INTRO: Ever since the pandemic started and Jerome  
INTRO: Ever since the pandemic started and Jerome  

Powell started the money printer, the stock market  has only gone one direction up. This has trained  
Powell started the money printer, the stock market  has only gone one direction up. This has trained  

millions of retail investors who started investing  during the pandemic to constantly buy the dip.  
millions of retail investors who started investing  during the pandemic to constantly buy the dip.  

If a stock sells of 3 to 5% it’s time to buy and  if a stock sells off 10% it’s time to go all in.  
If a stock sells of 3 to 5% it’s time to buy and  if a stock sells off 10% it’s time to go all in.  

Ironically, when people buy these quote-on-quote  discounts, they’re simply investing at all-time  
Ironically, when people buy these quote-on-quote  discounts, they’re simply investing at all-time  

high levels from a few days or weeks ago. So,  it’s not like they’re really getting a discount,  
high levels from a few days or weeks ago. So,  it’s not like they’re really getting a discount,  

but we can’t really blame them because this is  all they’ve seen. In fact, throughout all of 2021,  
but we can’t really blame them because this is  all they’ve seen. In fact, throughout all of 2021,  

the S&P 500 didn’t even experience a single 10%  correction. The largest sell-off the index saw  
the S&P 500 didn’t even experience a single 10%  correction. The largest sell-off the index saw  

last year wasn’t even 6%. So, it makes sense  that many retail investors have been trained  
last year wasn’t even 6%. So, it makes sense  that many retail investors have been trained  

to go all-in on even the slightest of pullbacks.  Many are even claiming that this is simply the  
to go all-in on even the slightest of pullbacks.  Many are even claiming that this is simply the  

new normal and that we’ll never see another  40 or 50% correction in the stock market. But  
new normal and that we’ll never see another  40 or 50% correction in the stock market. But  

this is actually the most dangerous sentiment to  have because the tops of bubbles are literally  
this is actually the most dangerous sentiment to  have because the tops of bubbles are literally  

called the “New Paradigm!!”. So, here’s the  truth about stocks that don’t come back.
called the “New Paradigm!!”. So, here’s the  truth about stocks that don’t come back.

THE DISRUPTORS: 
THE DISRUPTORS: 

Starting off the list, we have the innovative  companies or the growth companies that have  
Starting off the list, we have the innovative  companies or the growth companies that have  

dominated the market over the past 2 years. Often,  these companies promise to revolutionize how we  
dominated the market over the past 2 years. Often,  these companies promise to revolutionize how we  

do everyday tasks. For example, instead  of building up a strong network of taxis  
do everyday tasks. For example, instead  of building up a strong network of taxis  

that’s easily accessible, these companies will  promise to provide you with self-driving cars.  
that’s easily accessible, these companies will  promise to provide you with self-driving cars.  

Or instead of building more stores and carrying  more inventory close to where you live, they’ll  
Or instead of building more stores and carrying  more inventory close to where you live, they’ll  

promise to deliver any product straight to your  doorstep. Generally, these companies have the best  
promise to deliver any product straight to your  doorstep. Generally, these companies have the best  

of intentions, but they don’t have the best of  balance sheets, so it just takes a simple market  
of intentions, but they don’t have the best of  balance sheets, so it just takes a simple market  

downturn to wipe them out completely. Take Mark  Cuban’s Broadcast.com for example. In the 1990s,  
downturn to wipe them out completely. Take Mark  Cuban’s Broadcast.com for example. In the 1990s,  

Broadcast.com allowed users to stream audio and  eventually even video through the internet. Given  
Broadcast.com allowed users to stream audio and  eventually even video through the internet. Given  

that most of us spend hours streaming podcasts,  music, videos, and movies today, this was clearly  
that most of us spend hours streaming podcasts,  music, videos, and movies today, this was clearly  

a great idea. And multiple hundred billion dollar  companies have been built based on just streaming  
a great idea. And multiple hundred billion dollar  companies have been built based on just streaming  

one or two types of media. Yahoo could see this  future in 1999, and that’s why they agreed to buy  
one or two types of media. Yahoo could see this  future in 1999, and that’s why they agreed to buy  

Broadcast.com for $5.7 billion. But, even Yahoo  couldn’t sustain the company through the dotcom  
Broadcast.com for $5.7 billion. But, even Yahoo  couldn’t sustain the company through the dotcom  

crash, and they ended up shutting down one sector  after another until they shut down the entire  
crash, and they ended up shutting down one sector  after another until they shut down the entire  

company. Another big bust from the dotcom era is  Pets.com. The idea of Pets.com was simple: sell  
company. Another big bust from the dotcom era is  Pets.com. The idea of Pets.com was simple: sell  

pet toys and food through the internet to make  these products more accessible and convenient than  
pet toys and food through the internet to make  these products more accessible and convenient than  

ever before. They had big investors on board like  Amazon who at one point owned half the company.  
ever before. They had big investors on board like  Amazon who at one point owned half the company.  

