Ask HN: Are you preparing for a market crash? How?
I see a lot of posts and comments here HN "predicting the inevitable" and I'm wondering what market strategies you are employing to prepare?
I have a share portfolio that's 70/30 stocks/bonds because that suits my age and risk appetite. If it crashes I can live with losses, if the market goes up I can live with the missed opportunity.
I have some "gambling" money in a separate account that I buy risky stuff with. If I lose it all, cest la vie.
That's all anyone can do really.
(Edit, I should have been clear: my portfolio is in index funds, not individual stocks. The "gambling" money is in individual stocks ONLY because its gambling money not a real investment. Index funds are where 95% of us should be with 95% of our case IMHO.)
Of course, if you do that you'll lose out on more from missed opportunities than you save from missed crashes. Soneone who did that in 2008 would be perfectly safe right now. They'd have missed out on quadrupling their money. But they'd be perfectly prepared.
So you can do as suits you. But the best strategy is to have a mix of bonds and stock. Never more than 70% bonds (as risk goes UP past roughly that point). The more you are able to deal with big movements (up or down), the more stock.
This is what Warren Buffet and others have endorsed for normal every day humans like us. The mathematics backs it up.
I'm surprised you can't get a re-investing one.
I know outside of the US there is a concept of distributing vs accumulating funds (and in both cases you get the dividends, just in a different form): https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accumulating_E...
As for example I haven’t seen any broker in Sweden that does cash payouts but like you said the money is probably going back to the investors just not as cash.
If you’re ten or more years from retirement, the overwhelming likelihood is that a crash simply does not matter. A drop in prices only matters when you’re buying (good) or selling (bad). Everything in between is noise that only affects you on paper. Selling due to a crash is the ideal way to lock in losses. Just contribute to your retirement accounts as normal, regardless of what the market is doing. If anything, feel happy you’re getting a discount on your regular purchases.
If you’re nearing retirement, the answer is that you should be gradually shifting over time from riskier assets to more conservative ones. While young you might be at and 80:20 ratio of stock market index funds to bond market index funds, but nearing retirement that might flip to 60:40 with the remaining 10% in fixed-income assets (exact numbers are determined by your personal risk threshold and not meant as absolutes). For most people, a Target Retirement fund is probably the best choice here since they’re fire-and-forget.
As an anecdote, I have a friend who felt very strongly that a crash was imminent in early 2018. He argued passionately that markets would drop, and wouldn’t it be great to be in a position to be able to swoop back in and grab everything at a discount when this happened? I bet beers that the S&P would be greater than or equal to its current price (~2715) on Jan 1 2019. He also sold everything and held cash.
Well, as luck would have it, there was a “crash”. Based on the exact timing of our bet, I ended up losing by a few dollars (it was at ~2700) and had to buy him beers. He stayed in cash while I’ve continued buying. If he’d had perfect knowledge and changed course at rock bottom, he would have squeezed out an extra 8% return. In practice, he’s actually lost out on a 40%+ return that required simply doing nothing. I think my strategy has pretty soundly won in retrospect.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040915/does-sp-500-...
I’m prepared for the risk of a market crash by maintaining a market posture that matches my risk tolerance and investing horizon.
Edit to add: “are you preparing for a market crash?” is another way of saying “are you confident you can time the market?” I’m not.
And I think that if someone could confidently time the market, they would be unlikely to be vocal about it. Announcing the future if the market is likely to change it.
Honestly I think that’s what some crash predictors are trying to do. They’re long bitcoin or gold, or short the market, and if they can get everyone else to go along with them now, they’ll make money now.
My wife and I have made good money and instead of investing it or keeping it in my company's stock (AMZN, great investment right?) we've cashed all of it in ASAP and paid down the mortgage. Sure, some RRSPs and TFSAs (401k and roth ira equivalents), but for the most part it's just been aggressively attacking the mortgage.
The bank lets us make double payments, with the extra going to the principal. It also lets us dump 10% of the total loaned amount once per year. And my wife and I have done this all aggressively. We borrowed nearly half a million CDN$ because Toronto housing is stupidly expensive, and we'll have it paid off in the 7th year.
