# Is Stock buy and hold strategy old fashioned?



## King Tut (May 3, 2009)

Hello Everyone,

Wanted to know what members of the forum think about the stock buy and hold strategy, and I am talking minimum 10 years.

Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffet, Peter Lynch, and many other investment stars endorse(d) a buy and hold strategy for stocks. The key element is to have a margin of safety and look for company valuation when picking a stock, not paying too much attention to Mr. Market (who was irrational today for instance ). If you buy at the right time - when every one else is selling! and when you buy the right companies, you will prosper in the long run.

What are your thoughts? Do you think that's old fashioned?

King Tut


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

when you find out let me know .....


----------



## PMREdmonton (Apr 6, 2009)

Many different strategies can work.

The problem with most investors is having the conviction and discipline to properly to use the strategy.

The reason why buy and hold hasn't worked out well the last 12 years is that valuations were too high and too much debt has made the financial system unstable.

Most people are probably best off setting up a PAC plan to invest regularly in properly diversified index funds and then pay no attention to the market outside of rebalancing every two years or so. Most of those who try to intervene with active management will do worse then doing nothing because they don't have the temperament to be contrarian which is what you need to beat the market.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

Yes it's old fashioned and it works very well for many investors.

things like nu, r not always like good 4 u, like u know, old like things, R good like sometimes


----------



## King Tut (May 3, 2009)

PMREdmonton said:


> The reason why buy and hold hasn't worked out well the last 12 years is that valuations were too high and too much debt has made the financial system unstable.


I agree with you that a key issue is that stocks have been too 'expensive' for the most part. The big question is when to make the move and what to buy!


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

I am a long time buy-and-hold investor but now, partially because of my age (68), I am losing the faith. The market has become entirely too volatile for my liking. If and when I can get out without taking a loss, I plan to do so. I don't need this!!


----------



## King Tut (May 3, 2009)

Belguy said:


> I am a long time buy-and-hold investor but now, partially because of my age (68), I am losing the faith. The market has become entirely too volatile for my liking. If and when I can get out without taking a loss, I plan to do so. I don't need this!!


Belguy: If you don't need this money for a couple of years, you should be fine. The loss is on paper except if you sell. When the markets rebound, and they will, I think you are better off in less volatile investments.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Buy and hold is only old fashioned in the sense that now there are numerous price agnostic strategies to take advantage of. There are millions of ways to play the market. When times are booming (Buffet eras) buy and hold aka momentum trading works great. Everyone needs a method that works for them, just look at the world objectively as a familiar place where humans will occasionally do irrational things and in groups can be very destructive..


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

belguy you seem to be a very sweet person even if you are a bit of a fuss-budget. But i don't think it's healthy for you to fester away, day after day, peering at finance tv & finance newspapers & finance websites while never having any other kind of activity. I mean, you're not actively trading these securities, so why would they require so many hours of fretting.

perhaps some rather wild new activity to take your mind off the markets now & then ? go walking in stanley park & learn to identify all the trees ? volunteer in a soup kitchen ?

i volunteer in a soup kitchen. I'll do anything in my power to build up good health & good cheer & decency & dignity in my community. And you know what ? if the positions were reversed - if i were the client standing in the soup line - i'd be OK with that.


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

Buy and hold strategy for stocks should focus on the one aspect of the company that can be controlled and predicted with more certainty than the share price: the dividend. A good aspect of the financial crisis is that it has shown which companies have been able to maintain, and grow their dividends through the turmoil. The old boring toll-booth type stocks are key examples: pipelines, telecoms, utilities, REITs, etc. I'm actually falling asleep writing about these stocks I'm thinking of. And I'll sleep well. Goodnight!


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> things like nu, r not always like good 4 u, like u know, old like things, R good like sometimes


Eh, r u ok.? 

In a deeply problematic, erratic & difficult to read market [actually in any market], the best strategy is not to be stuck to one single investment method; not to be greedy & not to sell in panic. 

I have only been greedy with one single stock, AAPL, meaning that I did not sell even after having reached my 100% goal on that one, but other than that, I have been fairly disciplined & have booked profits whenever possible on others [as low as 3%] & I'm sure glad I did as many of my stocks are now close to the 52 week low and some even below that. The positive of that however, is the additional free shares that DRIPS will buy as well as the buying opportunities that abound in this market.

I'm also very glad that I taught myself the 'art' of trading as this helped me raise capital.

So King Tut, mix the old fashion with the new & keep learning!