This allowed Pets.com to complete an extremely  successful IPO raising over $300 million.  
This allowed Pets.com to complete an extremely  successful IPO raising over $300 million.  

Yet, just 268 days later, they went  bankrupt thanks to the dotcom crash.  
Yet, just 268 days later, they went  bankrupt thanks to the dotcom crash.  

Now, Pets.com wasn’t a bad idea by any means.  Chewy basically executed the same concept a  
Now, Pets.com wasn’t a bad idea by any means.  Chewy basically executed the same concept a  

decade later and they’re worth nearly $20 billion  today. So, clearly, the idea doesn’t really matter  
decade later and they’re worth nearly $20 billion  today. So, clearly, the idea doesn’t really matter  

when we’re talking about a stock market crash.  The only thing that matters during a downturn is  
when we’re talking about a stock market crash.  The only thing that matters during a downturn is  

the balance sheet because if a company can’t  survive the downturn, they’ll never actually  
the balance sheet because if a company can’t  survive the downturn, they’ll never actually  

release they’re quote on quote “revolutionary  product or service”. And that’s just two examples.  
release they’re quote on quote “revolutionary  product or service”. And that’s just two examples.  

52% of all DotCom companies went bankrupt by  2004, and there’s no doubt that that included  
52% of all DotCom companies went bankrupt by  2004, and there’s no doubt that that included  

dozens of brilliant ideas. So, clearly, simply  investing in a company with a good idea doesn’t  
dozens of brilliant ideas. So, clearly, simply  investing in a company with a good idea doesn’t  

guarantee investment growth. In fact, during  the dotcom bubble, most of the time it didn’t.
guarantee investment growth. In fact, during  the dotcom bubble, most of the time it didn’t.

THE SURVIVORS: Ok, so betting on unprofitable  
THE SURVIVORS: Ok, so betting on unprofitable  

disruptors is basically just a gamble. But what  if you’re not investing in the unprofitable  
disruptors is basically just a gamble. But what  if you’re not investing in the unprofitable  

disruptors like Rivian, Lucid, Teledoc,  and Nanodimension. What if you’re investing  
disruptors like Rivian, Lucid, Teledoc,  and Nanodimension. What if you’re investing  

in profitable disruptors like Tesla, Shopify,  and Square. These companies will most likely  
in profitable disruptors like Tesla, Shopify,  and Square. These companies will most likely  

survive a multi-year bear market with no  additional funding. So, buying the dips  
survive a multi-year bear market with no  additional funding. So, buying the dips  

on these companies is relatively safe right?  Well, if you hold long enough, then probably,  
on these companies is relatively safe right?  Well, if you hold long enough, then probably,  

but you’re also likely looking at several  painful years ahead. For example, take a  
but you’re also likely looking at several  painful years ahead. For example, take a  

look at dotcom favorites that actually survived  and ended up becoming big. Before Amazon became  
look at dotcom favorites that actually survived  and ended up becoming big. Before Amazon became  

a trillion-dollar e-commerce giant and liberals  started hating Jeff Bezos, Amazon went through  
a trillion-dollar e-commerce giant and liberals  started hating Jeff Bezos, Amazon went through  

the dotcom crash. And Amazon didn’t sell of 40  or 50 or even 70%. Amazon sold off a painful  
the dotcom crash. And Amazon didn’t sell of 40  or 50 or even 70%. Amazon sold off a painful  

95%. At that point, you’d probably be questioning  if the company is gonna survive regardless of how  
95%. At that point, you’d probably be questioning  if the company is gonna survive regardless of how  

the balance sheet looks. But, even if you stayed  invested, you would’ve had to wait 7 years just to  
the balance sheet looks. But, even if you stayed  invested, you would’ve had to wait 7 years just to  

almost breakeven. And then, the 2008 financial  recession would hit, and you’d be down 70% on  
almost breakeven. And then, the 2008 financial  recession would hit, and you’d be down 70% on  

your initial investment once again. It wasn’t till  November of 2009 or 10 years after the dot-com  
your initial investment once again. It wasn’t till  November of 2009 or 10 years after the dot-com  

peak that you would actually start making money on  Amazon. Another great example is Booking holdings.  
peak that you would actually start making money on  Amazon. Another great example is Booking holdings.  

