We talked to 2 retail investors who dumped stocks in response to Trump uncertainty. They told us why they have no regrets.
While some retail investors are rushing to buy the dip, others are sitting it out.
Angelo Sibilio and Matt White are increasing their cash allocations to de-risk their portfolios.
Sibilio and White shared how they're feeling about the market volatility.
While some retail investors are scrambling to buy the dip, "cash is king" has emerged as the mantra for some others in 2025's tumultuous market.
That's the investing strategy Angelo Sibilio is adopting amid current market conditions.
The 35-year-old quantitative analyst felt uneasy about President Donald Trump's tariff rhetoric after Inauguration Day and decided to derisk accordingly, moving half of his portfolio to Treasurys and cash on April 4 — two days after Trump announced his "Liberation Day" tariffs, which sent the S&P 500 tumbling about 12% in the span of a week.
"I can't cash out my 401(k), so I went with a Treasury index," Sibilio said. "In my other accounts, I put half of my money into a money market fund."
Since then, the market has recovered its losses. But Sibilio doesn't feel like he's missed out on much.
"Not having to go through a couple of weeks where everything was going to hell gave me more peace of mind," Sibilio said. "I missed a little bit of upside, but that's not the end of the world for a long-term investment."
Matt White, a 33-year-old epidemiologist, also doesn't like the market's Trump-induced volatility and has increased his allocation to cash.
"I've never done this before, but I actually sold around $30,000 about 30 minutes before Trump started his Liberation Day speech," White told BI. "It was in my Roth IRA because I didn't want to create a taxable event, and I put it in the money market."
In addition to tariff volatility, White feels that many parts of the market, especially in the tech sector, are still quite overvalued, so he's content to keep a higher allocation to cash than usual.
"I still expect the market to drop," White said. "I think we're at a very irrational stage right now."
Sibilio and White didn't feel like they panic sold. They're not scrambling to buy the dip either. They see the move to cash as a way to de-risk their portfolios in the face of elevated volatility from the trade war.
For some who are uncomfortable with the uncertainty in the market, reducing risk by holding more cash might not be a bad idea, as it creates a buffer if large market pullbacks occur. With the Federal Reserve holding off on cutting rates, investors can receive over 4% on money market funds and 10-year Treasury bonds. Increased cash levels also give investors dry powder should they wish to take advantage of a sell-off.
However, this defensive approach should really only be used by those with a shorter investing timeline. If you're planning not to touch your money for decades still, experts tend to warn investors against cashing out and say to stay invested instead. Getting out of the market during a drawdown can lead to missing out on the rebound and locking in losses. Markets can be volatile in the short term, and patience is key for successful investing, as the S&P 500 has typically returned 10% on an annualized basis over the last 50 years.
The most important thing is to contribute to your portfolio on a regular basis through dollar-cost averaging, according to Ashley Weeks, wealth strategist at TD Wealth. Investors with different risk profiles might consider holding more cash — for example, if you're planning to make a big purchase such as a house in the next couple of years — but otherwise Weeks recommends his clients avoid withdrawing from their portfolios during times of volatility.
White acknowledges this, but the volatility he's seeing feels unprecedented. Besides, he's only cashed out some of his Roth IRA and left his other tax-advantaged accounts alone. "It's always going to be better to have ownership in the market than carry cash, but I'm being more cognizant of the risk levels in the market," he said.
White and Sibilio's de-risking points to something bigger than just tariff headlines — they're also feeling distrustful of the fast-changing narratives coming from Wall Street.
Sibilio anticipates hedging his portfolio with a half-cash allocation indefinitely. Recent trade negotiations, while certainly a positive signal, aren't enough to convince him that it's a safe time to fully buy back in.
"I'm not necessarily looking for a certain price level to buy back in. I'm looking, first of all, for more certainty in the policy, and also business and consumer sentiment," Sibilio said.
"The big investment banks now say they're no longer projecting a recession, but they're reversing a position they took just a few weeks ago. You're not going to come in and out of a recession because of just one decision," he continued, referencing the recent trade deal with China.
Indeed, upon the announcement of a US-China trade deal, Goldman Sachs lowered its 12-month recession forecast from 45% to 35%. Similarly, JPMorgan lowered its recession risk from 60% to below 50% last week.
White sees an increased cash position as a way to minimize the impact of potential downturns caused by the trade war.
"Right now, this is a very high-risk environment, and it's not a bet I want to be a part of, so I'm going to have some cash on the side," White said.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
15 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people . The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ditched by Trump's EEOC, job applicant advances bias lawsuit against Sheetz
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. A Black job applicant who alleged that gas station chain Sheetz disproportionately screened out Black, Native American, Alaskan Native and multiracial applicants moved to continue his case June 5 after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission abandoned it. EEOC filed a class-action lawsuit in April 2024 alleging that Sheetz maintained a longstanding practice of screening all job applicants for past criminal convictions and rejected those with such records. This practice violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, EEOC said in a press release, because it had a disparate impact on applicants of certain racial backgrounds. However, the agency moved to have the case dismissed last week because it determined that the disparate-impact claims would conflict with President Donald Trump's April 23 executive order directing agencies to cease enforcement of such claims. EEOC asked the court to defer dismissal of its claims by 60 days to allow the commission to notify class members so that they could obtain private representation. The legality of Trump's executive order on disparate-impact claims proved contentious, with one of EEOC's own administrative judges calling the order 'highly illegal.' But the June 5 filing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is one of the first examples in which the order has been put into practice. Trump said the end of disparate-impact liability enforcement was necessary because it inhibited businesses from hiring applicants on the basis of merit and skill. He also said that disparate-impact liability is unconstitutional and 'threatens the commitment to merit and equality of opportunity that forms the foundation of the American Dream.' The push to end disparate-impact liability is one of the goals stated by the conservative Heritage Foundation in its 'Project 2025' presidential transition document. The organization wrote that the concept should be thrown out because under disparate-impact theory, 'discriminatory motive or intent is irrelevant; the outcome is what matters. But all workplaces have disparities.' That logic has been met with resistance by former Democratic officials of the U.S. Department of Labor and EEOC, who said in May that disparate-impact liability is explicitly outlawed under Title VII and has been upheld by U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The former officials cautioned employers that they should avoid following Trump's executive order so they do not violate federal laws. 'Disparate impact liability is a necessary element of advancing equal opportunity for all, consistent with America's national commitment to equal justice,' the officials wrote. In a press release, plaintiff-side firm Outten & Golden, which is partly representing the job applicant in the Sheetz case, said EEOC had spent nearly a decade investigating the claims at issue and had found a basis to allege evidence of systemic discrimination. 'Our client has a right to be judged on his qualifications, and not to be denied a livelihood by policies that exclude people with stale convictions that are unrelated to the job,' said Ben Geffen, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center and a co-representative for the plaintiff, said in the press release. 'When the government steps back, we step in. We will not allow political interference to wipe out hard-won legal protections.' A similar dynamic played out following EEOC's abandonment of several lawsuits it filed on behalf of transgender workers alleging discrimination following an executive order from Trump. Advocacy groups have since filed to intervene on behalf of plaintiffs in those cases. Recommended Reading Shell Oil did not discriminate in hiring decision, 5th Cir. says


Bloomberg
29 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Pentagon Slashes in Half Its Request for Air Force F-35s
The Air Force has cut in half its request to Congress for its signature F-35s, dealing a blow to Lockheed Martin Corp., the top US defense contractor. A Defense Department procurement request document sent to Capitol Hill this week asked for 24 of the planes, down from 48 that was forecast last year.