4
u/ideas4mac 1d ago
Over the long of a timeline either should be fine for your first 50K. After that you can decide if you want to do another 50 or add one or two additional ETF.
It's all going to be ok. Try not to stress too much. Or worry about things you can't control.
0
u/apooroldinvestor 1d ago
You have no clue how to invest.
1
u/ideas4mac 1d ago
Is your argument that VOO isn't worth 50K? Or are you arguing against adding one or two etfs after 50k? Perhaps you don't think VOO is a good long term investment?
If you could flesh out your ideas then maybe I could learn things.
0
u/apooroldinvestor 1d ago
$50k means NOTHING! In investing money means nothing! It's all PERCENTAGES ! There are people with $2 million in VOO... It's not dollar amounts that matter, it's HOW MUCH percentage wise you put into a certain investment. And etfs are made up of thousands of separate investments, so you only need one really.
-1
u/apooroldinvestor 1d ago
There's no point in adding separate etfs. If I were young, i'd do 100% qqqm
-1
u/apooroldinvestor 1d ago
Regardless of what anyone tells you, tech outperforms long term ALWAYS. And if it doesn't then, nothing else will perform well either long term. I mean more than a few years.
2
u/Putrid_Pollution3455 1d ago
I’m excited for more shares with higher dividends as sectors rotate or need something to entice investors. Tariffs first to crash economy, argue for tax cuts revaluation of gold and stiminchecks. Drop tariffs. Economic boom.
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hi! It looks like you're discussing VOO, the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. Quick facts: It was launched in 2010, invests in U.S. Large-Cap stocks, and tracks the S&P 500 Index. Gain more insights on VOO here. Remember to do your own research. Thanks for participating in the community!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Valuable-Analyst-464 1d ago
If we replace ‘tariffs’ with ‘Covid-19’, this seems like sentiment from 5 years ago.
Or with mortgage backed securities in 2008, same uncertainty.
The market will recover. Uncertain when.
Will the US not be the top? Someday, yes. In the next 40 years, doubtful.
The whole economic and market system is not a shrinking violet.
1
u/andybmcc 1d ago
There's always shit happening. Give it a few years, you'll have a few of these under your belt and won't get freaked out as easily. Enjoy the ride.
That being said, it's prudent to be globally diversified.
1
u/flatsun 1d ago
Can you share how you handles the other downturns. It is very upsetting to see. I read it's hard to tell when it will recover b
1
u/andybmcc 1d ago edited 1d ago
A great strategy is to just automate your investments. Market goes up, I buy. Market goes down, I buy. Market goes sideways, I buy. You can mostly disregard market movements. Grab a graph of the S&P 500 and zoom out. All of those "OMG, the sky is falling" moments end up as blips. We had 1999-2000, 2008, 2010, 2020, 2022, and now 2025. I've seen enough of these that they barely register. I've also seen a bunch of people freak out, go all cash, and then end up missing out on the recovery. Emotional decisions are why retail investors fall so ridiculously behind broad market index funds.
Retired folk are different. That game is mitigating risk with bonds, tips, cash, etc.
1
u/alchemist615 1d ago
It is a blip. Let's think of it rationally:
Scenario A) the tariffs stay as announced and are terrible. There is a strong recession. Mid term elections are in 2026, and there are enough seats up to flip it Democrat. If A) occurs, Congress flips, and they have the votes to potentially override a lot of DJT's policy
Scenario B) the tariffs stay as announced and are positive after fully understood and priced into the market. Over 18-24 months a normal recovery occurs.
Scenario C) the tariffs are lessened via negotiations. They stay in some form. There is a debate on the pros/cons of them. 2026 mid terms get interesting...
18-24 months is a blip in an entire investing career. The American consumer base is not changing any time soon, and exporters want access to that market.
My recommendation would be to buy more right now if you can afford it and have a long time horizon.
1
1
u/Towjumper173 1d ago
The US economy is not currently "drifting apart." Additionally, the market isn't experiencing "new lows." Quit with the theatrics and chicken little syndrome .
1
0
u/cwsReddy 1d ago
Why do you think the people of reddit can help you when economists and investment analysts don't have a clue what comes next? We are truly in uncharted waters. The only analog is 1929. The last time we were dumb enough to impose significant tariffs.
May you live in interesting times...
1
u/alchemist615 1d ago
The tariffs were imposed after 1929. They did not cause the crash. But they probably didn't help the recovery/made things worse.
-1
u/Bipolar_Aggression 1d ago
USD hegemony has to end. The US cannot continue to incur massive current account deficits to supply the world with United States Dollars for foreign exchange. The purpose of the tariffs is not to address balance of trade, but balance of payments. They are two different things. I believe that, because the concept of balance of payments is extremely complex, the Trump administration is conflating it with trade as it theoretically easier.
Once the tariffs force the balance of payments to 0 or close to it, the world's nations can be forced back to the United Nations table. Then, a new treaty can be ratified on how to handle a future supranational reserve currency unit. When the United Nations was founded, the first conference's winning proposal was that of John Maynard Keynes. He called it the Bancor. The weight of the Bancors is primarily based on natural resources, but also would include goods and services. Each country would be allocated Bancors based on what the country currently has.
This is part of the reason Trump is forcing union with Canada and Greenland. Both would substantially add to the Bancor pool allocated to the expanded United States. Both regions would in fact benefit from such a union probably more than the US in this new geopolitical order, but the reasons are complex and you'd just have trust me for now.
The use of national currencies would be banned, and all foreign exchange would transact in Bancors. They would cleared through the International Monetary Fund. Countries that ran current account deficits for an extended period of time would be penalized.
Matters for the UN Conference to address would be the exact weighting of Bancors as well as the penalties for incurring current account deficits.
When this system was proposed before World War 2 even ended, it was believed it would lead to world peace by removing the ability of nations to competitively devalue their currency to acquire natural resources, which has a snowball effect resulting in major tensions of exhaustion of foreign exchange reserves. Germany and Japan - having few natural resources - ultimately had to resort to imperialism to seize those that they needed.
In the current state, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine in effect, never could have happened under this system.
This is all very simplified. A whole are other element are how Bancors are allocated - they are borrowed from the IMF, and the interest paid works a penalty to penalize excessive surpluses and holding. This is very different from how the US works today, where there is no real borrowing. Congress creates dollars, and those dollars are used by citizens and other entities to buy "debt" issued by Congress. While the US can created an unlimited quantity of dollars, no country can create an unlimited quantity of Bancors.
It will be a different world, but likely a better one.
8
u/AICHEngineer 1d ago
This is a blip. Maybe a two week blip, maybe a four year blip.