[techopoly]

Yes, nobody has a crystal ball. It always feels like other people do though.

It's good to make decisions with a sober view of risk and reward. I feel so much market advice that filters down to us laypeople is whether we should or should not buy or sell, when really it is all based on our level of risk tolerance, how much in terms of assets we have, what our time horizons are, what our expertise is. I would say a healthy young person with plenty of cash to burn might well look at buying stocks now. But a person nearing retirement, perhaps with health issues, they should probably board up and get ready for the storm. Most people below retirement age should probably just stop freaking out and keep contributing to their retirement plan as they (hopefully) have been doing, and make sure to have some cash on hand.

Our society does not do well with self-control or with gray areas. We want easy answers, which, unfortunately, don't usually exist.

[vsareto]

>and make sure to have some cash on hand.

This is where the panic goes to though: they might have 2-3 months cash right now, but might feel like they need 12-24 months cash to ride things out. People start worrying they'll lose their jobs and then their runway is at the mercy of the market. If a significant chunk of your wealth is in your house, that isn't easy to get out of during a downturn. Your tolerance for risk goes even further down if you have a family. Even further if your spouse doesn't work.

These are rational decisions that look like panic selling.

Tech work is a field that likely won't have to worry about this though.

[alasdair_]

>Tech work is a field that likely won't have to worry about this though.

With tech stocks tanking and economic growth likely sluggish for at least the next eighteen months, I can see large tech firms putting a hiring freeze in place, making it more difficult to switch jobs and more difficult to get hired if you DO get laid off.

Moreover, all that RSU comp that makes such a big portion of many tech workers take home pay just took a 20% haircut from a few weeks ago. It could well go lower.

Then there is the startup scene. I can definitely see current events massively impacting funding (see the recent Sequoia post). This could quite reasonably cause many startups to fail just like they did in 2008.

The IPO market is also going to be hit. I don't see any major unicorns doing an offering until the recovery happens. A lack of IPOs means, again, that the people willing to contribute to earlier stages of the pipeline, dry up.

Then there are secondary and tertiary effects. If the average tech worker sees their total comp drop by 10% to 20%, and quite a few lose their jobs, do you think the home you just bought in SF is going to be worth more in a year, or will there be some reduction (in appreciation if not absolute values)?

[dannylandau]

You are making a fundamental mistake with your assumption that there is a clear distinction between laypeople and experts in the stock-market, there isn't. Money managers, mutual fund managers and hedge funds managers make terrible mistakes and lose money all the time, and are usually the 1st to panic. So, there is no such thing as an "expert" in the stock market.

[s17n]

If you’re the first to panic, you get out with most of your money. Panicking first is kind of their job.

[koonsolo]

> It always feels like other people do though.

That's because you hear them when they are making gains, never when they are losing.

[jagged-chisel]

Sounds like a case of survivorship bias. Is there a phenomenon more descriptive, or do I have it right?

[charliepark]

"Reporting bias" might be a little closer to the mark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporting_bias. Or, in current terminology, "the Instagram effect".

I could be wrong, but I'd see survivor bias as "at the end of the day, everyone still in the game reports their results", not acknowledging that those doing really poorly might walk away from the game.