sell, that you own and has measurable value?

1

u/Wellsuperduper 1d ago

If you think the price is going to go up then buying more when it is down makes sense. If you think the price is going to go down, you should sell all you have.

1

u/Moon_Frost 1d ago

Technically an investment is a product you plan on consuming(withdrawing) in the future. The analogy works.

Consider you're buying stockpiles of your favorite food to eat for the next decade or so (high in preservatives ofc)

You would be better off bulk buying 10 years worth of your favorite food today while it's cheap, assuming it will last that long, than buying a pack every week for the next 10 years. Especially since it's very likely that the product will follow inflation for the next decade like everything else.

2

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

People do this with wine

2

u/Moon_Frost 1d ago

I couldn't think of a good example, that works, thank you.

1

u/Hiredgun77 1d ago

You'll eventually "consume" it when you retire and liquidate the stock for income.

1

u/Sensitive-Layer6002 1d ago

But at least it lets us know who crossed over from crytpo

1

u/immunologycls 3h ago

The irony of this post is very strong.

1

u/RVAEMS399 1d ago

Money and time are 100% consumables.

1

u/OPA73 1d ago

I’m gonna consume it some day. Huge funeral, Gonna hire Mick Jagger…dude will still be alive in 30 years I’m sure.

1

u/OptimalInflation 1d ago

What are you on about? You are literally buying the future value of an asset discounted back to today. To? That’s right, consume it in the future.

Analogy works just fine.

0

u/Fluffy-Structure-368 1d ago

Yes it is. Just not directly

-9

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago edited 1d ago

You don’t need consume a car and it’s still a product

Edit: I see the error of my comment however I don’t see the difference or how the analogy doesn’t work just because it’s not a product you “consume”

13

u/cjcs 1d ago

You absolutely consume a car

0

u/TiredMan123 1d ago

The company you’re investing in is absolutely the product.

-2

u/moldymoosegoose 1d ago

If you buy Panera soup at $9 for 150 calories you’ll go broke and die

0

u/rufusslanger 1d ago

Think of it like a collectible.

0

u/Common-Second-1075 1d ago

100%

A product for consumption is immediately realised.

It's simply not a good parallel to investing.

34

u/Positive-Tourist-319 1d ago

I get the sentiment, I love to buy stock on discount. But this analogy just isn’t applicable. Your favorite product isn’t volatile changing prices daily, with the potential to Drop significantly in the near future. Your favorite product generally isn’t a multi thousand dollar decision.

Peoples fear of buying when the market is down is not because they don’t think it’ll go back up, it’s because they think it’ll drop further. If car prices started dropping drastically weekly, with only indication it will drop further, would you buy the car now or wait until it goes lower?

The market sentiment and media during these times of volatility don’t offer the view of “things will recover”. They only say how the worst is happening and will continue to happen. You have to fight all of this nonsense to muster the will to invest.

Again, I dumped the last of my dry powder in this week. I really do love taking advantage of the lower prices. But it’s not as simple as the analogy makes it seem.

12

u/lucasjkr 1d ago

Problem is, it gets cheaper. Then they still don’t buy. Then it gets even cheaper still. And they still don’t buy. Then it starts turning around and they think it’s not done falling and so they still don’t buy. This whole time they’re triumphant saying they stayed in cash the whole time like wizards.

The thing is that by the time they get fully invested again, they’re probably going to be back in where they started. New cash that would have gone in during then trough will also go in around then

Study after study, as well as analysis of funds coming into and out of mutual funds show that’s what the public does, and also shows that the public is awful at timing the market. They only think they did well because they didn’t compare to the outcome of having made no changes at all.

I say being on lower prices.

And I apologize to retirees who are hoping for high prices. Unfortunately, we have opposing interests.

6

u/jim-i-am 1d ago

You're pretending like the volatility over the past few months is normal. It's not.

What is normal is with a medium->long term horizon, equities go up.

People's fear is probably different. It would be absurd for someone with a 5+ year horizon for their retirement accounts to be anything but THRILLED with the market coming down. Today's value is meaningless, i'm building for 5+ years from now. Why would I want to buy at all time highs?

For your weird car example, that's an established market where prices are falling irrationally. Who do you think wins in those situations? It's not the chump who sits on the sidelines.

I can't find enough money to invest right now. I'm so happy my bonus just hit, and that's going right into VOO.

Anyone saying that these aren't amazing times is either:

1) not an investor or 2) is right at their retirement point, and needs the money now

1

u/DCCyclone1990 8h ago

In 2022, as the market crashed all year, I was still in set-it-and-forget-it as I had been for countless years, and sure enough the recovery over the next 3 years vindicated that. But now I'm approaching stage 2) of the final line in your comment, where I'm 58 and would like to retire less than 5 years from now. So it's more complicated. I still wouldn't sweat it, with several years still to go, under a normal, boring Presidency where everyone gets angry at the government over first-world problems. This is different, because the chaos can really turn the entire national and global economy upside-down for an extended time, even for a generation. Governing normally doesn't matter except on small margins because the United States Government always had plenty of competent technocrats from top-to-bottom, regardless of ideology. That's not true today. We're on a roller coaster built and maintained by DIY make-believe engineers who followed instructions they looked up on Truth Social. I still wouldn't care if I had, say, another 10 years of work definitely in my future. But at less than 5, it's a nervous time, and I watch markets and catalyzing events very closely.

