Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Ask HN: How should I invest $200K in this market?
57 points by buy-the-dip on March 19, 2020 | hide | past | favorite | 81 comments
Investment horizon: long term to forever

Risk appetite: If I lost this money, my lifestyle would only slightly be impacted.

The market will rebound and a few years from now we will be wishing we had invested. We will see stocks that doubled or tripled. The big problem is that there's really no way to know now what those winners will be.

The best advice is to pick a broad index, S&P 500, and invest the money over a period of time, maybe 6 months. You won't hit a homerun but you'll do better than most.

There are considerably safer bets than S&P500, with similar returns, including a classic 60/40.



The risk is less important when OP says

> Investment horizon: long term to forever

Total market ranks 1 on average return, which arguably matters most assuming OP is gonna wait 30-40 years before using this money.

But even if stocks double or triple, isn't there a likely scenario that a dollar wouldn't buy you the same thing as today or that some supplies or furniture would have considerable different price tags than today ?

If stocks double and everything costs twice us much, you're 2X better off having invested than held cash. If stocks double and everything costs the same, you're 2X better off having invested than held cash. If stocks double and everything costs half as much, you're 2X better off having invested than held cash.

Note I'm not claiming stocks will double or triple, but if that's the starting assumption then there's no need to ask what inflation or deflation will do.

This is exactly the right answer. Broad based index funds, invested over time.

You could also consider a 70/20/10 portfolio of S&P 500, international equities, and bonds.

I mostly believe this (which is also largly the Buffet philosophy) but have learned few caveats:

1. Not all broad indexes are great buy because lot of companies will do great in this crises but others will suffer long term. Instead of investing only into S&P 500, you might want to also diversify in Europe, Asia Pacific, China markets as well as have ETFs in energy, utilities, finance etc.

2. S&P500 doesn't actually have all that great returns, contrary to usual belief for same risk taking. For example, QQQ has returned ~30% avg/yr while SPY has only ~12%/yr over past 10 years even at lowest points. This is more than double the difference for reasonably similar level of volatility and liquidity!

3. The buy and forget strategy misses out on entirely on "unreasonably low" prices event. For example, massive ETFs like XLE are at all time lowest price and very unreasonably low priced. Investing them in now can boost your returns massively.

I largely agree with what you're saying. The only point I disagree with is 3. That's the exact same logic I used to make a large investment on March 6th. If I had time-averaged the investing, I would have saved a ton of money.

The point is that it's near impossible to predict market bottoms, so time-averaging helps with that. If your point is that you should increase investing now, I totally agree, but you should invest the money over a period of weeks/months, not in one lump sum (which I don't think is what you're advocating).

How can QQQ which tracks mostly tech stocks have comparable volatility to SPY?

well, this strategy requires investors to master some basics. Yes, it is worth the effort.

why do you invest over 6 months instead of at once?

because it is hard to time the bottom, which can be known ex post. So, if one averages in small amounts over time, one can get a better average than worst cases.

This is just my feeling from watching the markets for a while, is not financial advice, isn't necessarily the best, etc., etc.. I still think we have further to fall, but when we do, I'm looking to put money to work. It's hard to time a bottom, so maybe buy in a few lots over a while as each drop happens.

Of course you should probably buy at least some index fund at some point. I also think the tech chip stocks are being pounded: Intel is in the DJIA, and has been brought down a lot I think rather unfairly because of the index. Taiwan Semiconductor is top of class and TSMC has also been pretty pounded. Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, Western Digital. All down, and all have really pretty reasonable dividends. Their moat is the IP as well as the manufacturing facilities. Tech isn't going to just stop, if anything it will end up in everything even more than now.

Be careful on the airlines. They'll get a bailout almost certainly, and maybe will merge down. Warren Buffet, who recently bought a lot of airlines was known for saying:

"Now if I get the urge to invest in airlines, I call an 800 number, and I say: 'Hello, my name is Warren, and I'm an air-o-holic,'" he has said in the past.

He got burned in US Air in 1989. He relapsed in 2016.

If you are so confident with how the market will move you should put your money where your mouth is and trade options accordingly. Hint: you shouldn't be so confident.

I like generalpass's answer, "Not based on information obtained here." And yet I'm going to give a genuine answer.

