Entering the stock market in a poor economy
"Forecasts of stock market direction are not reliable, so you shouldn't be putting much weight on them.  Long term, you can expect to do better in stocks, but obtaining this better expected return has the danger of ""buying in"" to the market at a particularly bad moment, leading to a substantially lower return.  So mitigate that risk while moving in a big piece of cash by ""dollar cost averaging"".  An example would be to divide your cash hoard (conceptually) into say six pieces, and invest each piece in the index fund two months apart.  After a year you will have invested the whole sum at about the average of the index for the year." Buy low and sell high.  Right now stocks are cheap (or at least cheapish).  If you wait for better forecasts, the price will be higher.  They might go down still farther, but no one knows for sure when that will happen, or where the bottom is -- despite what the talking heads on TV say.  Remember that what you really care about is sell price minus purchase price (plus dividends, but I'll ignore that).  What happens between the time you buy and the time you sell is irrelevant financially, but can be important psychologically. If it was me, and you are sure you won't need the money for at least 10 years, or better still 15-20, I would buy some index funds.  Pick something that you are comfortable with (some are more aggressive/risky than others), and then only look at it a few times a year, if that much.  Only do this as long as you are sure that you won't sell if the market drops further. That is a guaranteed way to lose money. This is what I've been doing for my retirement funds for 15 years, and its worked well so far. Well, you probably already know this, but no-one can guarantee you results...in any economic climate.  Even traditionally low risk investments now seem higher risk to people when the economic forecasts are grim.  That being said, 0.5% is pretty low.  So, where does that leave you? Why not start with a risk tolerance analysis for yourself.  There's a bunch on them on the internet if you google it.  Here's one:  Rutgers Financial Risk Tolerance Quiz Based on the result you get back, and whether you agree with it or not, this may give you a starting point for determining if entering the stock market is right for you.  I'm guessing you can get better than 0.5% return over 10 years pretty easily though. Are you kidding? The stock markets just took a nose dive this week. Perfect buying opportunity. Just be sure to dollar cost average your way in to avoid excessive timing risk. If you have a long enough time horizon, investing in the stock market while in a bad economy can turn out to be a very smart decision. If you need access to your capital in the short-term, 1-2 years, then it is probably a bad decision. If you have the ability to ride out the next few years, then you may be buying securities at an extremely low valuation. Take AAPL and MSFT for example. These are both technology stocks, which is by far the hottest sector in the economy now, and you can buy both of these companies for less than 13x earnings. Historically, you would have had to pay 20x or higher for high tech growth companies, but today you can buy these stocks at discounted valuations. Now AAPL may have a large market capitalization and a high stock price, but the simple fact is they are growing their earnings very quickly, they have best in class management, and they have $100 billion in cash and $50 billion in annual cash flow generation and you can buy the stock for a historically low multiple. Wow I love some of these answers. Remember why you are investing in the first place.  For me I like Dividend stocks and Dividend Capturing. Here is why. With over 3500 dividend stock companies paying out dividends this year, that means I can get a dividend check almost every day. What about if the stock goes down you ask? Well out of these 3500 companies there is a small group of these stocks that have consistently increased their dividend payout to their investors for over 25 years and a smaller group that have been increasing every year their pay outs for over 50 years. Yes Kennedy was in office back then and to this day they consistently pay higher and higher dividend payments to their investors, every year... for 50 years.  As for the Dividend Capturing strategy, that allows me to collect up 10-20 checks per month with that little effort. As for the stock going down... Here is a little tidbit that most buyers overlook. Stock price is more or less the public's perception of the value of a certain company. Earnings, balance sheet, cash flow, market cap and a few other things in the quarterly report will give you a better answer to the value of a company. If stock price goes down while earning and market go keep going up... what does that tell you?
Quant has been an interesting part of finance, but I always thought they missed something really important.   The standard methods of statistical analysis can’t explain what’s going on with economy and firms. Otherwise, quant hedge funds would have been making money all the time.   The conventional quants find patterns in data, test them then go live. These models work until some fundamental (or not so fundamental) shifts in the market. Then they find themselves back in the drawing board looking for their next model. This kind of analysis seems like a lot of grind for fairly  unpredictable returns.   There are more and more companies that don’t lend themselves well to fundamental analysis as we know it. Financial data and some poor flawed human analysts insights alone can no longer explain much.   This is a unique set of challenges that Data Science, more specifically AI could solve. The speed at which AI can learn and process information is just mind boggling. AI can learn the entire financial history of decision making in minutes. It can recognize patterns, make sophisticated analysis and constantly update its probability tables as the new information comes in. This is something no human can compete with.    Imagine a quantitative engine that adapts as the economy changes. It could draw heaps of unstructured data about a company, learn from it in real time, make course corrections and spit out its recommendations.   To the degree that human decision making is involved in the strategic decision making of companies, we will need the depth of context that can be provided by humans, but I see the field moving away from excel spreadsheets with fairly poor predicting capacity to AI models with strong predictive capacity. You have just answered your question in the last sentence of your question:  More volume just means more people are interested in the stock...i.e supply and demand are matched well. If the stock is illiquid there is more chance of the spread and slippage being larger. Even if the spread is small to start with, once a trade has been transacted, if no new buyers and sellers enter the market near the last transacted price, then you could get a large spread occurring between the bid and ask prices. Here is an example, MDG has a 50 day moving average volume of only 1200 share traded per day (obviously it does not trade every day).  