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

Belguy said:


> If and when I can get out without taking a loss, I plan to do so. I don't need this!!


I'm curious Belguy. What's your allocation to bonds / GICs? At your age, you should not have too much riding on the stock market (unless you are so well off that you can live on dividends alone and have some left over and you are pretty much investing for the next generation). If you do have too much allocated to stocks, resolve to do something about it when markets recover. 

Remember that stock markets do not give you a smooth ride. You'll earn +20% one year, +15% the next, -20% the year after and so on... If you want a smooth ride, you shouldn't have too much allocated to volatile assets.


----------



## cazaubon (Jan 18, 2011)

I'm 45 and still 100% in equities. I think over the next few years I will want to start adding some bonds, to gradually get to a 60/40 stock/bond ratio. Since the market is down at the moment, I don't want to sell any of my equities right now... perhaps I should just put my future contributions into a bond fund at this point, or is now not the right time to buy bonds? I am hearing all sorts of things about bonds being not the right choice due to inflation.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Problem is everything seems like **** right now!holding cash,inflation problems,bonds(everything you read is the shits on the future!)real-estate everybody says its crashing,even if your in business everybody says dont invest heavy into.

What bloody asset class is working?Some say equities are the best asset class now(thats why i personally am investing)even though the sky is falling.

Guess you could just wait for a bottom or dca but both suck!dca for the fees,and well jesus himself probably couldnt perdict a bottom,i dont know what one should do,i guess cash is king,gold but thats a scary asset class now because of the bubble.

Im starting to think the only way now would be if your a professional trader(but that skill set only pertains to probably 1%.

prob be easier to become a surgeon than a trader,some people on here talk like its easy....i have no idea thou.Funny times!


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

At age 67, my asset allocation is 60 per cent equities and 40 per cent bonds. I have been invested for many, many years now, and, if you listen to gurus out there, I should be rich by now which I am not. I am invested in a diversified portfolio of mainly ETF's although, before they came into existence, I was invested in mutual funds. When you look at how the indexes have performed over the past ten or so years, it becomes apparent why I have been unable to grow my portfolio significantly. Also, during that period, there has been tremendous (and growing!) volatility to contend with. Just three years ago, my portfolio lost 40 per cent of it's value in just a few short weeks and took many months to get back to where it was and now this!!! The fact is that the world is interconnected now and there are so many things, both man made and natural, that can negatively affect the markets and cause the increasing volatility that we have been experiencing. The markets have changed and not often for the better!!

I'm sorry, but, while this might be a game for younger folks with longer time horizons, I have come to the conclusion that it is no place to put one's hard-earned retirement savings.

You can disagree with me all that you want, but, if and when I gain back my current paper losses, I'm outa here!!!

After years of experience, I have come to the conclusion that the stock market is a mug's game and that you're lucky if you come out ahead after the roller coaster ride is over. Just look at how the Dow has done over the past ten plus years to see what I mean.

At this stage in my life, a ladder of GIC's looks pretty darn good and I wish that I had switched entirely out of equities the day that I retired. Those GIC's will begin to look better when interest rates start to rise. Then, I can sit back and watch others try to beat the system with all of their trading activity. 

Anyway, I hope that others can learn from my experience.

Never have money in the stock market that you can't afford to lose!!! It's a mug's game and just another form of gambling as far as I have concluded.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

So sorry you have to put up with this turbulence Belguy, it's normal to be uncomfortable in this market.  Some say if you're comfortable in this market your ego is bigger than a mountain and your losses should be too. People tend to take more risks when they're too comfortable, doubling down etc. From a trading perspective this is a good time to rest, you don't have to be in the market every day. A time out is healthy.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

I wouldnt call it outright gambling,id be more confident investing in say caterpillar,apple,philip morris and chevron than roll the dice on craps,provided you have a long-time horizon,plus you do get some compensation in dividends through out a long time peroid.

There is a luck factor,some get luckier than others.

Belguy you should just close your positions out,you probably shouldnt be in,or atleast sell down to a sleeping level...

My grandpa use to always say:the only sure way to double your money is to fold it in half,maybe he was right!!!lol(not trying to make light of the situation)


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Belguy, of your equities what % of them are dividend paying etf's/stocks?


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Most of my ETF's are broad-based, lowest fee versions. I do not own any individual stocks.

I am not alone in my feelings!! I have seen quite a few TV reports over the last two days from older investors questioning the wisdom of having their retirement funds in the volatile equity markets. On the one hand, it could turn out OK but, on the other hand, the markets could crash and take many years to come back.