I'd use [dollar cost averaging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_cost_averaging) and invest in a index funds. I would personally try to wait out the freefall so you can start investing closer to the bottom, but you will never know when the bottom is, only when the bottom was, so I wouldn't get too fancy with waiting.

Hedge your bet.

Buy stocks in Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Apple. (F-MAGA).

If they go up, you make a lot of money.

If they go down, the world has become a better place.

It might be prudent to ask more simpler questions, such as: will humans ever take a cruise again? Will they ever take planes again? Will they ever go back to restaurants?

There, now go invest.

First of all, ignore the news. Most news is there to sell ads, clicks, etc. Nobody really knows what the market will do in the next minute/hour/day. Nobody.

Also, price is always leading the news, not the other way around.

And, a lot of fund managers (who already entered the long positions) will go on TV and start suggesting their own version on how to handle the crisis and why this is an opportunity of a lifetime. Assume that everyone is talking the book.

So a bear market is lower lows/lower highs. The SP is still in this bear market. As long as this bear trend continues, do not enter.

However, there will be one day in the future when the market will reach capitulation. The news will be so bad and panic so high, that the market will fall hard, but then you would see very high volume of buyer, and the market would end positively for the day.

At that day you can start to gradually enter.

Berkshire (BRK-B)


- Buy it now.

- Check in on it every quarter.

- You might lose money in the short term.

- But not participating in the eventual rebound would be a huge missed opportunity.

In a way, BRK-B is an index on it's own.

My strat is this: (not baked on historical testing so take a free strat for what it is, free) I am buying stocks again hat are at half or less of their 52 week highs and only large cap companies. I’m in Boeing now and United Airlines and Ally bank to name a few. The thesis is: this will pass and large core companies that make up a big portion of the economy will come back and will either be acquired or buy up smaller players (remember these larger companies with large bank reserves...).

My time horizon is the same as yours.

I won't tell you how to invest, as who knows, other than that if Buffet buys then that is probably a good time to buy.

I will ponder a question though, will the flight from markets drive more money into other assets asides cash?

For instance, we are selling a farm property right now (in a small city, not a hot market) and don't yet know if it will be impacted by the overall economic climate. Part of me thinks more people might move their assets into farm/raw/rural land as another "hard" asset during these times. But there's no way to really know without observing.

This is not advice and I am not a financial advisor.

That said, I noticed that put options for Delta airlines with a strike price of 18 were trading at $4.10 which is $410 per contract, so I wrote (sold) 10 of them. That means that either I’m going to get to keep $4100 in a month or I’m going to get 1000 shares at an effective price of $13.90 per share. If that happens I’ll sell for a profit if I can or otherwise hold for a couple years and hope to profit off the bailout. Worst case is a net loss of $13900, which I can absorb if need be.

I must be missing something - that looks like a horribly asymmetric payoff. Why would you ever do that?

The worst case scenario is only when DAL goes bankrupt. If the commenter believes this is unlikely, then there are only two good scenarios (making some money off the premium, or getting DAL at a good price)

The payoff is even if the share price goes to ~ 9 bucks.

Some people make concave bets in high vol markets, most of such people are suckers.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with making bets where the payoff is smaller than the money risked, so long as the bet has positive expected value and the bettor's risk management is sound. It's the idiots who lever up too high or otherwise disregard bankroll management who get ruined when a "sure thing" doesn't go their way.

Don't take investment advice from overconfident folks on HN.

Try www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets if you really need it

Is this a joke?

Because overconfident Reddittors >> HNers

I think you missed the sarcasm

So, you have 200K you can lose without being impacted and you decide to take advice from an Internet forum instead of a financial advisor ?

Can't you lobby for a better world or something instead ?

Is a Financial Advisor really better than random opinions from here?

He has knees that break so I'd say yes.

(/s, don't do that)

Yes - if you want to speculate. Buy puts or calls. No - if you want to invest. This is not a rational market.

I still see a long way to fall. Wait months until the market is dead before buying.

VGT, because you’re on HN. I would just put it all in now and not look at it for a few months.

Long term, it probably doesn’t matter if you buy it $200 or $150.

Do not forget to reinvest the dividends.

