sharetrader
Page 28 of 48 FirstFirst ... 1824252627282930313238 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 471
  1. #271
    Advanced Member BIRMANBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    Hoping and praying doesnt sound like much of a strategy to me but I dont know your circumstances. Hoping and praying are the refuge of someone who seems to have "given up" on the actual process. Investment is certainly a positive way forward but more to the point investment in what? Investing in Lotto....no...investing in spec stocks hoping for the 10 baggers....low probability so probably no....investing in yourself and your marketability to command higher salary/wages...sounds good to me. Investing is not only about what you invest in its WHEN you do it. If an investor is a self aware and canny individual then they would be able to recognize where they get the "biggest bang for their buck". The most profitable investment I have ever made (and which has secured my financial security has not been the share/bond market but the 30 years OUT of the share market in which I built up a business, employing myself and others and building up capital. The return on that would have been much higher than anything I could have accomplished in the share market. Cash invested in the financial or business endeavors of others is always going to be subject to their capabilities and reduced by their drawings on YOUR cash. If you buy your own tools and value the cash you spent on them you'll probably take care of them but if you lend them to others they have nothing invested in them so the "care" may be diluted. If as you say , "Probably not living in luxury but having enough financial assets to provide some financial security so I am not worrying all the time about finances or living hand to mouth. " is an issue then perhaps an investor should be looking at the underlying issues. I believe too many investors see shares and bonds as being the Holy Grail to financial security..Wishfull thinking. The only true Grail is ones ability to create wealth form ones own endeavours. The share market can be usefull to preserve and maintain and consolidate wealth but only very, very few individual will actually get wealthy FROM the share market...most of them being brokers and facilitators. Cynical? probably but thats my opinion for what its worth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    I don't disagree but I am still hoping/praying/investing in getting to a point I can actually live in luxury. Probably not living in luxury but having enough financial assets to provide some financial security so I am not worrying all the time about finances or living hand to mouth.

  2. #272
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hamilton New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,251

    Default

    Stress is a product from emotion
    Emotion kills (and also kills your portfolio)
    Share investing is a discipline based around various financial fundamentals (FA) and trading behaviours (TA)....you won't earn money by ignoring it nor using punt and hope. Just like Doctors Lawyers Mechanics Carpenters you have to learn your trade and apply it....it takes years.

    This thread attempts to collect and show the better ways of applying a small part of that trade (investing) during a secular bear market cycle. The trading methods and research mentioned on this are educational and are provided to us over the years by successful authors/traders to help educate people who want to invest and help minimize losses and help maximize gains...Winner, I and some others find this information and relay it onto this thread.
    This thread concentrates on just one type of cycle, the Secular (long term) Bear Market Cycle...as it is a cycle, it and all its parts constantly repeats and therefore we can learn and apply using the past secular bear cycles as references , thereby by identifying the cycle and knowing what to expect so to avoid repeating the same old long term investment mistakes when this same situation occurs again.........if a situation does not constantly repeat then it is not a cycle...simple!
    Last edited by Hoop; 03-11-2012 at 04:07 PM.

  3. #273
    Advanced Member BIRMANBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    I applaud your efforts and desire to bring discipline to share investing..as you say it takes a lot of work and time to do anything well. The only slight flaw in these plans is that the patterns and discovered cyclical nature of these things are only really obvious looking backwards at the years of accumulated data and details. If you draw the conclusion that this has repeated sufficiently then the next step presumably is to apply it to current stuations and expand it further into the future. The unfortunate fact is that to my mind an awful lot of investors will interpret the situation in different ways..some will be accurate (thereby cementing their belief that this system works) and some will be wrong in either the timing or details of the cycle. I just have a problem believing that you can "know" what to expect with any degree of certainty. How many times have we said, "why is the SP going up (or going down) when there is no apparent reason for it". A week or 2 weeks later there is some news in the media that explains the movement. The problem is any TA or FA analysis in these situations is useless because its "outside" the cycle. By all means try to bring order to the understanding but those who discount the possibility of "chaos" in disrupting the cycle are eventually going to be surprised.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoop View Post
    Stress is a product from emotion
    Emotion kills (and also kills your portfolio)
    Share investing is a discipline based around various financial fundamentals (FA) and trading behaviours (TA)....you won't earn money by ignoring it nor using punt and hope. Just like Doctors Lawyers Mechanics Carpenters you have to learn your trade and apply it....it takes years.