Is this where a retired senior should be putting their savings of a lifetime?

I think that all of this volatility is starting to wear a lot of investors down. When I went into the markets, I never did it expecting this much ongoing volatility!

My dearly departed dad never believed in the stock markets and never put a dime of his money in them and he always advised me to stay clear of them.

I didn't listen!


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Belguy said:


> I am not alone in my feelings!! I have seen quite a few TV reports over the last two days from older investors questioning the wisdom of having their retirement funds in the volatile equity markets. On the one hand, it could turn out OK but, on the other hand, the markets could crash and take many years to come back.


Why wouldn't you cashed out sooner given the onslaught of 08/09. We aren't even near those levels yet. Still not too late to get out.

Many of your posts have expressed your discomfort about being exposed to the volatility. Maybe it is time to evaluate why you have such high allocations to equities to begin with.

What rate of return do you need to achieve your goals? And what level of portfolio variability are you able to handle?

Set your allocations on those factors - no more, no less. I figure this should have been in your retirement plans already? If you need a high rate of return that can only be obtained by high exposure to equities, then maybe it is time to think about alternative income, or even going back to work. If you are in good health, and still capable, better to continue earning income while you can, rather than living through the volatility of equity markets.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

I have only one logical explanation of why I am still 60 per cent invested in equities--I bought into all of the hype. Oh, and one other reason---greed!!


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Greed and Fear unfortunately will not help your investing mindset.

So, you have to sell something when you want income? Why did you not elect to go with some etf's that at least gave you some income if you knew retirement was approaching?

I don't mean that in a negative way, because IMO, alot of the etf's that give off a dividend, have a weak return compared to their holdings, and yes I know there are exeptions to the rule. (I am just speaking as a generalization of dividend paying etfs, so please to the forum members don't post to inform me of the dividend yield of XRE, etc....) And curious to your mindset when you originally made your etf choices.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

I don't really think this is a hype issue.

Even the lowest paid 'adviser' selling these investment instruments always have you fill out a risk tolerance form (I believe they are legally required to). These forms always clearly show some measure of standard deviation, so someone with a strong weighting to equities are presented with examples of how things could go wrong.

What we have to keep in mind is that these people are not actually developing investment plans for the clients. I've never heard of an investment peddler developing plans for withdrawl rates, contingency in case of unfortunate sequence of returns during retirement and other risks (I'll let the real planners e.g. MoneyGal etc to fill in all the elements).

Greed is one thing, but why didn't you adjust your allocations when you went through all the ups and downs?

For people in their accumulation phase, I don't think it matters, how many people invested all their money back in Mar/Apr this year? Maybe people just starting out, but for most of us, we continuously contribute, so why does it matter that the market is down 20%? Only part of my holdings have fallen that much. Money I invested back in the 90's is way way up from original cost.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

My research told me to buy the broadest based, most liquid, lowest fee ETF's plus, when I first purchased them, there were not all that many to choose from. As I just buy-and-hold forever, and just trade for rebalancing purposes, those are the ETF's that I still hold. I have never been a market timer! 

So, what is so wrong with this strategy?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Belguy said:


> So, what is so wrong with this strategy?


Nothing is wrong with the strategy of buying low cost broad based ETF.

*What is wrong is your asset allocation.*

That is the point that everyone is trying to drive home to you.
When you experienced the 40% decline during 2008, you had more than enough opportunity to re-adjust your asset allocation during the recovery of 2009 and 2010.
It is clear from your messages that a 60/40 equity/bond allocation is not appropriate for your risk tolerance.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*ahh so*

I can see events unfolding before my very eyes.

Present:
TSX is down 20% (14,330 - 11,460)

Future:
market drops another 10%
capitulation occurs near the bottom
new allocation 90% bond; 10% cash
the longed-for smooth ride begins
... smoothly and steadily down hill


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> *What is wrong is your asset allocation.*
> 
> .


You can bold and repeat the same advise all you want and it will still fall on deaf ears, he is not here to get advice but rather to complain. Sorry to be harsh but wherever I turn I hear poeple complaining, at the office I have one serious complainer, I turn to internet and there is constant complaining, wife sometimes has her bad days as well.

Buy, hold and complain.

Rant over.




Belguy said:


> It is hard to take criticism from those with far less time and experience at investing.
> .


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Agreed nothing wrong w your plan, however, based on the anxiety in your comments perhaps it was not the best allocation for you.