If the markets crash, we'll be living rent/mortgage free (or close to it), and can invest all our income at the bottom of the crash. If they don't, I'll still be rent free. If one of us loses our job, we can refinance the mortgage, pay the minimum, and get by on one income. We even keep a cushion in our bank account equal to 6 months bills and base mortgage payments.
Our goal is not to make as much money as possible. It's to minimize the risk that we ever go broke, that we ever need to worry about money.
My father gave me a piece of advice once that's stuck with me: if you earn an extra dollar, you have to pay tax on it. If you reduce your expenses by a dollar, you get to keep it all.
But consider that maybe the markets aren't the best place for value creation right now. The big economic question is M2 inflation. It's possible that the markets just flatline for twenty years to soak up all the money.
I'm long-term bullish BTC, but concerned about its mid-term (causal?) correlation with Tether.
I'm buying capital assets that inflate along with M2 and building productive assets that generate economic value, regardless of how that value is denominated.
WDYT?
Tether market cap is currently $24 billion and growing exponentially. BTC market cap is $700bn but that price is set on the margin by redditors buying $100 on a credit card, there is no depth to it. The Tether hypothesis is that ~all~ of the market cap of BTC is ultimately derived from thin marginal price on retail exchanges. You can't sell a billion of bitcoin for USD 1 billion, nobody has ever tried, there is not a buyer, and that's only .1% of the market cap. Any thin real cash in the ecosytem is exfiltrated by miners selling into retail to pay electricity bills. If Tether stops printing, retail stops buying, and there is no more cash for electric bills, network stops. This is both a game-over scenario for bitcoin as well as actually high likelyhood of happening due to action by US Government against Tether.
Illiquid markets tend to be more price sensitive to the decisions of the marginal buyer. This is most visible, IMO, in real estate where wealthy marginal bidders move comparable prices en masse on low volume.
Now let’s combine those ideas: if bitcoin is relatively illiquid and small group of wealthy buyers (banks, companies, other crypto assets) could issue treasury securities and roll the capital into BTC, what would we expect to see?
I think we’d see a big price run in an otherwise low-growth broader market.
This would tend to act as an M2 hedge for the early entrants and would be a very attractive move if their firm value was more or less “elastically attached” to the USD.
Reminder: citation needed.
Starting a company where you can change prices is a better inflation hedge, IMO.
Anything where the deal requires lock-in at a fixed denomination for an extended period of time is exposed to inflation risk.
That means:
- buying wholesale, selling retail
- buying commodities, selling products
- buying fixed assets, selling leases
As a long-time computer programmer and technologist my advice to my younger self would be, “sell things the market wants, not things you think are awesome.”
I'd like to quote Buffer from his Berkshire Hathway 2013 shareholder letter
> Most investors, of course, have not made the study of business prospects a priority in their lives. If wise, they will conclude that they do not know enough about specific businesses to predict their future earning power.
> I have good news for these non-professionals: The typical investor doesn’t need this skill. In aggregate, American business has done wonderfully over time and will continue to do so (though, most assuredly, in unpredictable fits and starts). In the 20th Century, the Dow Jones Industrials index advanced from 66 to 11,497, paying a rising stream of dividends to boot. The 21st Century will witness further gains, almost certain to be substantial. The goal of the non-professional should not be to pick winners – neither he nor his “helpers” can do that – but should rather be to own a cross-section of businesses that in aggregate are bound to do well. A low-cost S&P 500 index fund will achieve this goal.
> That’s the “what” of investing for the non-professional. The “when” is also important. The main danger is that the timid or beginning investor will enter the market at a time of extreme exuberance and then become disillusioned when paper losses occur. (Remember the late Barton Biggs’ observation: “A bull market is like sex. It feels best just before it ends.”) The antidote to that kind of mistiming is for an investor to accumulate shares over a long period and never to sell when the news is bad and stocks are well off their highs. Following those rules, the “know-nothing” investor who both diversifies and keeps his costs minimal is virtually certain to get satisfactory results. Indeed, the unsophisticated investor who is realistic about his shortcomings is likely to obtain better long- term results than the knowledgeable professional who is blind to even a single weakness.
Not sure I understand your perspective on “things”. Most physical things depreciate worse than the impact of inflation on cash.