    This thread attempts to collect and show the better ways of applying a small part of that trade (investing) during a secular bear market cycle. The trading methods and research mentioned on this are educational and are provided to us over the years by successful authors/traders to help educate people who want to invest and help minimize losses and help maximize gains...Winner, I and some others find this information and relay it onto this thread.
    This thread concentrates on just one type of cycle, the Secular (long term) Bear Market Cycle...as it is a cycle, it and all its parts constantly repeats and therefore we can learn and apply using the past secular bear cycles as references , thereby knowing what to expect and avoid repeating the same long term investment mistakes when this same situation occurs again.........if a situation does not constantly repeat then it is not a cycle...simple!

  4. #274
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hamilton New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,251

    Default

    Birmanboy....I suggest you read the thread.

  5. #275
    Advanced Member BIRMANBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    What portion in particular? Sorry its a big thread..I tend to post in regards to specific elements rather than "the big picture". Am I missing something?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoop View Post
    Birmanboy....I suggest you read the thread.

  6. #276
    Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hamilton New Zealand.
    Posts
    4,251

    Default

    Scrambling for Returns

    By Ankur Shah

    Success in investing, as with life, sometimes boils down to timing. When I graduated from college in the late ‘90s, I actually had an offer to join PIMCO, which at the time was a relatively small, fixed-income manager tucked away in Newport Beach, California. I remember visiting their headquarters building, with its sweeping view of the Pacific Ocean. I could only imagine Bill Gross at his desk, gazing at the blue expanse and pondering the fate of interest rates across the developed world.
    Despite my reverence for Mr. Gross, I chose a different career path, due to my youthful ignorance. I thought to myself, Why would anyone want to be a fixed-income investor when the “real” money is in equities? As we now know, I inadvertently ended up missing the tail-end of the ongoing bull market in US treasuries and caught the brunt of the secular bear market in equities that began in 2000.
    We can see from the chart below that yields on US treasuries are at generational lows. As yield declines, the price of bonds rises. Given the unprecedented level of yields on US treasuries, we are, in my view, close to the end of the secular bull market in government bonds.

    As Martin Pring highlighted in his book Investing in the Second Lost Decade:
    At the culmination of the 1982-2000 secular bull market in stocks the Fidelity Magellan Fund (a stock fund) was the largest mutual fund in the world. In 2012, the largest mutual fund in the world is the PIMCO Total Return Fund – a bond fund!
    It’s no surprise that PIMCO Total Return is the world's largest fund, given that the secular bull market in government debt began in 1981. The question that remains for investors is, with yields so low for US treasuries, what is the upside in terms of prices, from current levels? After all, interest rates are zero-bound at the end of the day. Even Gross himself recently Tweeted, “Gross: Makin’ money with money gettin’ harder every day. When yields approach zero, all financial assets are squeezed.” If the “Bond King” is having trouble finding a decent return, what can we mere mortals hope to achieve?
    If fixed-income can’t provide the inflation-adjusted returns that retirement-bound investors so desperately seek, then equities might be the key. Unfortunately, Gross doesn’t see much hope for equities, either. He recently stirred up a bit of controversy in the normally staid world of asset management with his claim that the “cult of equity” was dying, in his August, 2012 Investment Outlook. I actually agree with his original premise that by the end of the current secular bear market in equities, investors will be completely turned off from equities as an asset class. Investors are in for a rough ride, and will earn far less in the current decade than the historical 6.6% annual real return achieved over the past 100 years.
    Gross's argument had two main pillars:
    1. Since 1912, equities have provided a real return of 6.6%, surpassing real GDP growth of 3.5% over the same timeframe. Essentially, he’s arguing that if stocks continue to appreciate at a faster rate than GDP, then stockholders will eventually own a disproportionate share of total wealth. Thus, expected real returns to shareholders can’t outstrip GDP growth indefinitely.
    2. As a percentage of GDP, wages are near an all-time low, concurrent with corporate profits near an all-time high. Corporate profit margins will eventually mean revert.
    I agree with Gross that equity investors are facing sub-par returns going forward, but I disagree with the first pillar of his argument. To explain my view, let's start with the basics. Total annual return is calculated as follows:
    Total Stock Return = [(P1 – P0) + D] / P0
    P0 = Initial price
    P1 = Ending price (period 1)
    D = Dividends
    Essentially, your total return is determined by two components – price appreciation and dividends – in any given year. Using data graciously provided for free and updated on a regular basis by Robert Shiller (http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data.htm), I calculated that annualized real returns from equities have been 6.27% since 1871 (the earliest data available). Although I use a longer timeframe than Gross, my calculation of real returns is in the same ballpark.
    The key point is that over that timeframe dividends have accounted for 70% of the total annualized real return to investors. Price appreciation added the other 30%.
    Price appreciation is ultimately driven by a combination of earnings growth and multiple expansion. Gross is correct when he states that earnings growth is constrained by GDP growth. Additionally, we assume that price multiples will mean revert, which has been the case historically.
    Dividends, which are typically spent and not perpetually reinvested, are the main reason that equity investors have achieved real returns well above the rate of GDP growth. If investors had reinvested their dividends, we would expect that over time real returns to equity holders would have diminished as an increasing amount of capital chased after limited profit-making opportunities. Thus, there is nothing inherently illogical about real equity returns outstripping real GDP growth, if we take into consideration that dividends are usually spent and not reinvested.
    The second point that Gross raises is correct. We can see in the chart below that corporate profits (after tax) as a percentage of GDP have reached an all-time high. Conversely, wages as a percentage of GDP have consistently declined since the 1970s. Gross makes the point that the division of GDP between capital, labor, and government can vary over time and greatly advantage one constituency over another. It’s clear that since the end of the 2008 recession, the corporate sector has been the winner.
    However, as fund manager John Hussman has consistently stated, corporate profit margins are mean reverting and current profitability levels are unsustainable. If you agree that margins in the corporate sector have peaked, it’s unlikely that the stock market can sustain rising price multiples.