I wondered also, for somone nearing retirement, looking for some additional income, why you didn't chose some ETF's that at least paid a dividend, that you did not have to sell, if prices were down, to supplement your living expenses. I mean, after deciding that you wanted exquity exposure, as opposed to a laddered GIC or something else.

I agree with you that perhaps when you decided to go with the ETF's there may not have been that great of a selection for you. 

Also, 10 years ago who would have thought so many countries would have so many debt issues, as well as so many banks having such a high risk to be insolvent.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Just for the record, I do receive dividends from my ETF holdings--some monthly and some quarterly. However, they by no means compensate for the kind of losses that we are currently experiencing.

Like everybody else, I went through the big drop of 2008 and I had somehow hoped that would be it, at least for a little while. I complained back then too but I sold nothing and slept well then too. 

What has me and other investors concerned is the frequency and the extremism of the volatility. As I heard an IMF official say, it IS different now. The world has become more interdependent. For example, a few years back, when the Latin American debt crisis occurred, the effects were mainly confined to that part of the world. However, over the past decade or so, the situation has changed such that, now, when there is a debt crisis in one part of the world, it affects the economies of countries all around the world. In the future, that is the way that it is going to be and it is going to lead to the kind of increased volatility in all markets that we are currently experiencing.

It is simply not the way that it used to be and the markets are not going to behave the way that they used to behave. Geographical diversification used to offer more portfolio protection than it does now.

Thus, more investors, especially those close to, or in retirement, have to ask themselves if they are prepared to keep their hard-earned life savings, which they intended for a quality retirement, in these increasingly volatile stock markets.

After all, for many of us, our portfolios represent our personal pension!!

I'm sorry if my submissions turn some of you off but, I have a solution for that--just don't bother reading them!!

Footnote: One in four Americans of retirement age are still working and that number is expected to rise in the years ahead as the economy may stall for the next decade or more and older Americans may find that their retirement fund has not grown as they had planned for.


----------



## cannew (Jun 19, 2011)

I'm going on 70 and invest only in solid companies which have good BS, pay dividends and have a history of growing dividends.

Over the past 5 years through the worst of the fin crisis and even today, only one company has cut the dividend (mfc). Almost all have increased their dividends (not all banks have), but they have not cut them.

My income has grown each year (averaging 7%) and the value of my holdings has grown. I dropped alot during 2008-2009, but re-invested the dividends, bought more stocks and now I'm up by 12%.

Don't plan to sell any stocks and at some point will start to collect dividends directly rather than re-invest.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

Belguy said:


> Footnote: One in four Americans of retirement age are still working and that number is expected to rise in the years ahead as the economy may stall for the next decade or more and older Americans may find that their retirement fund has not grown as they had planned for.


Define retirement age... My parents are both in their 60's and have no desire to retire, although they could have years ago. This whole concept of a 'retirement age' certainly hasn't helped anyone. If you're able to work and want or need to work, then you haven't reached retirement age yet.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Sixty-five.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Belguy said:


> I went through the big drop of 2008 and I had somehow hoped that would be it, at least for a little while. I complained back then too but I sold nothing and slept well then too.


I guess you learned nothing during that cycle either?

To repeat: 
Take your annual budget
Deduct the contribution of CPP and OAS
The balance is what your investments must fund
Establish what return is necessary to close this gap for your remaining years

As an example, $500k over 15 years yields $33k/year with ZERO net investment returns. If you need more than $33k or live beyond age 83 then you are screwed. But there is nothing anyone here can do to help!


----------



## w0nger (Mar 15, 2010)

Dmoney said:


> Define retirement age... My parents are both in their 60's and have no desire to retire, although they could have years ago. This whole concept of a 'retirement age' certainly hasn't helped anyone. If you're able to work and want or need to work, then you haven't reached retirement age yet.


retirement... it's not an age for me... rather it's a way of life. The way I define it:

I am working because I *want* to, not because I *have* to...


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

I don't think a 67 year old [or 68] needs to define what retirement age is. We all know he's 67 and that he's retired. Moreover, a person at that age has earned the right to retire [or not] without being questioned.

I have to agree however, that Belguy is not looking for advice as he's very much set in his ways. 

The other night, some 'financial expert' gal on CTV [forget her name], said the right investment approach atm is to buy/hold/tweak.

*King Tut:* I think your thread has been hijacked.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

Toronto.gal said:


> I don't think a 67 year old [or 68] needs to define what retirement age is. We all know he's 67 and that he's retired. Moreover, a person at that age has earned the right to retire [or not] without being questioned.