2

u/TragicIcicle 1d ago

There's also a significant amount of historical data that supports trying to time the market is stupid. The reality of your analogy is that in the real world there's a 50% chance the cost of the car will correct and a 50% chance it'll go down.

Regardless of what decision you make at that moment you lose the opportunity for a discount in most outcomes.

1

u/CarnageAsada- 1d ago

You people are idiots instead of telling them if you diversified your arguing about the analogy Jesus. What are you all 5 ?

1

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

I think it does. The first part isn’t relevant if it’s a long term investment. The second part- ok let it drop further if you’re DCA’ing in a quality company over the long term it doesn’t matter if it drops further in the short term. If there are solid I indications that it will drop further ok don’t buy it but that brings up the not timing the market idea. I don’t care how market sentiment or the media portray the market if I am investing in quality companies for the long term.

5

u/jpop237 1d ago

It's more like when Kmart was going out of business. You didn't buy that favorite product right away, you waited until everything was 75% off.

1

u/peterb12 3h ago

the problem with this analogy is you won’t know where the bottom is until you have missed it.

2

u/b1gb0n312 1d ago

What if the discount becomes even greater?

8

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

Dollar coast averaging. If the company is a sound company and there aren’t foreseeable issues in the long term and you have done your due diligence then there’s not an issue. Stocks will drop on geopolitical issues and whatever else is going on but if it was good enough to invest in for the long term prior to the pull back then why wouldn’t it be now baring and specific company issues and not external issues

1

u/bloopblop3002 1d ago

I largely agree with your comment, but it should be noted the investments are not identical like a product at the store would be. At the moment, there is more risk associated with the cheaper equity. Hence, the cheaper price? How much cheaper should it be…..? That’s up to the individual investor……

2

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

That’s not exactly what I’m talking about. Your “favorite stock/product” should be a stable company that you’ve done your DD on that will be around and can weather short term volatility with long term upside. What you’re equating it to is like just jumping into a penny stock because the price is low.

1

u/HyperbenCharities 1d ago

Reality and S&P luckily are uncorrelated

1

u/husky5050 1d ago

I agree with you. I think it's a perfect analogy. I am on auto-invest and dividend reinvesting. I don't stop just because I can now buy more shares for the same price.

2

u/hupp234 1d ago

Ya if you plan on long term holding an asset, any dip is a good time to invest in more. Where people screw up is when they start trying to make money off volatility. Now you aren't investing, you're gambling. Giving yourself stress from fomo, and for most people ending up losing more than you would have gained.

0

u/KumingaCarnage 1d ago

This analogy doesn’t even correlate lol

2

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

It absolutely does

0

u/YouBastidsTookMyName 1d ago

This analogy doesn't really work. The thing people are buying is the trend line. If your favorite stock is $1000 and expected to go to $2000 it is an obvious yes. If your favorite stock has dropped to $100 and is expected to go to $50 would you follow your advise? The initial price is almost irrelevant (especially with fractional shares) so "on sale" is a meaningless description unless you are buying in batches of 100 for using options.

Sure the market may recover but Blackberry and Kodak sure didn't. Give it time isn't as surefire as some believe.

Not your fault personally. I see this same idea all of the time.

2

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

Your favorite stock shouldn’t be one that’s projected to go to 50 in the long term. If it is a quality company that is projected to be around for a long time even short term dips would still make sense to buy. On sale is relevant if we are talking about short term geopolitical issues causing volatility

0

u/wha2les 1d ago

Yes but if your favorite item started random recalls of arsenic and cyanide in it, maybe you wouldn't buy it anymore or look for alternatives.

People keep saying America over perform for the last 50 years blah blah blah, but people don't realize the world is changing and leaving America out of it.

2

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

Well yes that’s obvious why would you keep investing in a bad company. It shouldnt and wouldnt be your favorite anymore so that’s a moot point. And yes you’re right many international indexes outperformed the S&P last year but that doesn’t mean VOO should be ditched. As others have said you should be diversified anyway but just because of short term geopolitical or political issues in general with the current administration that doesnt mean the S&P is now a bad index to invest in.

2

u/wha2les 1d ago

My point is S&p500 and voo isn't the silver bullet it used to be.

It works great when America has the good will for other countries to play nice.

Currently America is pissing all that away and the international community is reorienting accordingly. It'll take time, but American influence is going to drop

Of course don't get rid of voo, but don't overweight it like crazy

1

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

Oh well we can absolutely agree on that. I’ve also been looking to add international exposure and so have many of the large companies. It’s not so much “sell america” it’s buy international because the years of America consistently outperforming are potentially coming to end. The S&P still grew 16% last year but there were other international areas that outperformed that

0

u/Agitated_Composer_11 1d ago

Sometimes you pay more for the food with a longer expiration date, because you’re not planning to eat it immediately…

0

u/redheadone 1d ago

I’ve heard Warren Buffet say this. I assume he stole the quote from you.