    Analysts who view current valuations as cheap on a forward operating earnings basis are making a huge assumption that current profit margins are sustainable. However, analysts who take a normalized earnings approach to valuation will inevitably come to the opposite conclusion. As Hussman observed in a weekly market comment:
    “Profit margins are also highly cyclical over time. The wide margins at present are partly the result of deficit spending amounting to more than 8% of GDP – where government transfer payments are still holding up nearly 20% of total consumer spending, and partly the result of foreign labor outsourcing (directly, and also indirectly through imported intermediate goods) which has held down wage and salary payouts. Indeed, the ratio of corporate profits to GDP is now close to 70% above its long-term norm.”
    In addition to the potential for declining margins, valuations as measured by the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio (CAPE) are still stretched. Earnings – the denominator in the CAPE ratio – are calculated by taking an average of the past 10 years. By using an average, we normalize for changes in profitability that occur due to the business cycle. Unfortunately, the CAPE ratio doesn’t tell you where the market will head in the next quarter or year, but is an exceptionally useful tool when calculating prospective returns over a long timeframe, such as a decade.
    We’re nowhere near the peak levels achieved during the technology boom, but current levels still exceed the historical average of 16.5x, shown in the next chart.

    The chart also shows that the market was briefly cheap on a normalized basis in March 2009. Despite the protestations of some analysts, we are not in a new secular bull market for equities. Secular bull markets begin when the CAPE ratio is in the single digits.
    What type of return from US equities can we expect going forward, given the current CAPE reading of 21.1x? We can calculate prospective long-term annual total return on the S&P 500 by utilizing the following formula derived by John Hussman:
    Long Term Total Return = (1 + g)(Future PE / Current PE)^(1/T) – 1 + dividend yield (Current PE/Future PE + 1) / 2
    g = Prospective growth rate of earnings
    The equation simply forecasts the two components of total return that, as I noted earlier, are price appreciation and dividend yield. Using the data provided by Shiller, I calculated a long-term historical nominal earnings growth rate of 3.8%. Then, using the current 2.8% S&P dividend yield, I calculated prospective nominal returns for various future CAPE ratios, shown in the next table.