I'd say someone has earned the right to retire when they've accumulated enough assets to allow them to do so. This is the problem with the whole pension, social assistance, retirement question. Should it really be a right to retire just because you've reached a certain age?

I support a minimum amount of support and assistance for people of all ages, but anything more than that should be based on your contribution, not just based on the fact that you've reached a magic age. Do I want to see seniors in the coal mines until they draw their last breath? No. Do I want to see the government (ie my and everyone else's tax dollars) supporting everyone who overspends or undersaves? Definitely not.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

w0nger said:


> retirement... it's not an age for me... rather it's a way of life. The way I define it:
> 
> I am working because I *want* to, not because I *have* to...


In my opinion, that's the exact definition of retirement. The point at which you stop working out of necessity.

And in response to the original thread, while buy and hold will still work if adhered to properly (buy when valuations are cheap, buy solid stocks for the long haul), in volatile markets there are opportunities to reduce risk while still sticking with the buy/hold strategy. Options strategies can help you sleep at night in these markets.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Dmoney said:


> Do I want to see seniors in the coal mines until they draw their last breath? No. Do I want to see the government (ie my and everyone else's tax dollars) supporting everyone who overspends or undersaves? Definitely not.


I agree completely! 

But didn't Belguy previously say that he retired due to health related issues? So really, as I see it, the matter of contention here is not his 'retirement age definition' [which is none of our business], but rather, that he's not listening to the help/advice others are giving him regarding his retirement portfolio after each time he cries here. 

Harold was spot on, the issue is his asset allocation because of: 1) his time horizon and 2) his risk tolerance. The latter by the way, should have permanently decreased in 2008! 

Belguy is the one, who is constantly lecturing us that he's been at this game longer than many, if not most of us, and that our investment strategies are all wrong, he even mocks the traders here, yet, what has he learned and what is he telling us to do? Buy & hold forever.


----------



## King Tut (May 3, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> *King Tut:* I think your thread has been hijacked.


T.gal, I think you are right 

Belguy, why don't you start a bi***ing thread of your own? 

I still have 25 years to retire 

Is the Buffet buy and hold strategy not vaild today??????????????? what do you think????????????


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

I think people that live by Uncle Warrens words need to watch this video very carefully http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/RatingAgen

Keep in mind this was under oath. He is obviously very smart, but is he altruistic when it comes to investment advice? I bet he is probably more devious than most of you suspect.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Buy and hold works but the only problem is you can be timed out by a secular bear market. The market can take so many year to recover that you run out of time.

A better strategy would be adding in money piece by piece starting now while the market is down so far. The market of course could fall another 40% from here so by buying piece by piece you are catching all the cheap prices while everything goes up in flames.

I for one feel much more comfortable starting to add now a little at a time rather then buying when the market is much higher expensive and going higher and higher. Expensive markets make me nervous while others love it until they get hammered.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

King Tut said:


> Belguy, why don't you start a bi***ing thread of your own?


That was not necessary. Stop being a clown.

I don't know why everyone is giving Belguy such a hard time. He knows the facts. Leave him be. If we were all in his situation (regardless if it is his fault or not) we would be a little worried, too.

We don't need everyone jumping on the bandwagon to bash Belguy. Relax.

Buy, hold, and keep your unnecessary comments to yourself.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Many thanks for your support, KaeJS. I feel that I need it.

I calculated my paper losses since my portfolio's high in April and I am only down 10 per cent so far which is better than I had thought.

In 2008, my portfolio was down 40 per cent at it's worse and so I still have a way to go to duplicate that feat.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I agree kaejs belguy is a fun breath of fresh air on the forum. I am also the opposite of belguy because I don't use the funny faces.


----------



## King Tut (May 3, 2009)

KaeJS said:


> That was not necessary. Stop being a clown.


KaeJS, I was not being a clown. That was not a fair comment. I was only trying to make a point that my thread was hijacked, and it was!

Belguy, hang in there. I know the markets will improve in the not too distant future, I just feel it.


----------



## Smoothie (Jul 11, 2011)

Buy and hold is dead.

It's a secular bear market out there. The long-term trend is down...lower lows and lower highs to come. Unless you have a couple decades, market timing and stock picking are back!

Just my 0.02!