VGT is still far from "good" price. My yard stick is crash of Dec 2018 which is not too far in past. If price hasn't fallen below that then the stock is holding up still well. Also, instead of VGT, why not QQQ? I like to go for ETFs that have the biggest assets because they track prices well and are "too big to fail".

One-sixth per month in VTWAX, for the next six months.

Cash until 2021.

This is the worst suggestion. Cash will be eroded by inflation faster than you think,

If you do that for risk aversion, keep it diverse within the ~100k guarantees per account/country, if possible have multiple currencies. YMMV.

Note some countries are playing dangerous liquidity games and that will affect currencies. Always hedge. Even currencies. Ask any FX trader.

A lot of people won't give you actual suggestions. I will. I'll offer my opinion. All of these are meant to be held for years, not played short-term.

Square (SQ) as close to $30 or under as you can get. I was buying today below $35. I'll keep buying if it wants to keep going down. At a $14-$15 billion market cap, it was a comical steal to hold long-term. It's a future $100b market cap company.

Pinterest (PINS) here (below ~$12), to be held for a minimum of five years.

Grab some financials, the stronger companies. These are not going to collapse, short of the US collapsing. They're classic too big to let fail. They survived the great recession, the Fed will inject whatever it has to in order to prop them up. I'd suggest a basket of JPM, WFC, BAC, GS, MS.

IBM (IBM). Below $100 ideally. Their future will be brighter with the new management and they're trading for 9-10 times earnings with a good dividend. It was cheap before the crash, it's very cheap now.

Micron (MU), particularly if you can grab it below $30.

Beyond Meat (BYND). I like their valuation at this point, it has been crushed. They've demonstrated strong operational controls on costs and they have plenty of cash. I think they'll be fine coming through this.

I'd like to suggest Cloudflare (NET), I don't love their valuation here though, it hasn't gotten beaten down enough. It was briefly down a few days ago, but it's back up again. If you can get it below ~$15-$16, I like it there for a long-term hold.

Buy some silver (small position), however you prefer to go about that. The recent shock plunge is an opportunity to be taken advantage of. The same is true about a few other commodities. People are in panic mode, dumping most everything.

Luckin Coffee (LK). Big coin flip on the situation in China and the physical space in general with the virus. However, if they survive (presently burning plenty of red ink) they have a decent shot at being the Starbucks of China. They raised some capital in January, they'll certainly need it. It had held up well, but cracked today and dropped 13%, rolling back to November's prices. Stalk it for the low $20s or below.

Medifast (MED). To be held for several years minimum.

In the energy industry, Schlumberger (SLB) maybe. Their valuation has gotten very tempting here. $36 to $12 in a month. I don't like most of the energy industry, including XOM, CVX, much less OXY or APA or CLR. It's an amazing double smashing, from Covid and the oil war.

John Deere (DE) is getting close to interesting. I'd like it below $100. $180 to $106 in the past month, it's getting there. I like them a lot more than companies such as Caterpillar (CAT) or 3M (MMM).

iRobot (IRBT) has my attention here. They got hammered first from the China trade war concerns previously, then later from Covid as China went down. Their most recent quarter had popped the stock, until they got smacked again by Covid. I might like it below $30 at this point, we'll see if it gets there in the coming days or weeks. Plenty of competitive risks with the company, however the value proposition is very interesting now (below one times 2019 sales, 11x operating income).

Companies to avoid: retailers (too much risk, not enough upside); airlines (who knows what's about to happen to them); the classic FAANGS etc (AAPL, NFLX, GOOGL, MSFT, AMZN, FB - they haven't gotten cheap enough yet to warrant buying); avoid Tesla, GM, Ford; I don't like UBER or LYFT here; I don't like PayPal, Visa or Mastercard, they were all stupidly overvalued before and still are; I dislike Shopify, they're worth $60-$80 / share, trading for $336. At current valuations, I'd avoid Intel, AMD, Cisco, Oracle, nVidia and numerous other larger tech companies (not beaten down enough). I don't like most of the classic bluechips at all here, including KO, JNJ, PG, XOM, MCD, CVX, PFE, PEP, MMM, and so on, they're just not cheap enough. Give me MCD at a ~9 PE ratio and I'll consider it. I'd avoid the telecoms, including T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, not cheap enough vs growth (plus I just plain dislike them as investments, unless they're being given away), they haven't been pounded in this. I don't like a lot of the more recent class of tech stocks, the Workday generation, their valuations aren't crushed enough (stocks like Twilio, ServiceNow, Splunk, Atlassian, etc) and most are either bleeding red ink or barely making money along with having extreme valuations (most still have the bulk of their epic gains from years of running).