    We can see from the table that if the CAPE ratio reverted to slightly below its historical mean of 16.5x, it would result in an annualized prospective return on the S&P 500 of 3.61% over the next ten years. And if the market were to de-rate down to a single-digit CAPE ratio, investors could expect negative returns, based on current valuation levels.
    Keep in mind that total return is calculated in nominal terms. So, depending on your inflation expectations, real returns over the next 10 years will be nowhere near historical levels unless earnings can grow well above historical averages or investors are willing to re-rate the market from already-lofty valuations. I have no doubt that prospective returns will eventually improve. Unfortunately, that will entail a significantly lower level on the S&P 500.
    Even Bill Gross himself warned about the current valuation levels of stocks and bonds when he tweeted the following back in October: “Gross: Stock and bond managers today must be alchemists: turn lead into gold. NOT likely. Too much lead (bubbled assets).”
    With both US treasuries and equities offering poor future returns, where can an investor find adequate inflation-adjusted returns?
    With the announcement of QE4, the likelihood of significant inflation surfacing in the back-half of the decade has definitely increased. The best options for investors, in my view, are quality domestic and international equities with decent dividend yields, and precious metals. I may have missed the equity bubble of the late ‘90s and the current bond bubble, but the precious metals bubble is just getting started. I don't plan on missing this one.
    Ankur Shah is the founder of the Value Investing India Report, a leading independent, value-oriented journal of the Indian financial markets. Ankur has more than eight years of equity research experience covering emerging markets, with a focus on Southeast Asia. He has worked as both a buy-side investment analyst for a global long/short equity hedge fund and as a sell-side analyst for an emerging-markets investment bank. Ankur is a graduate of Harvard Business School. You can learn more about his latest views on global markets at Value Investing India Report, or follow him on Twitter.

  7. #277
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,739

    Default

    Hoop - good stuff

    All to complicated though --- still looks like the world is going to collapse .... one day .... sometime

  8. #278
    Advanced Member BIRMANBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    Somewhat interesting until he says "but the precious metals bubble is just getting started. I don't plan on missing this one." Also his information /analysis is based on US information. Last time I looked we were in NZ and the NZX has taken on a life of its own and good returns still to be made on NZ equities and bonds. Sometimes we get distracted by too much information....makes sense to filter out what doesnt apply to us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoop View Post
    Scrambling for Returns

    By Ankur Shah

    Success in investing, as with life, sometimes boils down to timing. When I graduated from college in the late ‘90s, I actually had an offer to join PIMCO, which at the time was a relatively small, fixed-income manager tucked away in Newport Beach, California. I remember visiting their headquarters building, with its sweeping view of the Pacific Ocean. I could only imagine Bill Gross at his desk, gazing at the blue expanse and pondering the fate of interest rates across the developed world.
    Despite my reverence for Mr. Gross, I chose a different career path, due to my youthful ignorance. I thought to myself, Why would anyone want to be a fixed-income investor when the “real” money is in equities? As we now know, I inadvertently ended up missing the tail-end of the ongoing bull market in US treasuries and caught the brunt of the secular bear market in equities that began in 2000.
    We can see from the chart below that yields on US treasuries are at generational lows. As yield declines, the price of bonds rises. Given the unprecedented level of yields on US treasuries, we are, in my view, close to the end of the secular bull market in government bonds.

