Mar

24

An alternate understanding of a market being at all time high (market reaching new prices it has never encountered) is this: "Everyone that has ever bought that stock or instrument is now in profit". What might be the psychological implications of this?

Kim Zussman comments:

It is possible (and probable) to buy, then sell after a decline and stay out only to see it reverse and go up further. This (timing) is one reason it is so much easier to do better with B/H than trading.

Big Al adds:

The other advantage to B&H is that the opportunity cost viz time/attention required is basically zero. I have looked at various index timing approaches and have not found anything that beats B&H, especially when considering the vig and opportunity cost. However, should one need to scratch the itch, timing strategies may work better with individual stocks. But again, opportunity cost.

Humbert H. writes:

I've always been believer in B&H vs. trading. But even in B&H the debate between indexing and individual stock selection never dies. I don't like indexing, but I don't have a mathematical basis for that. It's a fundamental belief that buying things without any regard to their economic value has to fail in time, at least relative to paying some attention to it.

Zubin Al Genubi adds more:

Another aspect of buy and hold that Rocky pointed out is the capital gain tax severely eats into returns. The richest guys hold for years and have only unrealized untaxable gains.

Art Cooper agrees:

There was an excellent article in the Jan 7, 2017 issue of Barron's by Leslie P. Norton on VERY long-lived closed end mutual funds which have surpassed the S&P's performance. They have all followed buy and hold strategies.

Michael Brush offers:

Far more money has been lost by investors in preparing for corrections, or anticipating corrections, than has been lost in the corrections themselves.
- Peter Lynch

Steve Ellison brings up an important point:

And yet trading is one of the focal points of this list. The way I square this circle is to keep most of my trading account in an equity index fund at all times. When I think I have an edge, I make trades using margin.

Larry Williams writes:

B&H is the keys to the kingdom, but…the massive fortunes of Livermore were short term trades despite his comment about sitting on your hands. Even the current high performers, Cohen, Dalio, Tudor etc use market timing. When I won world cup trading $10,000 to $1,100,000, it was all about timing and wild crazy money management. One approach wins big the other wins fast. A point to ponder.

Bill Rafter writes:

What we found in studying only the SPX/SPY is that in the long run a buy-and-hold yielded 9.5 percent compounded annually. That was from 1972 to recent. Our argument is that studies before 1972 are flawed. That 9.5 was great considering there were several collapses of ~50 percent. However if you could just eliminate the collapses you could raise the return to 13.5 percent compounded annually.

Eliminating the down moves did not involve prescience. You did not need to forecast recessions, only identify them when you were in one. That was not difficult, and timing was not a critical as one might think. We identified several algos that worked well.

When you were out of equities, you could either simply hold cash, or go long the 10-year ETF. The bonds were better, but not by much. Interestingly, long term holding of bond ETFs yielded low single-digit returns. Best avoided. Which also means that the Markowitz 60/40 strategy was a sub-performer.

Taxes are investor/vehicle specific. For example, if you use a no-tax vehicle, there are no taxes. Regarding turnover, there are very few transactions, as there are very few recessions. The strategy is basically B&H, but with holidays.

Asindu Drileba has concerns:

My problem with buy & hold Is that it has no risk management strategy. If you bought the S&P 500 in 1929 for example during the wrong month. It took you 25 years i.e until 1954 not even to make profit, but just to break even. The real question is, how do you know your not investing in a market path that will take 25 years just to break even?

Humbert H. responds:

That’s why, dollar cost averaging. I don’t think anyone thinks buy once in your lifetime and never interact with the stock market ever again. I think if you had averaged in monthly or quarterly from the summer 1929 through summer 1959 and then held and lived off dividends or cashed out/interest in retirement, you did well.

Art Cooper adds:

The year 1954 is almost universally given as the "break-even" year to recoup losses for buy & hold investors who bought at the 1929 peak. It's wrong to do so. First, it ignores dividends. Had dividends been re-invested the recovery year would have been much earlier. Second, it ignores the deflation which occurred during the Great Depression. In this column Mark Hulbert argues that someone who invested a lump sum at the 1929 peak would have recovered in real economic terms by late 1936.

I'm not arguing against dollar-cost averaging, merely pointing out a historical falsehood.

Hernan Avella writes:

What people should do while they are young and have human capital left is to leverage!

Life-Cycle Investing and Leverage: Buying Stock on Margin Can Reduce Retirement Risk

The most robust research, incorporating lifecycle patterns and relevant time horizons for long term investors tells us that the optimal allocation is 50/50 all equities, domestic and international. But most ppl don’t have the gumption to be 100% on equities.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search