I kind of follow this sentiment. One could also say earn no more than you need and focus the rest of your time on something valuable to you. One hour extra spent working probably does not equal to one hour less working in 5-10 year.
Inflation has been predicted since (at least) 2010:
> We believe the Federal Reserve's large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called "quantitative easing") should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed's objective of promoting employment.
* https://economics21.org/html/open-letter-ben-bernanke-287.ht...
Still waiting.
* https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=265807
Investing only in the place you live, called "home country bias", is something to be avoided by everyone:
* https://www.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGGEB.pdf
* https://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-h...
However, my original point was that assuming things will be golden forever (or at least a very long time) usually ends badly.
To your follow up on allocations, unlike the past, a large bond holding is unlikely to save you this time (very limited price appreciation potential) and could go the other way when under stress (liquidity issues, forced redemptions to cover equity losses). It is harder to hide than ever before.
Consider liquidating some of your equities and moving to a higher percentage in bonds/fixed income:
* https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2020/08/why-would-anyone-ow...
If 100% stock, or even 80/20, is too much, then perhaps 70/30 or 60/40 may be better.
Further, should a crash occur, you can use your bonds to rebalance. So if you have a 60/40 and equities go down (which generally also means bonds go up), you can cash out some bonds (sell high) to get more equities (buy low) to get back to the desired 60/40:
> Bonds can be used to rebalance. When the stock market sells off that’s the time you want to dive in and buy with both hands. The only problem is you need capital to buy. That could come from new savings out of your paycheck or a cash hoard or the bond portion of your portfolio.
Doing this during the S&P 500's so-called 'Lost Decade' from 2000 to 2009 would have given you much better returns than 100% equities:
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2010/12/17/the-lost-de...
* https://www.vanguardcanada.ca/documents/best-practices-for-p...
Or perhaps once a year if you happen to throw in a lump sum year-end or year-beginning.
If you're using a tax-sheltered account (US: 401(k), IRA), the some of the capital gains considerations they mention are not relevant.
If there's a lot of market turmoil then it may be worth checking your account quarterly: equities tank mid-March 2020, and so if you checked Q2 2020 (April), there's a good chance things would have been unbalanced, so rebalancing at that point would have resulted in a good starting point for the equities take-off that happened shortly after. Though generally the less you check your account, the better it probably is for your mental health.
There’s a lot of uncertainty. Diversify. Dollar-cost average your purchases and sales.
In 2008 I learned my lesson. I had switched jobs with options that would expire 90d after I left. So I exercised them & put a decent chunk of change in the S&P500 somewhere in late summer.
Of course, this was just before the '08 crash, and over the next few months I watched as my investment was cut in half. I didn't see, but I hold off investing more. My only regret? Not investing more.
Earlier this year, after COIVD hit, a lot of friends started to sell. It was obviously too late to avoid the initial damage, but would avoid any further losses.
Me, I just kept buying. I vest stock from my employer monthly & the proceeds go to the S&P500. I'd be doing it for years, and having learned my lesson in 2008, I stayed the course. I had no idea what would happen. I was fully aware the market could drop further in late 2020. But since my time horizon is a bit out there, I figured I'd be able to recover.
It ended up a pretty good year for me, whereas not-so-great for my friends.
If you've got 10+ years, keep it mostly in stocks. If you need it sooner, keep it mostly in bonds. Trust in the power of compound interest.
Prefer assets that have a logical reason to go up based on history, not fancy. Businesses and governments pay back bonds from their revenue. Businesses are worth more over time from improvements in efficiency and scale which raises the stock market. Stay away from assets that are basically speculative (gold, crypto, oil, metals, real estate). History shows that speculative investments tend to just track inflation over time, but since they're noisier people can find all kinds of short term patterns to justify investing. Don't fall for it.
It's always a good idea to have diversified assets, even if some of it is obscured by a holding company (REIT, metals, etc). Holding a small amount (5-10%) of "cash" can be good if theres a downturn so you can buy deals or use it for emergencies. Owning real property or other physical assets is good too.
I don't think we'll see a big crash soon. The Fed has created a ton of money. If we start to see rate increases, we might start to see money rotate out of equities, but we should also see inflation. We might also see some tech stocks burst (Tesla especially).
