investing when the S&P 500 hits a new all-time high has historically led to stronger results than investing on days when it doesn't hit a new all-time high.
Today is a perfect example of why it is not at all counter-intuitive. I won't claim it is "intuitive", but it is totally understandable.
Today is a perfect example that it is EXTREMELY hard to "SPLAT" a market that was just at an ATH. There is too much exuberance hanging around, and too many who think they really REALLY want to re-test that ATH (or at least come extremely close, depending on when the "sell the ATH" sellers take over). So, when at ATHs, you can get 2 or 3 big down days, but there will be some big up days and at some point getting back up at least 60% toward that ATH.
Here's one that I guess is "counter-intuitive" but statistically accurate: "an inordinate # of the biggest up days occur during down (even Bear) markets, and mostly during the early days of such mkts."
And that is one of the things that makes the investing when the S&P 500 hits a new all-time high has historically led to stronger results predictable.
It is "elevator down", but only after "the market" keeps trying to climb those stairs for a month or 2 or 3. I know someone who has analyzed that. I forget his exact # "N", but he swears the data says that you're better off not worrying about the next 10 - 20% decline til the mkt has FAILED to hit an ATH for "N" days, where "N" is something like 90 days. I also forget if N is calendar days or trading days.
and again, this "intuition" & "understanding" all assumes you understand that the people who write these articles are using a 6 or 12 or 18 or 24 month look-ahead, not a "hold forever". Thre really isnt a good way to frame a calculation in a "hold forever" scenario.
www.joinautopilot.com