    As Martin Pring highlighted in his book Investing in the Second Lost Decade:
    At the culmination of the 1982-2000 secular bull market in stocks the Fidelity Magellan Fund (a stock fund) was the largest mutual fund in the world. In 2012, the largest mutual fund in the world is the PIMCO Total Return Fund – a bond fund!
    It’s no surprise that PIMCO Total Return is the world's largest fund, given that the secular bull market in government debt began in 1981. The question that remains for investors is, with yields so low for US treasuries, what is the upside in terms of prices, from current levels? After all, interest rates are zero-bound at the end of the day. Even Gross himself recently Tweeted, “Gross: Makin’ money with money gettin’ harder every day. When yields approach zero, all financial assets are squeezed.” If the “Bond King” is having trouble finding a decent return, what can we mere mortals hope to achieve?
    If fixed-income can’t provide the inflation-adjusted returns that retirement-bound investors so desperately seek, then equities might be the key. Unfortunately, Gross doesn’t see much hope for equities, either. He recently stirred up a bit of controversy in the normally staid world of asset management with his claim that the “cult of equity” was dying, in his August, 2012 Investment Outlook. I actually agree with his original premise that by the end of the current secular bear market in equities, investors will be completely turned off from equities as an asset class. Investors are in for a rough ride, and will earn far less in the current decade than the historical 6.6% annual real return achieved over the past 100 years.
    Gross's argument had two main pillars:
    1. Since 1912, equities have provided a real return of 6.6%, surpassing real GDP growth of 3.5% over the same timeframe. Essentially, he’s arguing that if stocks continue to appreciate at a faster rate than GDP, then stockholders will eventually own a disproportionate share of total wealth. Thus, expected real returns to shareholders can’t outstrip GDP growth indefinitely.
    2. As a percentage of GDP, wages are near an all-time low, concurrent with corporate profits near an all-time high. Corporate profit margins will eventually mean revert.
    I agree with Gross that equity investors are facing sub-par returns going forward, but I disagree with the first pillar of his argument. To explain my view, let's start with the basics. Total annual return is calculated as follows:
    Total Stock Return = [(P1 – P0) + D] / P0
    P0 = Initial price
    P1 = Ending price (period 1)
    D = Dividends
    Essentially, your total return is determined by two components – price appreciation and dividends – in any given year. Using data graciously provided for free and updated on a regular basis by Robert Shiller (http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data.htm), I calculated that annualized real returns from equities have been 6.27% since 1871 (the earliest data available). Although I use a longer timeframe than Gross, my calculation of real returns is in the same ballpark.
    The key point is that over that timeframe dividends have accounted for 70% of the total annualized real return to investors. Price appreciation added the other 30%.
    Price appreciation is ultimately driven by a combination of earnings growth and multiple expansion. Gross is correct when he states that earnings growth is constrained by GDP growth. Additionally, we assume that price multiples will mean revert, which has been the case historically.
    Dividends, which are typically spent and not perpetually reinvested, are the main reason that equity investors have achieved real returns well above the rate of GDP growth. If investors had reinvested their dividends, we would expect that over time real returns to equity holders would have diminished as an increasing amount of capital chased after limited profit-making opportunities. Thus, there is nothing inherently illogical about real equity returns outstripping real GDP growth, if we take into consideration that dividends are usually spent and not reinvested.
    The second point that Gross raises is correct. We can see in the chart below that corporate profits (after tax) as a percentage of GDP have reached an all-time high. Conversely, wages as a percentage of GDP have consistently declined since the 1970s. Gross makes the point that the division of GDP between capital, labor, and government can vary over time and greatly advantage one constituency over another. It’s clear that since the end of the 2008 recession, the corporate sector has been the winner.
    However, as fund manager John Hussman has consistently stated, corporate profit margins are mean reverting and current profitability levels are unsustainable. If you agree that margins in the corporate sector have peaked, it’s unlikely that the stock market can sustain rising price multiples.

    Analysts who view current valuations as cheap on a forward operating earnings basis are making a huge assumption that current profit margins are sustainable. However, analysts who take a normalized earnings approach to valuation will inevitably come to the opposite conclusion. As Hussman observed in a weekly market comment:
    “Profit margins are also highly cyclical over time. The wide margins at present are partly the result of deficit spending amounting to more than 8% of GDP – where government transfer payments are still holding up nearly 20% of total consumer spending, and partly the result of foreign labor outsourcing (directly, and also indirectly through imported intermediate goods) which has held down wage and salary payouts. Indeed, the ratio of corporate profits to GDP is now close to 70% above its long-term norm.”
    In addition to the potential for declining margins, valuations as measured by the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio (CAPE) are still stretched. Earnings – the denominator in the CAPE ratio – are calculated by taking an average of the past 10 years. By using an average, we normalize for changes in profitability that occur due to the business cycle. Unfortunately, the CAPE ratio doesn’t tell you where the market will head in the next quarter or year, but is an exceptionally useful tool when calculating prospective returns over a long timeframe, such as a decade.
    We’re nowhere near the peak levels achieved during the technology boom, but current levels still exceed the historical average of 16.5x, shown in the next chart.

    The chart also shows that the market was briefly cheap on a normalized basis in March 2009. Despite the protestations of some analysts, we are not in a new secular bull market for equities. Secular bull markets begin when the CAPE ratio is in the single digits.
    What type of return from US equities can we expect going forward, given the current CAPE reading of 21.1x? We can calculate prospective long-term annual total return on the S&P 500 by utilizing the following formula derived by John Hussman:
    Long Term Total Return = (1 + g)(Future PE / Current PE)^(1/T) – 1 + dividend yield (Current PE/Future PE + 1) / 2
    g = Prospective growth rate of earnings
    The equation simply forecasts the two components of total return that, as I noted earlier, are price appreciation and dividend yield. Using the data provided by Shiller, I calculated a long-term historical nominal earnings growth rate of 3.8%. Then, using the current 2.8% S&P dividend yield, I calculated prospective nominal returns for various future CAPE ratios, shown in the next table.