----------



## King Tut (May 3, 2009)

Smoothie said:


> Buy and hold is dead.
> 
> It's a secular bear market out there. The long-term trend is down...lower lows and lower highs to come. Unless you have a couple decades, market timing and stock picking are back!
> 
> Just my 0.02!


Stock picking is part of the buy and hold strategy. Market timing? not sure it can be done.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

King Tut said:


> Market timing? not sure it can be done.


But KT, we all do it; don't we all try to buy low and sell high? MT does not necessarily equal success for all, but we all do it.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

I'm not sure that I can be included in the market timing camp as I just make my initial ETF purchases and hold them forever except for annual rebalancing.

Does annual rebalancing constitute market timing?


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

No matter what the fiddle is labelled as, IMHO, it's all market timing Belguy. The key difference is the %/size of the shift. But anyway, don't listen to a trader.  

And don't worry, markets will improve, but you definitely need to address your asset allocation.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

I'm adjusting my asset allocation to 50/50 in January when I work on my rebalancing. Then, at 75, I'll move to 60 per cent fixed income to 40 per cent equities. At 80, I'll adjust it again to 75 per cent fixed income to 25 per cent equities. At 90, it'll go to 90 per cent fixed income to 10 per cent equities and at 100, I'll switch it all to fixed income. You've gotta have a plan!!

Anyway, that's my plan and I'm sticking to it.

However, after 80, I will likely forget what I had planned to do and why I planned to do it!!


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I read through this whole thread (avoiding something at work that I can't think my way through right now). 

The issue, in my opinion, for Belguy is not one of asset allocation _per se_ - even the best AA strategy (whatever that would be) is not sufficient for the risks that Belguy says he's facing. 

What he's describing is what's known in the retirement income planning field as sequence of returns risk. That's the risk of a dip in the value of your holdings as you enter retirement - so in the "fragile risk zone" of about 5 years before and 5 years after whenever you say you are going to stop adding to your portfolio and instead turning it into a stream of income you hopefully can't outlive. 

When you are adding to your portfolio, it truly does not matter in what order you earn returns (or get negative returns). But when you prepare to withdraw, or start withdrawing, or just stop contributing - getting a few years of negative returns can completely sink your retirement income plan. 

The solution to sequence risk is product allocation. Many middle-class North Americans have poor exposure to longevity-protected income that is also shielded from sequence risk (relative to their overall wealth and desired income in retirement). 

Other solutions would be to lower spending or postpone retirement. But those are less palatable. 

Also: if asset allocation were the correct strategy, essentially everybody would be forced into a very low returns environment. So you kind of force the "very low spending" ratio by default. 

Instead, if you "pensionize" a fraction of your retirement nest egg - likely enough to meet your basic expenses, when combined with CPP and OAS - you can "afford" to take much more risk with your remaining savings - the optimal solution for many many people. 

Sorry for the further hijacking, if that's what this is.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Thanks, MoneyGal and I have read your great book and highly recommend it to anyone approaching or already in retirement.

Currently, I have begun reading 'Annuities for Dummies' as I feel that I do fit into that category when it comes to annuities (and, some would say, investing).

One question that I have off the top concerns if buying an annuity, when interest rates are at rock bottom, is such a good idea?


----------



## King Tut (May 3, 2009)

Smoothie said:


> Buy and hold is dead.
> 
> It's a secular bear market out there. The long-term trend is down...lower lows and lower highs to come. Unless you have a couple decades, market timing and stock picking are back!
> 
> Just my 0.02!


How do we know it is a secular bear market? maybe it is just a phase before the next secular bull market?!


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

Smoothie said:


> Unless you have a couple decades, market timing and stock picking are back!


Only if your market timing and stock picking skills are much better than average (after accounting for costs).


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

CC, if then successful market timing and stock picking is above the pay grade of most investors, I would be interested in your latest assessment of the buy-and-hold, low fee, broad-based ETF (Couch Potato) approach in light of the current economy.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Belguy said:


> latest assessment of the buy-and-hold, low fee, broad-based ETF (Couch Potato) approach in light of the current economy.


Buy-and-hold, low fee, broad-based ETF approach is for long-term investors who don't care about the current economy. 

You're already retired, so that means you're not one of those people, right? 

If you're in your 60s you could use the couch potato strategy for investments you won't be touching until your 80s, but I don't think you'd want to use it for investments where you're going to need the money in the next 5-10 years.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Belguy said:


> I'm adjusting my asset allocation to 50/50 in January when I work on my rebalancing. Then, at 75, I'll move to 60 per cent fixed income to 40 per cent equities. At 80, I'll adjust it again to 75 per cent fixed income to 25 per cent equities. At 90, it'll go to 90 per cent fixed income to 10 per cent equities and at 100, I'll switch it all to fixed income. You've gotta have a plan!!


