>I guess you're just talking about the broad stock market, but since the
>last time we had a nice long sideways patch global investing has grown
>up quite a bit. Even just in mutual funds, an individual has a vast
>array of product to choose from, and plenty of sectors are 'going up' as
>we speak.
>
>Say you bought this for a New Year's Resolution:
>
>http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=ENPIX&t=3m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=%5EGSPC
Well, yeah, but hindsight is always sharper than foresight.
I don't really buy this "things are so different now" line. Sure there are a lot more instruments to play with, but the basic stories have hardly changed since the birth of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange. (Ok, I'm exaggerating a bit.) You could always play sectors with individual stocks; you could always switch asset classes (stocks, bonds, metals). You've long been able to play the geographic game too (London or Buenos Aires?). It's really really hard to know which game to play; it's always been, and always will be. It's no easier now - and may even be harder, given the often-overwhelming complexities of having too many choices. And lower transaction costs don't necessarily help; low trading costs encourage trading, and for most people, more trading means lower returns.
Doug