If you look at projections or past case studies, they seem to indicate that if you create a diversified portfolio and don't try to time the market, then you have better returns than trying to time the market. Of course you can always get a financial advisor rather than listen to random people on here.
Holding some cash is always wise. One can also keep some funds in 2yr treasury FRN - checking account yields until such a time as rates back up naturally or possibly suddenly if the world questions US treasury issuance.
Key thing people need to understand is liquidity goes out the window in a crash. If you own corporate paper, you know this (or should) and need to be prepared as you won't be able to offload to raise funds to paydown margin needs elsewhere. Certainly, if you are using margin in some way you should consider your cash drawdown needs for at least a 30% drop and make sure you have funds that will be available no matter what lest you have positions automatically closed.
I personaly have some out of the money, very long dated, SPY put spreads. They are long term protection as the value only maxes out at expiration and will be reduced with skyrocketing vol. So they will give me a degree of short term protection but are really designed to survive a crash followed by longer period of relative stagnation.
I find it helpful to look not at OMG the Vol! but what you are paying as a % of current market for insurance, annualized. For instance, $21 for Dec 22 300 puts on SPY is about 2.75%/yr. Obviously the delta won't go to 1 even in a tank due to vol and time, but it will cover some of the fall in the short term and if it is prolonged, everything below 300.
This may be never, or may not be on your time horizon. Be careful.
The other thing you're missing out on is cash dividends. It's not like "stock goes down I lose exactly the amount the stock goes down every time".
I would personally never recommend this investment strategy (100% Treasuries) under any circumstances. When evaluating risk, you have to consider that not making any money is also risky. Markets go up, markets go down. If markets evaporated (this has never happened) then your T-bills will be worthless because we'll be eating beans and freezing to death.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that skipping the crashes and surges are of equal weight. Even if you took all your money and invested at the very top of the market in 2007/2008 right before the crash, you'd have more money than you do now.
I hope this doesn't come across as mean-spirited. I genuinely want you and others to read this and of course have a discussion but also learn more about investing and risk/reward.
Please reach out if you want to chat. If you find this annoying or unhelpful I understand and wish you the best of luck.
1) I believe that the chance of a stock market crash within 2 years is greater than 50/50. That’s only a guess of course.
2) the downside of losing my life savings would be far more devastating than the upside of doubling them- the risk/reward profile is extremely asymmetrical.
3) the people who can trade the news fast will get out fast in the event of a crash, and the 401k people will be left holding the bag, which means that stock market volatility is essentially a way to transfer wealth from the middle class to the super wealthy. I’m not interested in that.
To be frank I wish that 401ks didn’t exist at all and the government just increased social security payments a certain percentage every year. If the economy is growing as fast as the payments then it shouldn’t be an issue right? The fact that I am essentially forced to play poker with my retirement account is very frustrating. The whole point of saving money for retirement is to reduce risk, it’s supposed to make me feel secure not give me one more thing to worry about.
But, my wife has all her 401k in stocks, so between the two of us we’re still split 50/50, so I guess I exaggerate when I say it’s all t bills.
So that’s my thinking.
Right. It's a guess. But it's no more good of a guess than the stock market won't crash. Just keep that in mind.
> 2) the downside of losing my life savings would be far more devastating than the upside of doubling them- the risk/reward profile is extremely asymmetrical.
Not sure how old you are, but if you're not near retirement age you wouldn't lose your life savings if you were invested in something like a total stock market index fund. If you lost all of your life savings, then the entire economy collapses (back to beans). Granted, it COULD be the case that the market crashes, say, 50% and doesn't recover for 20 or 30 years. But I think too many people have too much to lose, and it would likely require a total civilizational collapse. Think about it this way. The market didn't collapse to nothing during World War I or World War II or the Great Depression.
> 3) the people who can trade the news fast will get out fast in the event of a crash, and the 401k people will be left holding the bag, which means that stock market volatility is essentially a way to transfer wealth from the middle class to the super wealthy. I’m not interested in that.
I'm not sure I'm following but willing to listen. The 401k people just...don't sell their 401ks and if there is a crash then they just wait until valuations return, meanwhile continuing to invest and buy shares of companies at a discount and also reap dividends, share buybacks, and other vehicles that increase shareholder value. Volatility would be more of a concern if you are in retirement or near retirement (which you may be), because it it could cause a disruption in your retirement plans or cash flow.
