[fantasticshower]

My thinking used to be this way but then I experienced some things in life that made me consider the non-zero possibility that something could happen to me that would require me to tap into retirement savings. If my retirement strategy involves waiting out large drawdowns, then there's a chance I would need to tap into my retirement accounts at the bottom of a large drawdown. I like the comfort of not having to endure large drawdowns for that reason.

[Zetice]

Er, you’re acting like you have a choice here, but you don’t. You either endure the drawdown or you just straight up lose your money. You’re trying to say that straight losing money is better than not losing money, but that’s nonsense.

[fantasticshower]

We all choose what investment strategy to follow. I have chosen other strategies that have smaller drawdowns.

In the case where I have to tap into my retirement account because of unlucky life circumstances, I'm happier that I'm selling something I bought for 100 at 75 vs having to sell it at 50 (hypothetically).

[Zetice]

Except 50 was never on the table, and 75 is a fraction of what it would be worth if you stopped trying to actively manage your portfolio.

I cannot overstate how bad of an idea this is. Investing is not the same as decorating, there are objectively bad ways of managing your investments and this is one of them.

You will end up poorer as a result of this behavior. I hope that happiness is worth it, because you are paying through the nose.

[fantasticshower]

I think we're agreeing that you need a strategy and you need to stick to it. Where we differ (I think) is you think my strategy is objectively bad and yours is objectively good. I don't think we really know what each others strategies are though.

I'll assume you're a proponent of B&H SPY and continuing to buy $X/month of SPY until you retire. I'm just saying there are other ideas than that that you can use that have smaller drawdowns and comfortable returns to risk. You could B&H 60/40 SPY/treasuries for example.

Is it active management if you rebalance 60/40 once a year? What if you rebalance quarterly? At what point is it active management and therefore bad?

[Zetice]

This isn’t up for debate; it’s been shown, time and time again, that timing the market is a bad long term investment strategy.

[fantasticshower]

For the curious thread-reader, here are some websites that offer ideas that might make you question whether all "timing the market" is the same and equally bad long term.

- https://portfoliocharts.com/portfolios/ (one step up in activity from B&H one ETF forever)

- https://allocatesmartly.com/blog/ (another step up in activity from sticking to one asset allocation that you simply rebalance periodically)

- https://qoppac.blogspot.com/p/systematic-trading-start-here.... (several steps up in complexity and activity)