That's a lot more risky than I'd have the stomach for. Right now I am utterly complacent about risk because I'm still about 17 years from retirement. But believe me, as I get closer I'm going to start watching the market very carefully and will start shifting nearly everything to fixed income by my mid 60s if not before. At that point growth is less important to me than avoiding loss. As long as I have enough to live on for the remainder of my retired years, I can do without growth, even if the growth of my portfolio is undercut by inflation. I might keep some longer-term investments in equities for when I'm much older, but I'm going to be way more risk-averse once I hit my 60s and 70s.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I still think a little market timing is appropriate. Meaning that one should have had a lot of cash available after that great spring run up and should be now looking at slowly putting it back into the market. So as the sell off continues then we continue to add to our positions. I don't understand why everyone thinks market timing has to be all about buy today sell in a month and buy back in say a month after that.

In a secular bear market you have to raise cash in big rallies and buy on the big sell offs. In a secular bull market you just buy and hold and then buy on the dips and hold some more. I think it is obvious that the debt problems world wide need to be addressed and then the next secular bull or buy and hold market will arrive.


----------



## atrp2biz (Sep 22, 2010)

I'm on the asset allocation side. If equities down, rebalancing portfolio allocation would naturally result in equity purchases. The opposite holds true if markets go up. Not necessarily market timing, just sticking to a concrete methodology semi-annually or so.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

As atrp2biz points out, if one has an allocation to bonds, rebalancing automatically means selling bonds and buying stocks in a downturn or selling stocks and buying bonds when stocks advance. So, yes, rebalancing is a form of agnostic market timing. For example, say stocks drop 20% from here. An investor would move money from bonds to stocks. If stocks advance 20%, the opposite would happen.

Belguy, I'll assume you've read MoneyGal's book and have given careful consideration to pensionizing a portion of your nest egg. For the portion that you have in couch potato portfolios, one doesn't change strategies based on current market conditions, assuming that the asset allocation is appropriate (I'm not convinced yours is, judging by how fretful you become when the markets move a couple of points) and expectations are reasonable. By reasonable expectations, I mean both in terms of risk and returns. For example, investors should realize that their stock portion can "lose" 50% of its value at some unknown point in the future. If you have $100K in stocks and in a few months time, the value drops to $50K are you able to ride it out? If not, you have to work on reducing risk to your comfort level. Perhaps, you can tolerate a drop of $30K. That would mean selling stocks, so that your allocation drops to $60K.

You should also have reasonable expectation for returns. You can expect to earn the current yield by holding bonds to maturity. You can expect to earn current dividend yield plus dividend growth from stocks. That would mean 2% from bonds and 6% to 7% from stocks (2.5% dividend yield plus 4% dividend growth). If you have a 60/40 portfolio, you can expect returns of roughly 4.5% _over the long term_.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> Other solutions would be to lower spending or postpone retirement. But those are less palatable.


 i don’t know if you are in the financial planning / investment advice business or not but I had to laugh when i read the line “Other solutions would be to lower spending or postpone retirement. But those are less palatable. “ … 

god forbid that anyone should actually learn to spend less and still enjoy life just as much or continue to work part-time (or even full-time) … 

this notion that we have to have all this disposable income and play golf all day is pushed by the finance industry every where you look, whether it’s television ads about “making sure you can live the good life”, or some new book about your golden years … 

most of us in retirement have to fight boredom and find things to do, working part-time makes a lot of sense and most of us own too much crap that brings us less satisfaction than we hoped ... but god forbid we shouldn’t retire at 55 and play golf all day and take all those trips we planned. 

with respect, your statement reminds me of an industry that is based on selling a mirage …

the fantasy of the "golden years" is integral to business plan of every bank, insurance company and brokerage house in the country and it costs people a lot of money


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Perhaps I should have qualified that statement: _*for someone who has decided to retire (or has actually taken the step and left the world of work)* hearing that the solutions to their problem involve either 1. returning to work or 2. lowering their expected lifestyle, well, those solutions are likely going to sound less palatable. _

I've said many times on this board that I personally don't have any expectations of "early retirement" and aspire to follow the model of my dad, who (at 75) is still active in his profession, goes to an office, and works. 