> To be frank I wish that 401ks didn’t exist at all and the government just increased social security payments a certain percentage every year
Personally I'd never want this. I'd actually prefer we got rid of social security. The government over time has shown me that it is completely inept at funding these plans. The problem is that it seems people are also unwilling or uninterested in saving and investing. Social security is projected to be underfunded pretty much forever, and I doubt that the population has the appetite for continued increases in taxation to fund it. I'm not sure you could tax people enough to pay for it.
But the 401k is not really the same thing as social security and I think it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison. All it is, is the government not taxing some of your income so you can invest it. It's a pretty great plan and many people across the world envy it.
The only other thing I'd say here is that you could check out The Little Book of Common Sense Investing [1] and see if that changes your approach. I'm willing to bet others on Hacker News would endorse it as a must-read in the personal finance space.
Another thing to look at if you want to stay in the treasury space are TIPS, or Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities [2].
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Book_of_Common_Sens...
How’d 100% treasuries do in your 401k over the same/similar time period?
- There was a massive increase of money supply last year. That combined with the restrictions imposed on our economy by the pandemic means prices will certainly go up and purchasing power go down
- There are many indicators telling us the stock market is overvalued. Some of them: Warren Buffet indicator (cap-to-GDP), ev/ebitda, Shiller P/E, ...
- Commodities are historically at a low price
You should adjust your portfolio with the reality of the asset class (store of value, stocks, bonds, crypto, commodites, real state, ...).
You cannot predict if a crash is coming or not. And you should not. You should adjust your exposure related to risk. The greater the risk, less exposed you should be to that asset. It is not binary.
Right now
- Stocks are risky
- Gold and BTC as store of value to protect against inflation, not so risky
- Silver, oil, and other commodities, not so risky
- Bonds seems very risk also
- Real state I have no clue
Quite frankly, any asset that can go up 300% in a year (or 100% in 3mo) is prima facie a high-risk investment and can just as easily have a swing down of the same relative magnitude. Nothing in BTC’s history as an asset should give any reason to believe it’s currently a stable store of value, full stop.
Of course in the short-term is very risky and would not recommend anyone to make an entry right now. I have been reducing my exposure as the prices have been going up.
However when you look at the fundamentals of the technology and what all governments are doing to money I think it is not a so risky bet for a 3-year (don't know, maybe 10-year?) bear market with high inflation. One of the greatest assets in the world for keeping your purchasing power intact. If the government keeps printing, the price will keep going up. Just like the Venezuelan bolívar is >1 Million to 1 USD. A question comes to my mind: are Venezuelans thinking that the US dollar is too risky to buy?
People have been saying this for ten years:
* https://economics21.org/html/open-letter-ben-bernanke-287.ht...
> Gold and BTC as store of value to protect against inflation, not so risky
The volatility of BTC is ridiculously high. It is not a good store of value. There is very little evidence for gold as a hedge against inflation:
* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2078535
Or of having any practical investment utility:
* https://www.pwlcapital.com/will-gold-save-the-day/
> Silver, oil, and other commodities, not so risky
Commodities are volatile. Very risky. Oil went negative in 2020:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24055237
TL; DR: do the opposite of what this fellow is suggesting.
My 401k, upon my (fiduciary) financial advisor's advice, is 100% in Vanguard's 2065 retirement date. I consider this my conservative account.
My Roth IRA is pretty risky, but I am allowing a high risk tolerance because of my age. I am about 50% in various ARK ETFs, and the other 50% are in long term stocks I believe in. AMD, SNAP, etc..
And then I have complete $1000 for gambling in robinhood that i refuse to put more money into. I just buy weekly/monthly options with this account.
I don't know where I was going with this. I just don't really know what I'm doing if I'm being honest, unfortunately.
Then once you have one of the vanguard mutual funds (let's say Target 2060), you can literally have it automatically pull from your bank account every 2 weeks and invest it straight into the fund. You'll never even have to log in after that. Bump up your monthly investment whenever you can, and over a couple years (or a decade or so) you'll end up excellent financial security and even possibly real wealth without realizing it.
