This is me 100%. Especially with covid making big swaths of the economy (ie travel) unviable in the near to mid term. What does still make sense is tech, and drilling into that deeper, AAPL.

I don't really understand how this train of thought seems viable. Even the most profitable company in the world might be overvalued and then this investment isn't safe but risky, especially if the profit is primarily from rising prices and not dividends. So, how can one think there is no alternative and it's "safe"?

It's as the parent says: TINA. It's not that Apple isn't risky, but that everything else feels more risky.

Casino stocks, more risky. Cruiselines, more risky.

The money has to flow somewhere.

I mean it's not just tech that's not risky. There's some other equities out there too which seem to be concensus safe havens by investors. Eg. Lululemon, Home Depot.

This is why we're seeing big interest in some sectors of real estate too. money is cheap and big chunks of the economy seem risky. Why not invest in something else. Also risky, but TINA!

This isn't actually true. Alternatives include bonds, commodities, credit, real estate, etc. At least some of these are less overvalued (look at Hertz bonds vs stock for example). What does seem to be true is that a lot of people aren't considering anything other than equities.

TINA means no reasonable portfolio will ever contain 0% equities. All other asset classes can be reasonably substituted.

Thank you, I hadn't heard this term before and it's great to have a name for it!