On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being the least, how attractive do you find stocks?

[Peregrine]

Hey everyone. I didn't see a poll for something like this on the front page, so decided to start one myself. Would like to get a feel for what this subset of the value community thinks!

 

Edit: 1 means least attractive. Attractiveness in comparison to that of previous levels of the stock market.

[Liberty]

Just so we're all on the same page, it should probably be said how the scale works.

 

I'm assuming that 1 is least attractive, and 5 most attractive, but maybe others are looking at it in the oppositve way..?

[JAllen]

It could be way higher, so I voted 2...

[JBird]

Attractiveness is a highly subjective term, right? Someone that's looking for 2% returns will find the general market very attractive today. Someone looking for 15% returns won't. Can you narrow your definition of attractive?

[Peregrine]

Just so we're all on the same page, it should probably be said how the scale works.

 

I'm assuming that 1 is least attractive, and 5 most attractive, but maybe others are looking at it in the oppositve way..?

 

Yes, thanks for pointing out the oversight. 1 means least attractive.

[Peregrine]

It could be way higher, so I voted 2...

 

With 5 being most attractive, do you mean 4?

[Peregrine]

Attractiveness is a highly subjective term, right? Someone that's looking for 2% returns will find the general market very attractive today. Someone looking for 15% returns won't. Can you narrow your definition of attractive?

 

Relative to previous levels of the market.

[watsa_is_a_randian_hero]

Attractiveness is a highly subjective term, right? Someone that's looking for 2% returns will find the general market very attractive today. Someone looking for 15% returns won't. Can you narrow your definition of attractive?

 

I would say its relative, not subjective.  Someone looking for 2% returns would likely find it unattractive relative to the other investments available that could earn 2%+ returns, because of the relative levels of risk.

 

I voted 2, because relative to all other investment options out there from both a risk and potential return perspective, I would find a US market-weighted equity benchmark (such as S&P or wilshire) to be somewhat unattractive at these levels.

 

 

 

[wisdom]

Anecdotally, everyone I know wants to talk stocks once again and they think I know what I am doing.

 

I view these as negatives.

 

I would not regard the view on this board as the norm out there.

[Peregrine]

Anecdotally, everyone I know wants to talk stocks once again and they think I know what I am doing.

 

I view these as negatives.

 

I would not regard the view on this board as the norm out there.

 

I think a lot of people start getting into stocks not because they feel they're undervalued but because they don't want to miss the bull cycle. But for many people who think this way they generally end up missing the action anyway.

[T-bone1]

How attractive would people find stocks if T-Bills were at 5% right now (I view that as a pretty normal level over long periods).

 

I am ~35% cash and long a fair amount of stocks, but - with a few exceptions - I increasingly find myself investing in stocks that I "don't hate" and "don't think I can get hurt in" rather than companies I am truly excited about at these valuations.

[fareastwarriors]

I still love my position in BAC, a smaller but still sizable position in AIG, and a small bit in C. If the the names drop, I plan to add.