Booking holdings was a travel booking company  that went hyperbolic during the dotcom bubble,  
Booking holdings was a travel booking company  that went hyperbolic during the dotcom bubble,  

and it’s still around today and it’s doing better  than ever before. But like with all companies that  
and it’s still around today and it’s doing better  than ever before. But like with all companies that  

were founded during the dotcom bubble, it had to  go through the dotcom crash first. And this time,  
were founded during the dotcom bubble, it had to  go through the dotcom crash first. And this time,  

we’re not even talking about a 95% crash, we’re  talking about a 99.36% crash. This means that  
we’re not even talking about a 95% crash, we’re  talking about a 99.36% crash. This means that  

for every $100 you invested into Booking holdings,  you would have just 64 cents or not even a dollar  
for every $100 you invested into Booking holdings,  you would have just 64 cents or not even a dollar  

left at the bottom of the crash. And it took  Booking Holdings 14 years just to recover to its  
left at the bottom of the crash. And it took  Booking Holdings 14 years just to recover to its  

dot-com peak. Also, it should be noted that even  today, while Booking Holdings is at $2000 a share,  
dot-com peak. Also, it should be noted that even  today, while Booking Holdings is at $2000 a share,  

that’s only a 2X from its dot-com peak meaning  that it took 25 years to just double your money.  
that’s only a 2X from its dot-com peak meaning  that it took 25 years to just double your money.  

Even just investing in the S&P 500 would’ve  given you a better return, not to mention,  
Even just investing in the S&P 500 would’ve  given you a better return, not to mention,  

you would’ve never been down 99.36%. So,  while you may not lose money if you go  
you would’ve never been down 99.36%. So,  while you may not lose money if you go  

all-in on a disruptor that survives, you could  easily be waiting a decade just to break even.
all-in on a disruptor that survives, you could  easily be waiting a decade just to break even.

STUCK FOREVER: 
STUCK FOREVER: 

Ok, so disruptors are dangerous. You’re could  either lose it all or you could end up waiting  
Ok, so disruptors are dangerous. You’re could  either lose it all or you could end up waiting  

several years just to breakeven. But, what if you  don’t even mess with disruptor or growth stocks.  
several years just to breakeven. But, what if you  don’t even mess with disruptor or growth stocks.  

What if you’re a blue-chip investor that only  invests in the largest and most stable companies  
What if you’re a blue-chip investor that only  invests in the largest and most stable companies  

in the world like Apple, Microsoft, and Google?  Is it ok to go all-in on dips in this scenario?  
in the world like Apple, Microsoft, and Google?  Is it ok to go all-in on dips in this scenario?  

Well, not really. In fact, I’d say this is worse  than going all-in on a profitable disruptor. With  
Well, not really. In fact, I’d say this is worse  than going all-in on a profitable disruptor. With  

profitable disruptors, you can be sure that if  the company is able to weather the downturn,  
profitable disruptors, you can be sure that if  the company is able to weather the downturn,  

they’re probably going to the moon once the  market recovers. The same cannot be said about  
they’re probably going to the moon once the  market recovers. The same cannot be said about  

slower-moving large-cap companies. Here’s the  thing, while we like to often complain about  
slower-moving large-cap companies. Here’s the  thing, while we like to often complain about  

companies being too powerful and having too  big of a monopoly, companies don’t stay at  
companies being too powerful and having too  big of a monopoly, companies don’t stay at  

their peak forever. In fact, if you’re gonna be  deterministic about anything in the stock market,  
their peak forever. In fact, if you’re gonna be  deterministic about anything in the stock market,  

it should be that companies come and go. And  with the rise of technology and rapid disruption,  
it should be that companies come and go. And  with the rise of technology and rapid disruption,  

the lifespans of companies are getting shorter and  shorter. In fact, Mckinsey & Company found that  
the lifespans of companies are getting shorter and  shorter. In fact, Mckinsey & Company found that  

the average time a company stays in the S&P 500 is  just 18 years. Considering this, they predict that  
the average time a company stays in the S&P 500 is  just 18 years. Considering this, they predict that  

75% of companies that are currently part of the  S&P 500 will have disappeared by 2027. Also, even  
75% of companies that are currently part of the  S&P 500 will have disappeared by 2027. Also, even  

if they don’t disappear, it’s very likely that  they become a shell of their former self. In the  
if they don’t disappear, it’s very likely that  they become a shell of their former self. In the  

2000s, the companies that dominated the fortune  500 were GE, Exxon, Proctor & Gamble, DuPont,  
2000s, the companies that dominated the fortune  500 were GE, Exxon, Proctor & Gamble, DuPont,  

and so on and so forth. While these companies are  still around, disruptors like Apple, Microsoft,  
and so on and so forth. While these companies are  still around, disruptors like Apple, Microsoft,  

and Amazon have grown to become 10 times larger.  But, wait a minute companies like market giants of  
and Amazon have grown to become 10 times larger.  But, wait a minute companies like market giants of  

the past like GE and Exxon weren’t tech giants,  so they had a tough time keeping up with tech.  
the past like GE and Exxon weren’t tech giants,  so they had a tough time keeping up with tech.  