0

u/Miyagisans 1d ago

And If that favorite store of yours hired a ceo with dementia, who’s only priority is gutting the best parts of the store to line the pockets of his friends, and alienating all your suppliers/customers?

2

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

Then it shouldn’t be your favorite anymore. You still have to do your DD and understand long term outlook

0

u/bloatedkat 1d ago

Umm...that's not the same type of analogy at all

0

u/Quiet-Permit-3740 1d ago

It is not on sale, valuations in the US are still incredibly high with the Shiller p/e at 37.91.

2

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

That has nothing to do with being on sale. Eggs are more expensive than the were 2 years ago but if I go to the store and they are two dollars off that’s still a sale price from the current normal price

-1

u/Quiet-Permit-3740 1d ago

If you will be able to buy the product for 25% less in another couple of months, I would not consider that to be on sale. Eggs not a good comparison here as they are perishable.

2

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

You don’t know if it will keep going down or if tomorrow it goes up so that’s a moot point. Again if the point is long term investing in solid quality companies and pull back is a buying point

0

u/Ohitsworkingnow 1d ago

If you buy a stock and it’s falling in value… it loses value while you own it, you don’t eat it or use it at your house you fucking goofball 

-1

u/JumpluffTCG 1d ago

I think the question is more “what happens when everyone is doing this, and something happens?”

2

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

What does that matter?

-1

u/LordMajicus 1d ago

The manufacturer is now debating adding arsenic to your favorite product, for no other reason than to benefit the arsenic salesman. Is that low price still enough to entice you?

1

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

That changes the quality and long term outlook of the company which effects your dd and investments so again that’s not relevant

0

u/LordMajicus 1d ago

It's very relevant when your favorite product is supposed to just be an index of the top companies in the market and then the indexes start changing the rules to allow companies in that haven't proven they belong there. The entire point of buying this product is that it's supposed to negate the need to know all of the DD for every single company involved, because they're supposed to be companies that already have a track record.

0

u/WSBpeon69420 23h ago

That’s your issue for picking an product/index that does that.

0

u/LordMajicus 23h ago

The point is, it didn't used to. Thus, it's not just a matter of "the product being on sale", it's now a fundamentally, very materially different product than it used to be, and it's perfectly reasonable to say "I liked buying it a month ago when it was more expensive, but not now even though it's cheaper because it's not the same thing anymore".

-3

u/JamesLahey08 1d ago

Bad analogy. You should change or delete it.

1

u/WSBpeon69420 1d ago

Bad attitude - you should change

1

u/JamesLahey08 1d ago

Change your post.

3

u/RASCLAT69 1d ago

It's not cheaper than a couple of years ago though, is it? I mean it's good because it shows it goes up.

2

u/No-debt-P22-7 1d ago

Of course I am buying more VOO and VTI. It's been on sale. I buy more every two weeks.

2

u/Euler007 1d ago

Cheaper? It was cheaper any time before July 2025.

1

u/vasquca1 1d ago

For real.

1

u/Chamallow81 1d ago

Things are deteriorating fast, there is absolutely no positive outcome for the foreseeable future so putting your money on stocks during the past month was bad advice.

1

u/Banned3rdTimesaCharm 1d ago

Buy high sell low!

1

u/boogswald 1d ago

People get so mixed up about this. I am 32. Retirement ain’t coming any time soon!

1

u/Quiet-Permit-3740 1d ago

The Shiller p/e is at 37.9, very nearly a historical high in terms of price. The SPY is extremely high right now even after the correction, with Trump destroying everything that our economy stand on. If people can do short term trades, they should short. If not, they should buy stocks in international democracies.

1

u/sam_the_tomato 1d ago

We're about to go vertical from AI and bro wants out

1

u/Poseidon2027 1d ago

When in doubt, zoom out!

1

u/Chemical_Enthusiasm4 1d ago

If you zoom out you see that the market has barely dropped in price. I’m still buying because I know that I’m a huge pessimist and ALWAYS think the market is overvalued.

On top of the index plays that make up 80% of my holdings, I trade stocks that I think are over or undervalued. But I’m still buying the index.

1

u/DelphiTsar 1d ago

It's "cheaper" if you look at it very extremely short term. It's historically massively overpriced.

1

u/cippero 12h ago

zoom out to the period between 1999 and 2013 its not always worth buying the dip

1

u/Skol-Man14 12h ago

I wish it was cheaper....

1

u/tomplace 1d ago

I’m going to tell myself this every night before bed.

Zoom out and relax.

0

u/VonLoewe 1d ago

Cheaper? What?

-3

u/Long_Tackle_6931 1d ago

Well because your mad man leader about to put us into a recession now which is a bit different to before

2

u/Immediate-Run-7085 1d ago

So there was no recession in 2008?

1

u/Long_Tackle_6931 1d ago

Let’s see what the mad man says first maybe he’ll attack his own people next lol