Delta (DAL) and Southwest (LUV) would both be interesting to track on an intricate basis (you have to stay on top of every little detail about what's happening to them and the industry here). DAL is trading for three times 2019 earnings now, LUV is at eight times. If they're going to remain independent, survive and get back to normal (whether it takes two years or five etc), this is a steal, and their stock prices will plausibly go lower yet. I'd stalk them for a cheaper entry yet if I were going to bother.

And if I had Berkshire's $130 billion in cash, I'd eat Kraft Heinz, refurbish Kraft, keep Heinz for myself, and then spin Kraft off or sell it in a few years to a peer in the segment. Most companies in that segment aren't worth touching here though (that includes KHC), not unless they get a lot cheaper yet.

I think AMZN and FB will be few of the companies that would have killer quarterly earnings.

Amazon retail's profits are a modest share of Amazon's value. The stock could get some action from people that don't understand what makes up the large bulk of their market cap at this point (AWS & ads). The problem is it's hyper valued here, even after the decline. It has a long ways to fall if investors decide to apply a more reasonable valuation to its income (even a slightly more reasonable valuation, like 50 times earnings instead of 70 or 80). Basically so what if they earn an extra $1 or $3 billion in profit in the quarter from retail (it'll be a temporary surge anyway), it's almost meaningless vs $910b in market cap, doesn't move the needle much.

Plus, on Amazon, watch for a spending hammer against AWS and its growth. You might see a severe slowdown for several quarters (eg growth cut in half or worse), which will trivially destroy anything positive out of retail in regards to optimism. Business spending is going to get hit pretty hard for a while.

Costco for example, I wouldn't go anywhere near the stock, despite the way it has held up. Who knows if we're going to see serious supply problems next (which will get them from another angle, rather than demand side as with many businesses in this environment). If we see much of a supply crunch, it'll take back anything positive retailers see short-term from the demand surge.

The market is (properly) worried about a big thrashing to the ad market in the US, due to business going into the freezer. Businesses of all sizes are going to pull their ad spending - some as a part of survival mode (cash conservation) and some as a shift to being more cautious on spending in general for a while - at some point if this continues for very long (I'd expect weaker businesses have already begun pulling their ad spending). It's why Pinterest took a hard dive (ad spend worries), despite people sitting at home in quarantines screwing around online.

It seems like your perspective is "the virus is temporary and at some point we'll get back to normal so buy good companies cheaply now and hold for years".

Is that fair?

I see it a little differently, that the virus may be temporary but how we live, shop, govern ourselves and conduct business will change permanently as a result.

Some of the changes are accelerating existing trends, moving more online than offline from school to work to food shopping to governance.

This crisis is exposing deep flaws in governance and public services that we won't be able to continue to ignore. Previously fringe ideas in the US such as universal healthcare, universal basic income, universal housing, paid sick leave, etc. are starting to show up in right-wing rhetoric, sometimes even more stridently than from those in the center-left.

If permanent changes like this are in store, the beneficiaries are likely to be those with physical logistics networks like Amazon, Walmart and UPS, cloud computing like Amazon and Microsoft, online services like all of the FAANGs.

I'd also buy biotech, health tech and home healthcare while selling hospitals and insurers.

And I don't see the fossil fuel industry bouncing back from this, and that includes oil and gas as well as internal combustion automotive. When the economy resets lower, I expect clean power to dominate.

My perspective is whether it takes six months (unlikely) or two years (likely), we'll get back to normal. That includes the possibility of the market melting another 20% or 30% from here, during which I would cost average buy on the way down. I wouldn't attempt to time this, as in: buy once and only once based no the premise that it has bottomed at a specific price.