    We can see from the table that if the CAPE ratio reverted to slightly below its historical mean of 16.5x, it would result in an annualized prospective return on the S&P 500 of 3.61% over the next ten years. And if the market were to de-rate down to a single-digit CAPE ratio, investors could expect negative returns, based on current valuation levels.
    Keep in mind that total return is calculated in nominal terms. So, depending on your inflation expectations, real returns over the next 10 years will be nowhere near historical levels unless earnings can grow well above historical averages or investors are willing to re-rate the market from already-lofty valuations. I have no doubt that prospective returns will eventually improve. Unfortunately, that will entail a significantly lower level on the S&P 500.
    Even Bill Gross himself warned about the current valuation levels of stocks and bonds when he tweeted the following back in October: “Gross: Stock and bond managers today must be alchemists: turn lead into gold. NOT likely. Too much lead (bubbled assets).”
    With both US treasuries and equities offering poor future returns, where can an investor find adequate inflation-adjusted returns?
    With the announcement of QE4, the likelihood of significant inflation surfacing in the back-half of the decade has definitely increased. The best options for investors, in my view, are quality domestic and international equities with decent dividend yields, and precious metals. I may have missed the equity bubble of the late ‘90s and the current bond bubble, but the precious metals bubble is just getting started. I don't plan on missing this one.
    Ankur Shah is the founder of the Value Investing India Report, a leading independent, value-oriented journal of the Indian financial markets. Ankur has more than eight years of equity research experience covering emerging markets, with a focus on Southeast Asia. He has worked as both a buy-side investment analyst for a global long/short equity hedge fund and as a sell-side analyst for an emerging-markets investment bank. Ankur is a graduate of Harvard Business School. You can learn more about his latest views on global markets at Value Investing India Report, or follow him on Twitter.

  9. #279
    Speedy Az winner69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    37,739

    Default

    this might interest you hoop

    http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc130218.htm

    “First you will come to the Sirens who enchant all who come near them. If any one unwarily draws in too close and hears the singing of the Sirens, his wife and children will never welcome him home again, for they sit in a green field and warble him to death with the sweetness of their song. There is a great heap of dead men's bones lying all around... Therefore pass these Sirens by, and stop your men's ears with wax that none of them may hear; but if you like you can listen yourself, for you may get the men to bind you as you stand upright on a cross-piece half way up the mast, and they must lash the rope's ends to the mast itself, that you may have the pleasure of listening. If you beg and pray the men to unloose you, then they must bind you faster.”

    Homer, The Odyssey (800 B.C., Translated by Samuel Butler)

  10. #280
    Advanced Member BIRMANBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    Yes amazing how far a modicum of common sense can (or should) take you. I suppose there will always be a ready market for people/funds/analysts who purport to "do the research", provide "in depth industry wide expertise" and generally absolve investors from actually doing any thinking themselves. Its like..this is in print and we have 10,000 followers so you should absolutely take our advice. Great at broad sweeping statements but usually short on specific details. Oh well..it takes all types right...my instincts tell me the most successfull investors dont have the time or the inclination to publish "Investing Nirvana"
    Quote Originally Posted by David B View Post
    Yes you are right, the above is written for and about the US stock market and not the NZ one. Yet I still find them an interesting read. One of the caveats I have about this type of work however, is that they take a whole of index wide approach in their analysis. All stocks that make up that index therefore get reverted to the mean. This may or may not be correct when considering the performance of individual stocks over any particular time period within that index. Individual stocks can and do vary widely from the mean, and for a whole host of reasons. Fashions come and go, hot stocks and sectors ebb and flow, a company moves through the various phases of its growth cycle, acclaimed entrepreneurs/ managers leave a company or die etc., all of which will impact on the share price performance quite independently of the overall themes as outlined above. This just again highlights the importance of stock picking, and a good analysis and understanding of an individual companies performance and its business to overall investing success. When the market prices a great company low, buy. When it prices it at a silly level, sell. Or at least don't buy it!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •