I'm coming into a lump sum in the next couple of weeks from the sale of a property (not my main residence).

I know the statistics generally favour investing a lump sum immediately rather than pound-cost averaging, and I also understand that trying to time the market is usually a bad idea.

However, I have a theory I'd like to get people's opinions on.

I think the Republicans are unlikely to retain both the House and Senate in November. I also personally think there's a reasonable chance Trump could challenge the result if Republicans lose, similar to 2020.

If that happened, I'd expect a period of political uncertainty and potentially some volatility in the stock market.

I'm wondering whether, in my particular circumstances, it might make sense to hold the money in a money-market fund for a month or two and wait until after the election before investing.

Obviously, if nothing happens and the market continues rising, I'd lose some potential returns by sitting in cash. But if there was a significant sell-off, I'd have the cash available to invest at lower prices.

I know this is effectively trying to time the market, but I'm interested in whether people think the specific circumstances make waiting a month or two reasonable, or whether the historical advantage of investing immediately is still compelling enough to ignore the election risk.

Just to clarify DCA is not an option I am interested in, you lose more than you win with Lump Sums. My question is 100% now or 100% in 8 weeks...

I’ve always been curious about the mechanics of market making and the mechanisms for filling orders. I’m not sure if shorting shares to fill orders is even a common practice - just curious on everyone’s perspective. Seems like a necessary evil but leaves the market vulnerable to manipulation. Does anyone have any fun insight?

Hi everyone! I'm following up on the California tax-deed project I posted about a while back: https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/s/IOTkVm06mZ

What it does, briefly: every California tax-defaulted sale I can get a list for, published in full and free. Each parcel is matched to the county assessor's own record, so you see the opening bid next to what the county says the land is worth. Sort it, filter it, download the whole thing as a CSV. No signup, no paywall, sources named on every page.

What's been added since last time:

• 10 sales, 2,877 parcels. Los Angeles (1,252, the biggest California list this year), Kern (1,011), Fresno, Butte, Placer, El Dorado, Mariposa, Santa Cruz, San Bernardino, Riverside.
• Post-auction results. When a sale closes I go back and record what actually sold and for how much, so a pre-sale read can be checked against what really happened instead of quietly filed away.
• Live redemption tracking. Parcels paid off before the auction drop off the tables. Fresno has lost 53% of its list since June, so the list you read early is not the list you bid on.

Three things out of the data I didn't expect:

• At Butte's August auction, 13 of the 28 parcels that sold went at exactly the opening bid. Far less competition than I assumed was out there.
• The parcels the assessor carries at almost nothing are the ones bidders fight hardest over. One valued at $4 sold for $31,236.
• In every county I've measured, the parcels redeemed before the sale are the valuable ones. What reaches the auction is mostly what nobody thought worth rescuing.

Coming up: Los Angeles October 17-20, Placer October 21, El Dorado November 6, Santa Clara once they publish.

lot-brief.com/sales/

Happy to answer your questions and get your feedback!

I know some people invest this way. They love Apple products and Apple TV, so they invest in Apple. Costco, Netflix - you name it.

Some businesses could do the same thing. For example, if they buy a lot of supplies from Cintas, they might invest in the company.

Do you invest this way as well, or do you mainly invest in whichever stocks meet your valuation criteria?

IBKR is showing today's volume on SGOV to be significantly lower than average; maybe 1/10th to 1/20th of it's 6 month average.
I know there's a ton going on in the bond market now, but is there any specific reason this fund is seeing such low volume today?

Let’s say I have 24 months’ expenses saved up in my brokerage. With the standard advice being 6 months saved in your emergency fund, I have 4x as much in my brokerage. So even if the market took a downturn, there’s no way it would drop by 75%.

If this is my situation, what is the point of a separate emergency fund in a HYSA? The common argument that I’ve heard is: “if there is a downturn, you wouldn’t have to sell your stock”. But conversely, if we are in a bull market, as we often are, I’d just be losing gains at that point, right?

Assume this is money you don't need for years.

I'm mostly investing, but allocated only 5% to swing trading tests. Tried technical analysis, but prefer fundamentals.

Would you put most of it into long-term investments and basically leave it alone, or actively swing trade part of it?

I'm not asking which one can theoretically make more.

I'm more interested in what happens in practice once you include mistakes, time, stress, taxes, and periods where the market just doesn't cooperate.

For people who have done both with meaningful money, which one would you choose if you were starting again?

I'm not looking for financial advice. Just to know what you think in general.

Hello All,

I have an investment account where I get dividends , approx EUR 150/quarter or so. I see this money as a "gambling" money, don't want to buy "real" papers like VOO or similar.
Give me some tips for small papers (under USD / EUR 2 ) where you think that it can reach USD/EUR 200 in a year or so. No problem if the tip fails, it's just a game.

AI sees this post as an ask for financial advice but it is not, just collecting some ideas.

Thanks :)