I don't believe this will fundamentally change society. I believe it will remain ~99% the same. That conclusion is based on how I see this going. The bailouts and direct cash and stimulus attempts will last ~60-90 days, after which the US and EU can't affford to keep doing it (or at least not for much longer than that). At that point an obvious hard choice will present itself if the virus hasn't largely passed, and the only logical path is to quarantine the smaller group of the population that is most vulnerable, rather than quarantining everybody at a massive ongoing cost (which isn't sustainable anyway). That's also based on my belief that the virus has already hyper spread, over a million Americans have already had it or have it. We should be doing randomized testing of millions of people to check for that (blood tests as well). If it has hyper spread, then the real death rate is far lower and that will adjust how we approach the virus. It is a travesty that we don't have this data right now and or are not aggressively pursuing it at any cost. We will go back to work out of necessity. In the scenario I believe is taking place, we'll eventually figure out the hyper spread context has occurred, the primary question is how quickly we get from here to there. 6-12 months from now we'll be reading lots of articles about how it turns out there were far more infections than we thought. We'll put resources into protecting the vulnerable as much as possible as we transition back to society operating normally, and into expanding ICU related needs to care for those most affected as we go back to routine.

The only way there would be permanent large scale changes, is if millions of people in the US die. There is no scenario where that happens in my opinion. Those extreme forecasts are all based on the case counts being accurate and very high death rates (as in Italy) being accurate (along with an inability to control the virus at all): case counts are not even remotely close to accurate, they're off by a minimum of 10x-20x. Italy hasn't had 35,000 cases, they've had closer to 350k-700k cases as a range. The biggest hit this virus produces to our system, is to the intensive care demands. We will need to invest tens of billions of dollars into that area persistently until the virus is brought under control (whether by herd immunity, seasonal fade, or vaccine later on). We have to maintain ICU services at a very heightened level.

The overwhelming behavior will be to attempt to go back to business as before. Most people will not want to change, unless they're forced to (and they're not going to be forced to in most circumstances).

> This crisis is exposing deep flaws in governance and public services that we won't be able to continue to ignore.

Yes. We'll get guaranteed paid sick leave at a national level from this disaster. It will increase the demand for universal healthcare. I think that will initially take the form of all-guaranteed healthcare, meaning we aren't going to immediately move to a full socialized system, rather we'll focus on making sure everyone has something akin to guaranteed minimum healthcare (they'll focus first on the segment that routinely goes without healthcare). And if they're smart, the Democrats will use this time to push for something that specifically resolves medical bankruptcies (since we're not going full socialized initially, or perhaps not ever; many prominent countries successfully use split systems).

I believe we'll establish a substantial pandemic response system coming out of this, which will coordinate the levers we need to use to react faster, from local to federal. It will also get the hospitals and private labs better integrated with agencies like the CDC, so we can spot outbreaks and test faster. That will remain intact for at least 10-15 years after this is over (until someone decides we're never going to have another pandemic).

> those with physical logistics networks like Amazon, Walmart and UPS, cloud computing like Amazon and Microsoft, online services like all of the FAANGs.

I believe Amazon will continue to see the cloud grow in their favor, of course. AWS will eventually be spun off, sometime this decade. I expect for the next few years, this will bump that transition growth rate (but not radically change it). Their multiple will compress gradually over time, their peak during this bubble run in the market, will be their general high level for a long time as their income grows into that valuation tier (meaning, if they go from $11b to $33b in net income, they won't get a ~$3 trillion valuation off of that, their multiple won't stay steady it will compress). That's the good scenario, where their growth remains intact. Their growth rate overall will continue to taper downward, the compression will occur along with that.

Microsoft is already priced very richly, growth vs valuation. Azure will benefit in the same way AWS will. However, I don't believe this event will do something drastic, like double the rate of growth of the cloud majors for an extended period of time. Do I want to pay 25 times earnings for 10% average growth (say for the next five years) for an existing juggernaut? Not really, even though I love the MSFT profit machine. Most of the upside was in at the $190 highs it hit, my interest is mostly in stocks that could at least double from the lows (for MSFT to go up and hit $2t market cap with $50b in net income, you're talking 40 times earnings, which is obscene). Fair value on MSFT is more like 16-20 times earnings (this is all opinion, obviously), which requires $55-$65 billion in net income to just hit their present market cap. All of the FAANGS were considerably overvalued vs growth before and still are now (just less so).