Companies like Apple and Google should have  a far better shot at keeping up right? Well,  
Companies like Apple and Google should have  a far better shot at keeping up right? Well,  

this is not exactly true either and the best  example of this is Cisco. During the dotcom  
this is not exactly true either and the best  example of this is Cisco. During the dotcom  

bubble, it wasn’t just speculative companies that  got bid up, but also the biggest tech companies  
bubble, it wasn’t just speculative companies that  got bid up, but also the biggest tech companies  

in the world. At the peak of the dotcom bubble,  Cisco became the world’s largest company boasting  
in the world. At the peak of the dotcom bubble,  Cisco became the world’s largest company boasting  

a market cap of $500 billion. If we adjust for  inflation, that’s $823 billion today. Since then,  
a market cap of $500 billion. If we adjust for  inflation, that’s $823 billion today. Since then,  

22 years have passed, yet Cisco is yet to put in  a new all-time high. In fact, it’s currently still  
22 years have passed, yet Cisco is yet to put in  a new all-time high. In fact, it’s currently still  

32% away from its dot-com peak, and that’s with  Cisco doing a bunch of stock buybacks and trying  
32% away from its dot-com peak, and that’s with  Cisco doing a bunch of stock buybacks and trying  

to soften the downfall. If we just look at their  market cap, it’s currently less than $250 billion  
to soften the downfall. If we just look at their  market cap, it’s currently less than $250 billion  

meaning that the stock has to run over 100% just  to reach their peak market cap from 22 years ago,  
meaning that the stock has to run over 100% just  to reach their peak market cap from 22 years ago,  

and that’s not even accounting for inflation.  Cisco isn’t just a one-off exception either.  
and that’s not even accounting for inflation.  Cisco isn’t just a one-off exception either.  

Other top 10 companies that never recovered  include Intel and AT&T. Who’s to say that Apple  
Other top 10 companies that never recovered  include Intel and AT&T. Who’s to say that Apple  

isn’t the next Cisco? I mean have seen the last  4 generations of iPhones? Only time will tell,  
isn’t the next Cisco? I mean have seen the last  4 generations of iPhones? Only time will tell,  

but just keep in mind that going all-in on  tech giants may not be as safe as you think.
but just keep in mind that going all-in on  tech giants may not be as safe as you think.

INDEX INVESTOR: 
INDEX INVESTOR: 

And finally, that brings us  to the index fund investor.  
And finally, that brings us  to the index fund investor.  

If you’re gonna constantly go all-in on every dip,  indices are definitely what you want to be buying,  
If you’re gonna constantly go all-in on every dip,  indices are definitely what you want to be buying,  

but I suspect that most people who are FOMOing  into stocks aren’t FOMOing into index funds.  
but I suspect that most people who are FOMOing  into stocks aren’t FOMOing into index funds.  

With that being said though, it’s not exactly  a good idea to FOMO into index funds either.  
With that being said though, it’s not exactly  a good idea to FOMO into index funds either.  

Take the Nasdaq for example. After the dotcom  bubble burst, the Nasdaq crashed a whopping 83%.  
Take the Nasdaq for example. After the dotcom  bubble burst, the Nasdaq crashed a whopping 83%.  

Keep in mind that the Nasdaq is a combination of  100 of the largest and most profitable companies  
Keep in mind that the Nasdaq is a combination of  100 of the largest and most profitable companies  

on the market. Yet, it was able to crash  83% within a few years, and it took a long  
on the market. Yet, it was able to crash  83% within a few years, and it took a long  

and drawn-out 17 years to return to the dot-com  peak. Many of you guys watching probably aren’t  
and drawn-out 17 years to return to the dot-com  peak. Many of you guys watching probably aren’t  

even 17 years old. If you invested in the S&P  500 instead, you would’ve had a better time,  
even 17 years old. If you invested in the S&P  500 instead, you would’ve had a better time,  

but not by much. First, you would’ve experienced  a 50% crash along with a 7 year-long wait to  
but not by much. First, you would’ve experienced  a 50% crash along with a 7 year-long wait to  

return to all-time highs. Just when you think  things are finally going to go bullish again,  
return to all-time highs. Just when you think  things are finally going to go bullish again,  

you’re hit with a 57% crash that takes you  to lower levels than the dotcom crash. And  
you’re hit with a 57% crash that takes you  to lower levels than the dotcom crash. And  

it’s not till 13 years after your initial  investment that you finally start to make money.  
it’s not till 13 years after your initial  investment that you finally start to make money.  