Personally I don't gamble with individual stocks at all, both because of my risk tolerance and because I wouldn't want to make it a habit.
My 2cent, non-advisor opinion: I would skip the target funds and instead pick an equity fund and allocation (ie, 80%) and put the balance in USFR or VRIG. You won't forsake much in the way of yield with far less downside risk. And unlike a bond mutual fund, floaters reset to current market rates - you won't be stuck with a portfolio filled with low coupon bonds if 5 or 10 years from now rates are at more historically normal levels.
In current market conditions, hedging (e.g. buying put options) is one of the more effective ways to have cash available in a downturn while still being invested in long-term upside. If the market crashes, these hedges become worth a lot of money, which you can then sell and invest the proceeds in whatever you wish. Hedging isn't free, so if a crash never happens it eats into your returns for the year -- it is an insurance policy and you have to pay a premium. On the other hand, if the market has a great year the gains will greatly outweigh the losses from hedging. The worst case outcome is if the market is completely flat -- no gains but you still pay the hedging costs.
FWIW, I tend to be ~100% in individual equities, even for money I intend to use soon. Managing stock price volatility and cash flow does not require exiting stocks.
I'll be less happy when I'm in the selling phase of my investment life(i.e. retired), but by then my % in equities will not be as high as they are now, so it won't matter as much if a crash occurs as I'll have much better downside protection(i.e. safe assets).
Trying to time the market typically results in smaller gains (larger losses) than just going with it. I think there are some overvalued sectors, but I'm overall pretty bullish. We might see a "true" crash if we uncover some fundamental flaw with the banking system.
Though this is not a failsafe solution, as the two have been often correlated lately. Also, it requires a crazy high risk tolerance.
The problem is that I worry any market crash would be associated with inflation in the current economic environment, so the old solution of going long on cash/usbonds doesn't seem viable to me anymore.
1. Hold cash, deploy at bottom. 2. Hold long dated s&p put options. Sell at bottom.
Problems with these strategies:
1. Where is the bottom?
Using Boglehead thinking, before a crash the right thing to do is maintain a proper Asset Allocation. After the crash, rebalance and keep the same AA.
Bogleheads know that nobody can time the market. All you can do is manage your portfolio with regard to your tolerance for risk.
There is no way to predict the future. In general, simply keep certain principles in mind.
1. Avoid "terminal conditions" - i.e., you lose all your money on an asset that goes bust and you have no money left to continue investing. I.e., Being 100% in Bitcoin or in your company's RSUs or options.
2. Minimize downside risk - Related to the first, avoid situations where you may incur large losses from having certain asset classes suddenly lose most of their value (e.g., having most of your money in the NASDAQ in 1999).
3. Keep some upside risk, however. Own some TLSA and Bitcoin (among others), but not too much. A small slice of your overall portfolio.
4. Have a balanced, diversified porfolio, even when it feels wrong, purchase under-performing asset classes. Typically, while reasonable people can have reasonable differences in opinion over precise allocations, one should have some commodities (Gold, silver), US equities (mix of growth and value, small and large cap), International equities (to include developing countries), as well as a mix of US and international government and corporate bonds, as well as a slice of cash. Real estate equity (home equity and or REITs should also be a part).
For that last part, especially, I frequently shill for the Schwab intelligent portfolio. You just put in your cash, and it will - in a very transparent way - allocate it to the proper asset classes and keep it balanced.
Of course, all the above assumes you have wealth already you are trying to preserve and grow. If one is just getting started, the advice above isn't reasonable, but that wasn't the topic brought up by OP.
TLDR, preparing for market crash means at all times - good and bad - keeping all my assets in proper proportion to one another, with an element of cash to be able to purchase more if any drops significantly.
50% equities (where gains are derived)
25% gold (assumption that gold doesn't "crash")
25% cash (dry powder)
Or the vaccines turn out to not be as good as we hope.
Or..
As a TL;DR, the price should stabilize around $100k after the current bullrun.
As long as work continues, there is still massive economical growth potential remaining as like half of the global population still barely participates.
I'm talking about a long-term crash(5+ years) btw. Minor dips don't matter in macro scale