> And I don't see the fossil fuel industry bouncing back from this, and that includes oil and gas as well as internal combustion automotive. When the economy resets lower, I expect clean power to dominate.

They'll bounce back, those that are well positioned financially (many of the weaker companies are going under or are going to be sold for pennies on the dollar). Oil demand isn't going anywhere this decade. Maybe if the horizon is 30 years. Nothing radical is going to change on the green energy front from the virus economic fallout. It will remain a slow process.

Thanks that's very helpful. Alas! You don't have any contact info in your profile.

I can be contacted at:

adventuredhn20 [at] protonmail.com

Just curious about your statements regarding SQ. Their entire model is that they're a bank (I think they got approved a day or two ago) based on credit-card transaction volumes in retail business. Retail businesses are the shadow of SEARS and it is likely to be the slowest segment to recover after this pandemic. So, I am not so sure about SQ - their credit-card gateway isn't as successful as Stripe & Braintree. Personally, I would stay away from any business that depends on retail foot traffic.

Also, I would add:

EA/ATVI/TTWO: They're outperforming relative to the SPY

Innovo/Moderna/etc. : Any of the Cov vaccine companies, a pot pourry of them

OLED/LG: LCD/OLED semiconductors

And, I would disagree:

AMD/INTC/AMAT/KLAC/NVDA/MU: Semiconductors are a solid investment, not beaten down enough because the demand of semiconductors will soar in the future.

SQ will grow much faster than physical retail will decline. Overall physical retail isn't going to vanish. Some parts of it will disappear; some physical retailers will do much worse than others.

Their growth over the past three years disputes the concerns on their growth re physical retail. They're not mirroring damage in physical retail: sales, $1.7b -> $2.2b -> $3.3b -> $4.7b. Their operating profit has gone from -$170m -> -$54m -> -$36m -> +$153m. They have a clean path from here to over $10b-$12b in sales (Covid will roll them backwards and or slow their growth dramatically for a while, which of course is why the stock is being priced as it is).

NVDA with an optimistic 30 to 40 PE is far beyond a reasonable valuation in this climate. Half that range would be reasonable given their growth potential for the next few years and the market conditions now. So far NVDA is only back to Dec & Nov prices.

I love what AMD is doing on the product front and obviously investors are optimistic. Buying them at ~100 times earnings - with modest growth against that valuation - I consider a bad value in this market after the upside run they've had (since ~mar 2018). They still haven't been adjusted with much of a discount (and of course I have no idea if they will be or not at some point), they've merely been priced back to December. A normalization of AMD's valuation to the semi industry requires they earn ~$2 billion in net income at some point to justify their present valuation. They've pulled a lot of future gains forward here.

SQ is so much more than just retail businesses. Every haircut I've gotten in the last few years was charged through square, many of the small business restaurants use square, etc etc

Thoughts on Boeing?

If you can tell me how much money the government is going to plow into them and at what total cost, I'd take a stab at appraising their situation (on whether it's a potential buy at some price).

It has certainly been demolished now.

A friend of mine that I've been exchanging emails about the market with on a daily basis for 20 years - we trade short calls back & forth when something looks interesting (I almost never short stocks; and very rarely use puts; so this is merely a market game between us). I slapped a short call on Boeing at $371, with a cover below $200. That was premised on it being ridiculous that they had held up so well for so long, despite the beating on the 737 Max. At that point I had no idea Covid was coming. So I thought maybe it was worth $150 or $175 with the Max mess (assuming some resolution there eventually). What is it worth now? Shit, who knows. Zero without a bailout is my guess, they're getting tag teamed like the oil market did. So what will the bailout look like. I do believe the government will bail them out, I think that's obvious; so next, then, is what will that look like, how onerous will it be.

I will wait until it gets a bailout, and how much the govt gets in preferential stock. Also watch out for how Airbus fares. Even Airbus tanked another 20 percent yesterday.

