Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Bonds: What To Do Now: MFO's David Snowball Comments

TedTed
edited October 2014 in Fund Discussions

Comments

  • For paid subscribers.
  • Apparently Buffett said this morning on CNBC that he has no bonds because they don't make sense now. 'Nuff said!
  • If I had billions dollars like Mr. Buffett and would still have billions of dollars even after a 50% equity drop, I probably wouldn't worry about tempering my portfolio with bonds either. But the fact is they do make sense for most people, especially older investors. Most people do need bonds or something similar, be it cash or annuities or some other stable asset class, as a shock absorber to smooth out the ride.
  • @John Chisum; You can read the article by clicking on the title at top of Google search. Come on John, wake up and smell the coffee.
    regards,
    Ted
  • @ted
    The original link did not go to google. Anyway thanks
  • @David Snowball: The WSJ version is more complete, and has graphics.
    Regards,
    Ted
  • @John Chisum: The original link did go to Google !
    Regards,
    Ted
  • US bond market remains twice equity market...huge:

    image
  • I should slightly adjust what Buffett said because I went and watched the video and it appears he didn't go as far as saying he had no bonds, he said bonds are unattractive and he would rather bet on stocks.
  • @Ted Sorry, I'm getting what John is getting.
  • I think what is happening is that @Ted is linking to Google search for the article but some of us do not use Google. My browsers are set to use DuckDuckGo which supposedly is a search engine that does not track you unlike the others.

    Anyone can set their search preferences (I think) to a defined search engine. Apple just recently added DDG to their preferences. I kinda like it so far. Works just as well as the others.

    Maybe someone with tech savvy can either confirm or deny this. It is only a guess on my part.
  • Mozilla Firefox here. That's the browser I use. Free notices of upgrades and automatic installs, if that's what you tell them to do. Open a Firefox browser window and go to the search box. Right click on the item you've filled in there to search for, and a menu comes up. You can "view this item on a new private webpage." I do that quite a bit. But when you use it, favorite webpages won't recognize you. You'll have to fill in passwords again. You can tell when you are privately viewing because you can see a little purple mask over at the top-right of the page you're on.

    Ixquick is a search tool which does not record or broadcast your Internet Address, either. It's a mega-search site, collecting results for your search from many different sources around the web. Works just like a Yahoo or Google search box, but doesn't record your Internet Address. My webpages are clean and trim without much clutter, too, because I use AdBlock Plus. As long as you already have THAT operating, you can use AdNauseam. In a background thread, it constantly clicks on every ad. Makes it impossible for anyone to target-market to you. Revenge. I like revenge.
  • I've been using my iPhone for the most part so I don't know if those options are available but on the MacBookPro I do have Ghostery and some other blocking app running.

    It gets spooky when you research a certain book for example using Google and then you start getting ads for that same book on different websites. There has to be a line drawn somewhere on privacy.

    Back to Ted's links to subscriber articles, I don't know how Google gets around that?
  • I dunno; I also use Firefox (yes, recent update) and Barron's Gross interview came thru just fine, as do other things that Ted jumps thru hoops to set up. Perhaps the WSJ "knows" this workaround and doesn't allow their system to get fooled by it.

    FWIW, Firefox offers a free app, recently developed by I can't remember who, which (1) blocks Google from noting when you click on a Search link and recording that information AND then (2) blocks Google from following you to that link's site and noting what you click on there. Or so the app's description purported..... Since so few Fox users had tried it, and there was no posted feedback, I didn't try it. [so many apps, so little time, ya know?]

    @Crash Hey, I like the sound of Ixquick and intend to check it out. Thanks.
Sign In or Register to comment.