PDA

View Full Version : Paper losses don't matter?



Stranger_Danger
26-08-2006, 08:50 AM
From Mary Holm's article on todays Stuff.

"Paper losses – when your share price falls but you ride it out – don't matter. But realised losses – when you sell at a low price – certainly do."

Surely a government that wants to regulate anything that moves should find a cave to hide this woman in, for the good of the nation?

whiteheron
26-08-2006, 11:10 AM
I, for one, take my "paper losses" very seriously

I wonder how Mary takes her "paper profits"
I bet she is happy to recognise them

Not recognising "paper losses" is akin to hiding your head in the sand

duncan macgregor
26-08-2006, 01:32 PM
I find it increasingly difficult to read anything Mary Holm writes about without becoming angry. I think that everything she says is utter garbage. She is against property, stop losses, thinking for yourself, recommends having a dollar each way on everything paying a monkey to do it all for you. Its only my opinion i really cant for the life of me find anything that i agree with in her column ever.
macdunk

Mick100
26-08-2006, 03:01 PM
quote:Originally posted by Stranger_Danger

From Mary Holm's article on todays Stuff.

"Paper losses – when your share price falls but you ride it out – don't matter. But realised losses – when you sell at a low price – certainly do."





From my experience i have learned that it's better to take a smallish realised loss than to watch a company go down the gurgler.
The only time losses don't matter too much is when they're small.
.

Halebop
26-08-2006, 07:25 PM
quote:Originally posted by whiteheron

I wonder how Mary takes her "paper profits"
I bet she is happy to recognise them

Nice!

We know Mary Holm is happy to recognize them because she continually quotes long term paper gains on various classes of assets and shares. While Mary steadfastly repeats the story that people who trade do worse than people who don't. ...The math of which is impossible - each loser who sells at a loss must be matched by an opposing Winner who goes on to gain - or lose again and so on. I guess Mary has "scientifically" based all outcomes on the assumption that long term non-traders do more gainful buying.

I find reading her column a bit like a sore tooth. You know it's going to hurt but you just can't help poking at it. But don't worry Mary, I'm not totally nasty about you! People who aren't capable of or bothered with investing probably should go long term and / or via a fund manager. I just think some of your reasoning as to why is not the best.

kittydashwood
27-08-2006, 08:50 AM
[xx(]
Someone should ask mary about the effects of deflation on investing long term.

Sideshow Bob
27-08-2006, 10:47 AM
Benjamin Graham's 'The Intelligent Investor' is held up as one of the definitive investment books around.

Without reading the whole of Mary's article, I think that she has gone a bit off track. This is from Chapter 8:

But note this important fact: The true investor scarcely ever is forced to sell his shares, and at other times he is free to disregard the current price quotation. He needs to pay attention to it and act upon it to the extent that it suits his book (ie portfolio), and no more. Thus the investor who permits to be stampeded or unduly worried by unjustified market declines in his holding is perversely transforming his basic advantage into a basic disadvantage. That man would be better off if his stocks had no quotation at all, for he would be spared the mental anguish caused by other persons' mistakes of judgement.

I suppose the key words here are 'unjustified market declines'.

Stranger_Danger
27-08-2006, 01:04 PM
quote:Originally posted by Sideshow Bob

Benjamin Graham's 'The Intelligent Investor' is held up as one of the definitive investment books around.

Without reading the whole of Mary's article, I think that she has gone a bit off track. This is from Chapter 8:

But note this important fact: The true investor scarcely ever is forced to sell his shares, and at other times he is free to disregard the current price quotation. He needs to pay attention to it and act upon it to the extent that it suits his book (ie portfolio), and no more. Thus the investor who permits to be stampeded or unduly worried by unjustified market declines in his holding is perversely transforming his basic advantage into a basic disadvantage. That man would be better off if his stocks had no quotation at all, for he would be spared the mental anguish caused by other persons' mistakes of judgement.

I suppose the key words here are 'unjustified market declines'.


Yes, they are the key words.

The only way one can be in any position to judge 'unjustified market declines' is through knowledge and experience.

Mary frequently makes it clear that these things do not matter, and you're best off to go to sleep and try and get index returns.

A philosophy of not being a stock picker, coupled with a view that unrealised losses are not real - regardless of the reasons for the loss situation - is pure poison in my view.

minimoke
28-08-2006, 08:29 AM
She is no doubt burning a candle of hope for any Mums and Dads still with FTX