US stocks sank Thursday morning after the latest GDP report showed that US economic growth slowed to 1.6% in the first quarter of the year, a much weaker pace than expected.
The s&p 500 is down 0.8% today, and still up 23.6% over the past year despite that, well above it’s long term average growth rate still. These day to day fluctuations are barely a blip looking on a long scale time horizon like with a 401k.
If you held your entire 401k in 100% stocks and are planning on retiring tomorrow cashing out the entire account all at once I suppose it would be important, but that’s ridiculous for a number of reasons.
Headline writers always like to use the dow Jones because they get to write some seemingly big numbers instead of s&p 500 decreases by 36, which doesn’t sound nearly as impressive (because it’s not). They could say the dow Jones decreased by 1% in the headline, but again, not as sensational, won’t get clicks. Shouldn’t even be using dow Jones anyways, kind of a dumb index. Almost half of the “loss” this article refers to rebounded even by the time I wrote this comment compared to when the article was published, which is why the headline no longer matches the original.
yeah it cracks me up when I see these headlines. If it loses as much today it will be down to around its former record high of two years ago. Even the covid drop was literally a blip. Its been overheated by and large since post 2k drop.
Fair enough. But also, my 401K lost allot of money a year or two ago, that it hasn’t recovered from yet. So when I wrote that comment to @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world it was more of a general lifetime concern for retirement 401Ks and the fluctuations of the market.
Also, the “investment class” label seemed not fair to me, as many (most?) are just people putting their money there from each of their paychecks for retirement purposes, and not the elite class taking all of our money away from us types.
Almost half of the “loss” this article refers to rebounded even by the time I wrote this comment compared to when the article was published, which is why the headline no longer matches the original.
So would you advise to ignore all headlines for 24 hours-ish, to see if the losses are real or just a blip?
No I was referring specifically to these common misleading sensational headlines on minor movements of the stock market, not news headlines in general. Or if you’re referring to 401ks again, yes in general it’s a bad idea to be making active trades in a 401k with a time horizon of decades based on day to day minor fluctuations of the stock market.
Almost half of the “loss” this article refers torebounded even by the time I wrote this comment compared to when the article was published
So would you advise to ignore all headlines for 24 hours-ish, to see if the losses are real or just a blip?
Also,
yes in general it’s a bad idea to be making active trades in a 401k with a time horizon of decades based on day to day minor fluctuations of the stock market.
That didn’t answer my question though. I wasn’t asking about trading, but if a news article like this one comes out, should it be ignored for a certain amount of time, since you seem to think its not legit/sensationalized, based on your ‘half of the loss rebounded by the time I wrote this comment’.
I would look at the fees of your plan. It should have way more than recovered by now. is it mixed with bonds maybe? high interest rates makes new bonds a better deal but is not good for older bonds held.
You’re not in a 401k plan?
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
The s&p 500 is down 0.8% today, and still up 23.6% over the past year despite that, well above it’s long term average growth rate still. These day to day fluctuations are barely a blip looking on a long scale time horizon like with a 401k.
If you held your entire 401k in 100% stocks and are planning on retiring tomorrow cashing out the entire account all at once I suppose it would be important, but that’s ridiculous for a number of reasons.
Headline writers always like to use the dow Jones because they get to write some seemingly big numbers instead of s&p 500 decreases by 36, which doesn’t sound nearly as impressive (because it’s not). They could say the dow Jones decreased by 1% in the headline, but again, not as sensational, won’t get clicks. Shouldn’t even be using dow Jones anyways, kind of a dumb index. Almost half of the “loss” this article refers to rebounded even by the time I wrote this comment compared to when the article was published, which is why the headline no longer matches the original.
yeah it cracks me up when I see these headlines. If it loses as much today it will be down to around its former record high of two years ago. Even the covid drop was literally a blip. Its been overheated by and large since post 2k drop.
Fair enough. But also, my 401K lost allot of money a year or two ago, that it hasn’t recovered from yet. So when I wrote that comment to @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world it was more of a general lifetime concern for retirement 401Ks and the fluctuations of the market.
Also, the “investment class” label seemed not fair to me, as many (most?) are just people putting their money there from each of their paychecks for retirement purposes, and not the elite class taking all of our money away from us types.
So would you advise to ignore all headlines for 24 hours-ish, to see if the losses are real or just a blip?
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
No I was referring specifically to these common misleading sensational headlines on minor movements of the stock market, not news headlines in general. Or if you’re referring to 401ks again, yes in general it’s a bad idea to be making active trades in a 401k with a time horizon of decades based on day to day minor fluctuations of the stock market.
Yes, I am…
Also,
That didn’t answer my question though. I wasn’t asking about trading, but if a news article like this one comes out, should it be ignored for a certain amount of time, since you seem to think its not legit/sensationalized, based on your ‘half of the loss rebounded by the time I wrote this comment’.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I would look at the fees of your plan. It should have way more than recovered by now. is it mixed with bonds maybe? high interest rates makes new bonds a better deal but is not good for older bonds held.
Nope.
Lucky you. Carry on.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0