As you can see there is already an 86% spread from the bid price. If a new bid price is entered to match and take out the offer price at $0.039, then this spread would instantly increase to 614% from the bid price. Your definition of 'outside your country' might need some redefinition, as there are three different things going on here . . . Your financial adviser appears to be highlighting the currency risk associated with point three. However, consider these risk scenarios . . . A) Your country enters a period of severe financial difficulty, and money markets shut down. Your brokerage becomes insolvent, and your investments are lost. In this scenario the fact of whether your investments were in an overseas index such as the S&P, or were purchased from an account denominated in a different currency, would be irrelevant. The only thing that would have mitigated this scenario is an account with an overseas broker. B) Your country's stock market enters a sustained and deep bear market, decimating the value of shares in its companies. In this scenario the fact of whether your investments were made in from a brokerage overseas, or were purchased from an account denominated in a different currency, would be irrelevant. The only thing that would have mitigate this scenario is investment in shares and indices outside your home country. Your adviser has a good point; as long as you intend to enjoy your retirement in your home country then it might be advisable to remove currency risk by holding an account in Rupees. However, you might like to consider reducing the other forms of risk by holding non-Indian securities to create a globally diversified portfolio, and also placing some of your capital in an account with a broker outside your home country (this may be very difficult to do in practice). The total value of the stock market more or less tracks the total value of the companies listed in the stock market, which is more or less the total value of the US economy (since very few industries are nationalized or dominated by privately held companies). The US economy has consistently grown over time, thanks to the wonders of industrialization, the discovery of new markets, new natural resources, etc.  Thus, the stock market has continued to grow as well. Will it forever?  No.  The United States will not exist for ever.  But there's no obvious reason it won't continue to grow, at least for a while, though of course if I could accurately predict that I would be far richer than I am. Why do other countries not have the same result?  China is its own ball of wax since it's a sort-of-market-sort-of-command economy.  Japan has major issues economically right now and doesn't really have the natural or people resources; it also had a huge market bubble a while back that it's never recovered from. And many European countries are doing fine.  German's DAX30 index was at around 2500 in 2004 and is now at nearly 13000.  That's pretty fast growth. If you go back further (there was a crash ending in around 2004), you can see around the fall of the Berlin wall it was still around 2000; even going that far back, that's about an 8% annual bump.  The FTSE was also around 2000 back then, around 8000 now, which is around 5% annual growth.   Many of these indexes were more seriously hurt than the US markets in the two major crashes of this millenium; while the US markets fell a lot in 2008, they didn't fall nearly as much as many smaller markets in 2002, so had less to recover from.  Both DAX and FTSE suffered similar falls in 2002 to 2008, and so even though during good periods they've grown quite quickly, they haven't overall done as well as they could have given the crashes. "Chance favors the prepared mind - Einstein   That being said, I liken it to a poker analogy. To win at poker you must play. To play you must already have something to put on the table. If you are betting your entire existence at every hand because you started poor you *can* win but it is far less likely to happen. You will make illogical decisions due to the fear or being destroyed. It's like how walking across a tightrope is easy when it is 6"" above the ground, but not 600 feet above the ground.   Also, in the beggining of life there is a good chance you will flame out or mess up a few times. Rich kids can do this as much as they need to, over and over again, to learn and get their feet under them. Poor kids generally get one chance and if anything goes wrong it's back to the factory to work for several more years to save up money again.   I believe they are calling this growing class of young people on the edge the ""precariat""." Benjamin Grahams strategy was to invest in REALLY SAFE stocks. In his time lean businesses weren't as common as they are now and he found many companies with assets greater than the value of their shares. Putting a number figure on it isn't really necessary but the concept is useful. Its the idea that bigger companies are less turbulent (Which is something to avoid for an investor). Most companies in the top 500 or whatever will satisfy this. There is economic value added to the marketplace, by having many investors trading stocks. The stock market itself can be thought of as a tool which provides additional 'liquidity' to the marketplace. Liquidity is the ease with which you can convert your assets into cash (for example, how quickly could you sell your car if you needed money to pay a medical bill?). Without a stock market, funds would be very illiquid - an investor would likely need to post advertisements to have other people consider buying his/her shares. Until the match between a buyer and seller is found, the person with the shares can't use the cash they need. On the other side of the transaction, are people who have an appetite for risk. This means that, for various reasons, they are willing to take on more risk than you, if it pays off on average (they are young [and have many years of salary earnings in front of them], or they are rich [can afford to lose money sometimes if it pays off on average]). Consider this like a transaction between your insurance broker - you don't want to pay for a new car if you get in an accident, and you're willing to pay total annual premiums that, on average, will cost more than that same car over time. You don't want the risk, but the insurance company does - that's how they make money. So by participating in any marketplace, you are providing value, in the form of liquidity, and by allowing the market to allocate risk to those willing to take it on. Even with a good investment strategy, you cannot expect more than 8-10% per year in average. Reducing this by a 3% inflation ratio leaves you with 5 - 7%, which means 15k$ - 21k$. Consider seriously if you could live from that amount as annual income, longterm. If you think so, there is a second hurdle - the words in average. A good year could increase your capital a bit, but a bad year can devastate it, and you would not have the time to wait for the good years to average it out. For example, if your second year gives you a 10% loss, and you still draw 15k$ (and inflation eats another 3%), you have only 247k$ left effectively, and future years will have to go with 12k$ - 17k$. Imagine a second bad year. As a consequence, you either need to be prepared to go back to work in that situation (tough after being without job for years), or you can live on less to begin with: if you can make it on 10k$ to begin with (and do, even in good years), you have a pretty good chance to get through your life with it. Note that 'make it with x' always includes taxes, health care, etc. - nothing is free. I think it's possible, as people live on 10k$ a year. But you need to be sure you can trust yourself to stay within the limit and not give in and spent more - not easy for many people.