IMO, the biggest unknown right know is that we don't know how long this pandemic is going to last or when the new case curve will start to flatten. This creates uncertainty and markets HATE uncertainty. I think once we get a sense of this, the market will be able to price in the overall impact and thus bottom out. Other things that would accelerate this understanding of the timeline would be things like a vaccine, cure, etc. Obviously, a big risk is that we continue to see infection rates rise.

Some interesting statistics I found regarding US Economy, According to the BEA, Housing and Heath account for more than 50% of services spending in the United States. Transportation, restaurants and recreation account for a bit more than 20%.

The other issue the market is trying to digest is the Oil shock brought on by Saudi/Russia price war. I almost want to say that I'd wait for some sort of agreement on this as well before I even attempt to invest in the sector.

In terms of what I'm investing in, I don't currently try to pick individual stocks, something I did for nearly a decade for Institutional Investment funds, instead I prefer to diversify across market cap, so a large cap (Russell 1000, IWB), mid cap (Russell Mid Cap, IWR), and small cap (russell 2000, IWM) index to diversify.

If you haven't already done so, you could invest some of that in your local food bank.

Is that an investment? I.e. is there a monitory return?

What you’re saying is charity right? (Which I’m not against, it’s just I didn’t think you could invest in food banks)

There is a payoff, but it's in the satisfaction of helping, rather than in money.

Honestly, if he can live without the money (as he says in the post), he should be donating almost all of it to local charities and massive tips to service workers.

He doesn't need the money, they do.

Investing is a very personal matter. A financial advisor is the best person to discuss this with. If I were pursuing this for myself I would build a Permanent Portfolio [1]. If I was looking for a financial advisor I would talk to Andrew Horowitz [2]. I would also recommend you look a small allocation in something such as Bitcoin, Zcash or Ethereum as they have a lot of upside potential still.

Permanent Portfolio Allocation: 25% Cash 25% Long Term Bonds 25% Stocks 25% Gold

[1]: https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/the-world... [2]: http://thedisciplinedinvestor.com/blog/dhunplugged/

Right now, stuffing it under your mattress is probably at least reasonable.

My tuppence: by some long-term LEAP calls and perhaps write some OTM puts on SPY. Due to current volatility premiums are insane.

TeamViewer and other companies positioned to make zillions off the work from home movement.

White collar employees won't want to go back to work.

You don't know if that's already priced in. The key to investment is timing (alpha). If others figured it out before you it's priced in.

That's why insider information is highly regulated.

There are to many variables to consider.

It's too early

Not based on information obtained here.

General philosophy: Buy ETF that is (1) below at least 52-week lows and below Dec 2018 price point (2) too big to fail (i.e. large market caps), preferably with investments from big wall street+political influencers (3) diversified, and (4) you have reasonable assurance of rebound in 1 year time frame.

With this, I think good buys are XLE, SPY, VFH, VNQ.

Many people would argue that your fourth criterion rules out all options. We're in historically unprecedented territory - there is no reasonable assurance of anything. The broad market is 30% off recently-set all-time highs. Whether it will go down a lot more or not is unknown. If the damage to the economy is sufficient it could take years to recoup a broad market investment made even at today's 30% off ATH level.

Add XOP as well, which can act like a LEAP call now.


Not too sure how they would do. Their major assets are getting crushed right now. I also worry about Buffet retiring and see as single point of failure for long term term investing.

Ye of no faith. Buffet has planned succession for practically his whole life. He has many capable managers. One recently bought a position in Kroger (KR). Go take a look at it.

Buy call options on volatility ETFs like UVXY or VXX.

duh, BTC. John McAfee told me so.

1. Invest 50% in an index fund

2. For the short term gains, Gilead sciences, and other antiviral makers, even generic chloroquine & friends, are likely to gain FDA approval for CV.

3. Ventilator makers and even CPAP manufacturers are likely to see a massive spike in demand

Donate your gains from #2, #3 to needy CV patients/health Care centres

I have no idea. But I can tell none of the commenters here have any clue. Source: I worked in finance for years and like to keep informed.

The level of Dunning-Kruger in this thread is appalling.


Yeah sure. Cause HN is full of people that can read the future.

Donate it to local charities or order a lot of takeout food and tip extraordinarily well.

Help fund iPad Pro tool for remote workers https://animationcpu.herokuapp.com/ :)

Applications are open for YC Winter 2022

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact