2008-2009 Stock Market Crash — what caused the second drop?
"The second drop was part of the same event. The short-term resurgence is often called a ""dead cat bounce"". Mongus Pong's answer is a great answer, I'm going to approach from a more anecdotal POV. Think about the fear that was in the air in Fall 2008. From my recollection, that short-term stabilization came from the Fed, President, Congress, etc standing up and saying that the government would do everything in its power to maintain liquidity in the marketplace. So the fear of a broader collapse of investment banks (beyond Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, etc) due to the Fed behaving as it did in 1929 was abated. By the time you got to Q1 of 2009, it became clear that business vaporized -- nothing was happening. No cars were selling, Christmas was dismal, vacations were cancelled. (example: I went on vacation to a fancy resort in December 2008 and paid $60/night for a $450/night room! The place was half empty.)" Ultimately no one really knows what causes the markets to rise and fall beyond supply and demand. If more people want to buy then sell, prices go up. And if more people want to sell, prices go down. The news channels will often try to attribute a specific reason to the price move, but that is largely just guess work to fill up the news pages so people have something to read. You may find it interesting to read up on the Elliot wave principle. The crash of 2008 was a perfect Elliot Wave fit. Elliot Wave theory states that social moods (which ultimately drive the stock market) generally occur in a relatively predictable pattern. The crash in September was a Wave 3 down. This is where the majority of people give up hope. However there are still a few people who are still holding on. The markets tend to meander about during wave 4. Finally the last few people give up hope and sell out. This causes the final crash of wave 5. Only when the last person has given up hope can the markets start to go up again.. "First, I would like to use a better chart.  In my opinion, a close of day line chart obscures a lot of important information.  Here is a daily OHLC log chart:  The initial drop from the 1099.23 close on Oct 3 was to 839.8 intraday, to close at 899.22 on Oct 10.  After this the market was still very volatile and reached a low of 747.78 on Nov 20, closing only slightly higher than this.  It traded as high as 934.70 on Jan 6, 2009, but the whole period of Nov 24 - Feb 13 was somewhat of a trading range of roughly 800-900.  Despite this, the news reports of the time were frequently saying things like ""this isn't going to be a V shaped recovery, it is going to be U shaped.""  The roughly one week dip you see Feb 27 - Mar 9 taking it to an intraday low of 666.79 (only about 11% below the previous low) on first glance appears to be just a continuation of the previous trend.   However... The Mar 10 uptrend started with various news articles (such as this one) which I recall at the time suggested things like reinstating the parts of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 which had been repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.  Although these attempts appear to have been unsuccessful, the widespread telegraphing of such attempts in the media seemed to have reversed a common notion which I saw widespread on forums and other places that, ""we are going to be in this mess forever, the market has nowhere to go but down, and therefore shorting the market is a good idea now.""  I don't find the article itself, but one prominent theme was the ""up-tick"" rule on short selling: source From this viewpoint, then, that the last dip was driven not so much by a recognition that the economy was really in the toilet (as this really was discounted in the first drop and at least by late November had already been figured into the price).  Instead, it was sort of the opposite of a market top, where now you started seeing individual investors jump on the band-wagon and decide that now was the time for a foray into selling (short).  The fact that the up-tick rule was likely to be re-instated had a noticeable effect on halting the final slide."
A stopped clock is right two times a day.   We may get a market crash similar to the financial crisis or the dot com crash or we may not. What if over the next 10 years rates rise very sluggishly, low inflation, and  low growth more or less continues with maybe one brief and shallow recession. In that case I bet US stocks produce 4-5% returns per year and US bonds produce maybe 1-2% per year.  European and emerging market stocks should have higher returns because they are in an earlier part of the cycle.  I think your baseline has to look something like that.  The last two crashes were caused by the tech bubble and the housing bubble - where is the bubble today? US stocks are expensive, but probably not in bubble territory. Bonds worldwide are unattractive with low or negative yields - negative yields maybe a bubble, but central banks will be the most hurt by negative rates and they are in a strong position to take the pain.   There could be a crash I just don't see how we get there yet - maybe china? "TL;DR; There is no silver bullet. You have to decide how much to invest and when on your own.  Averaging down definition: DEFINITION of 'Average Down' The process of buying additional shares in a company at lower prices than you originally purchased. This brings the average price you've paid for all your shares down. BREAKING DOWN 'Average Down' Sometimes this is a good strategy, other times it's better to sell off a beaten down stock rather than buying more shares.  So let us tackle your questions: At what percentage drop of the stock price should I buy more shares. (Ex: should I wait for the price to fall by 5% or 10% to buy more.) It depends on the behaviour of the security and the issuer. Is it near its historical minimum? How healthy is the issuer? There is no set percentage. You can maximize your gains or your losses if the security does not rebound. Investopedia: The strategy is often favored by investors who have a long-term investment horizon and a contrarian approach to investing. A contrarian approach refers to a style of investing that is against, or contrary, to the prevailing investment trend.  (...) On the other side of the coin are the investors and traders who generally have shorter-term investment horizons and view a stock decline as a portent of things to come. These investors are also likely to espouse trading in the direction of the prevailing trend, rather than against it. They may view buying into a stock decline as akin to trying to ""catch a falling knife."" Your second question: How many additional shares should I buy. (Ex: Initially I bought 10 shares, should I buy 5,10 or 20.) That depends on your portfolio allocation before and after averaging down and your investor profile (risk apettite). Take care when putting more money on a falling security, if your portfolio allocation shifts too much. That may expose you to risks you shouldn't be taking. You are assuming a risk for example, if the market bears down like 2008: Averaging down or doubling up works well when the stock eventually rebounds because it has the effect of magnifying gains, but if the stock continues to decline, losses are also magnified. In such cases, the investor may rue the decision to average down rather than either exiting the position or failing to add to the initial holding.  One of the pitfalls of averaging down is when the security does not rebound, and you become too attached to be able to cut your losses and move on. Also if you are bullish on a position, be careful not to slip the I down and add a T on said position. Invest with your head, not your heart." If you are younger, and you not under undue pressure to buy a home at any particular time, investing in the market is a reasonable way to prepare.  Your risk tolerance should be high.   Understand that this means you may buy in 3-4 years instead of 1-2 if the market takes a down turn.  It took ~3-4 years for the S&P 500 to recover from the 2008 crash. I doubt anything that severe is in the making, but there is always an element of risk involved in investing. If you and your family will be busting at the seams of your current rental in a year, then maybe the bond fund advice others have provided is a better option.  If you are willing to be flexible, a more aggressive strategy might be appropriate. Likely, you want something along the lines of the Vanguard S&P 500 mutual fund - something that is diversified (a large number of stocks), in relatively safe companies (in this case the 500 companies that Standard and Poor's think are most likely to repay corporate bonds), and 'indexed' vice 'actively managed' (indexed funds have lower fees because they are using 'rules' to pick the stocks rather than paying a person to evaluate them.) It's going to depend on you and your situation - and regardless of what you choose consistency will be key: put your investment on automatic so it happens every month without your input. "&gt;""Those measures all reflect a new way of measuring VaR though, one that switches the model from a four-year look to just one year, removing the rocky years of 2008 and 2009 from the current measure""  From my understanding (and I'm no risk mgmt or quant), and the specifics are lacking some in both articles, excluding 2008 and 2009 reduces the volatility of results in their VaR model. If you look at a chart of S&amp;P Volatility, you can see that 2008 and 2009 were anomalies, even though volatility was prevalent in every year since, until 2012.  [VIX](http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=%5eVIX&amp;t=5y&amp;q=&amp;l=&amp;z=l&amp;a=v&amp;p=s&amp;lang=en-US&amp;region=US)" "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-22/wall-street-banks-warn-winter-is-coming-as-business-cycle-peaks) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; HSBC Holdings Plc, Citigroup Inc. and Morgan Stanley see mounting evidence that global markets are in the last stage of their rallies before a downturn in the business cycle.  &gt; Analysts at the Wall Street behemoths cite signals including the breakdown of long-standing relationships between stocks, bonds and commodities as well as investors ignoring valuation fundamentals and data.  &gt; Citigroup analysts also say markets are on the cusp of entering a late-cycle peak before a recession that pushes stocks and bonds into a bear market.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6vkwv3/the_next_recession_is_nigh_how_are_you_lads/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~197088 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **market**^#1 **stock**^#2 **investors**^#3 **equity**^#4 **U.S.**^#5" "Part of it was an Oops, but not all of it. There were reports that the sudden   drop was caused by a trader who   mistyped an order to sell a large   block of stock. The drop in that   stock's price was enough to trigger   ""sell"" orders across the market. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36983596/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/" "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://eu-jr.eu/social/article/view/425) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Makarov, D. V., Parovik, R. I. Modeling of the economic cycles using the theory of fractional calculus.  &gt; Beaudry, P., Portier, F. When can changes in expectations cause business cycle fluctuations in neo-classical settings? Journal of Economic Theory, 135, 458-477.  &gt; Francis, N., Ramey, V. A. Is the technology-driven real business cycle hypothesis dead? Shocks and aggregate fluctuations revisited.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/79jau4/a_new_approach_to_the_nature_of_economic_cycles/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~237299 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **cycle**^#1 **business**^#2 **v**^#3 **theory**^#4 **J.**^#5" Although it is impossible to predict the next stock market crash, what   are some signs or measures that indicate the economy is unstable? These questions are really two sides of the same coin.  As such, there's really no way to tell, at least not with any amount of accuracy that would allow you time the market. Instead, follow the advice of William Bernstein regarding long-term investments.  I'm paraphrasing, but the gist is: Markets crash every so often.  It's a fact of life.  If you maintain financial and investment discipline, you can take advantage of the crashes by having sufficient funds to purchase when stocks are on sale.  With a long-term investment horizon, crashes are actually a blessing since you're in prime position to profit from them.