So, as you can see, if you go all-in at the  wrong time, you could still easily be stuck  
So, as you can see, if you go all-in at the  wrong time, you could still easily be stuck  

for well over a decade even with an index  fund. But, at least you can be sure that  
for well over a decade even with an index  fund. But, at least you can be sure that  

index funds will recover sooner or later right?  Well, Michael Burry seems to think that index  
index funds will recover sooner or later right?  Well, Michael Burry seems to think that index  

funds are actually in some sort of crazy bubble  themselves due to the rise of passive investing,  
funds are actually in some sort of crazy bubble  themselves due to the rise of passive investing,  

and that index funds are doomed to crash and not  recover. But that’s a whole nother discussion.
and that index funds are doomed to crash and not  recover. But that’s a whole nother discussion.

COURSE OF ACTION: 
COURSE OF ACTION: 

So far, we’ve gone through several examples and  hypotheticals, but the lesson at the end of the  
So far, we’ve gone through several examples and  hypotheticals, but the lesson at the end of the  

day is to just not FOMO into the market. Just  because the market dips 10 or 15 or 20% doesn’t  
day is to just not FOMO into the market. Just  because the market dips 10 or 15 or 20% doesn’t  

mean that you should bet the farm on an index or  any individual stock. This type of behavior is  
mean that you should bet the farm on an index or  any individual stock. This type of behavior is  

what leads to people resenting the stock market  and missing the best buying opportunity of the  
what leads to people resenting the stock market  and missing the best buying opportunity of the  

decade. By the time the stock market actually  bottoms, they’ve either stopped investing  
decade. By the time the stock market actually  bottoms, they’ve either stopped investing  

or they ran out of serious capital a long time  ago because they just kept buying every dip.  
or they ran out of serious capital a long time  ago because they just kept buying every dip.  

So, what should you do instead? Well, this is  not financial advice, but the smartest course  
So, what should you do instead? Well, this is  not financial advice, but the smartest course  

of action in my opinion is simply a long-term  weighted dollar-cost averaging strategy.  
of action in my opinion is simply a long-term  weighted dollar-cost averaging strategy.  

Maybe every week, you invest $100 into the S&P  500. This way, regardless of what the market is  
Maybe every week, you invest $100 into the S&P  500. This way, regardless of what the market is  

doing, you have at least some money going into the  market. This is extremely important because the  
doing, you have at least some money going into the  market. This is extremely important because the  

only risk that’s bigger than FOMOing in at the  top is the risk you’re taking by not investing  
only risk that’s bigger than FOMOing in at the  top is the risk you’re taking by not investing  

at all. Anyway, going back to the plan, if the  S&P 500 is down over 10% from its all-time high,  
at all. Anyway, going back to the plan, if the  S&P 500 is down over 10% from its all-time high,  

maybe you could cut back on spending and invest  $200 per week. And if it’s down over 20%,  
maybe you could cut back on spending and invest  $200 per week. And if it’s down over 20%,  

maybe you could live on sticks and bones and  invest $300 a week and so on and so forth.  
maybe you could live on sticks and bones and  invest $300 a week and so on and so forth.  

That’s just one example of what you could do,  but there are several great long-term strategies  
That’s just one example of what you could do,  but there are several great long-term strategies  

that you can implement. It doesn’t really matter  which one you choose as long as you stick to it,  
that you can implement. It doesn’t really matter  which one you choose as long as you stick to it,  

don’t let emotions alter your plans, and  most importantly don’t be deterministic  
don’t let emotions alter your plans, and  most importantly don’t be deterministic  

about anything as no investment is too big  to fall. But that’s just what I think. Have  
about anything as no investment is too big  to fall. But that’s just what I think. Have  

you guys felt any FOMO in regards to the stock  market within the last two years? Comment that  
you guys felt any FOMO in regards to the stock  market within the last two years? Comment that  

down below. Also, drop a like this video helped  you realize how brutal the stock market can be.  
down below. Also, drop a like this video helped  you realize how brutal the stock market can be.  

And of course, consider checking out our  international channels to watch our videos  
And of course, consider checking out our  international channels to watch our videos  

in other languages and consider subscribing  to see more questions logically answered.
in other languages and consider subscribing  to see more questions logically answered.