In addition, FWIW, I am also on a personal mission (not that I've ever said this here) to wipe out the images of total leisure used in the finance industry to represent retirement. (Not that I wield much influence but hey, a girl can hope.)

In fact, the latest research I've read on retirement imagery (from the U.S.) suggests that the golf-course-and-sailing images don't even *work* to connote retirement or inspire retirement savings, and here's why:

* people who typically aspire to (what is called the) "total leisure" retirement usually cannot afford it (or afford it on their preferred schedule), and they "feel betrayed" by those images. 

* people who can afford "total leisure" retirements typically don't envision that for themselves, so they aren't spurred to save based on those images, because the images suggest saving for something they aren't ever going to do. In fact, the golf course images provide them a reason to NOT save "for retirement." 

For mid-career accumulators (the people that all retirement savings messaging is directed to), the idea of retirement has shifted from total leisure to "working less." There's a lot more research on what imagery speaks to that group but it ain't people on the golf course. 

Suffice it to say that I agree with you more than you might think.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

great answer, i believe you when you say that you want to change the image of retirement

i am retired and i have seen others in retirement up close and it is nothing like all the banks keep telling me in their commercials

most people do a lot less than they think they will, they often are coping with boredom and they have health problems that perhaps could have been avoided if they lived less stressful and over-the-top lives when they were younger (when they overworked to save up for their "golden years")

for many of us, a gic ladder and a simple life and working a little longer might be the perfect ticket ....

but, of course, we rarely see the big ad budgets pushing this


----------



## cannew (Jun 19, 2011)

I like the Russell Investment "Rule of 20" for calculating what you might need in savings upon retirement.

The Retirement Rule of 20 says a financially secure retirement can be had if you have $20 in savings for every $1 in annual income you require after you leave the work force.

When you deduct CPP & OAS (and any company pension) then the balance is what your investments need to generate.

As I don't have a company pension, I rely on Dividends. Currently my dividends will generate sufficient to match the RRIF withdrawals thereby leaving my principal in tack. If the market crashes the withdrawal amount will drops, and my dividends will increase my principal. With holding only dividend growers I never expect to need to draw capital unless I wish.


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> In fact, the latest research I've read on retirement imagery (from the U.S.) suggests that the golf-course-and-sailing images don't even *work* to connote retirement or inspire retirement savings, and here's why:


Golf is just the ruination of a formerly nice forest. However, sailing I'M THERE!

hboy43


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Buy and hold is still the best investment strategy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-hold-still-the-best-approach/article2184691/


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

> The Retirement Rule of 20 says a financially secure retirement can be had if you have $20 in savings for every $1 in annual income you require after you leave the work force.


Have you seen the math that William Bernstein conducted in The Four Pillars of Investing? He describes some scenarios about retiring near a bear market which shows that you could be in trouble expecting 5% ($1 for every $20). 4% was the only amount that passed his stress test.


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

The best investment strategy is increasing capital. How you do that is up to you. If your capital is decreasing, one needs to reassess.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Belguy said:


> Buy and hold is still the best investment strategy:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-hold-still-the-best-approach/article2184691/


As he says at the end -- it's still the best strategy *for long term results*.

One of the things that drives me crazy about this forum is that we have a broad mix of investors, some of whom are focused on short-term results and others who are investing for a distant goal (usually retirement), but everyone talks past each other because they fail to define their assumptions for time horizon. Hence what person A means when they say "investing" is completely different from what person B means when they say "investing."

There are people here on the forum (not retired) who make their living fulltime by investing and who care very much about short-term results, and there are other people with fulltime jobs whose only investments are for retirement and they spend just a few hours per year managing them.

Buy and hold, with periodic rebalancing to adjust your asset allocation is most likely still the smartest long-term strategy, yes. But if you're living entirely off your investments right now or will be in the near future, I think you'd want to take a very different approach, starting with adjusting your asset allocation to reduce risk.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Belguy said:


> Buy and hold is still the best investment strategy:


"for long term results." 

I don't think many people argue this point, obviously the longer the holding period, the less riskier [though always a risky 'game' as you would say!] 

It's up to investors to decide what 'long term' means for them and ultimately, it's up to them to figure out how long an investment should be held to hopefully achieve a positive return! 

What also still holds true however:

- the importance of asset allocation; 
- time horizon [how long before you need the funds];
- last, but not least, how much risk are you willing to bear? [not much from your comments here]. 

Conversely, taking advantage of dizzying roller-coaster market volatility can also produce positive results, hence it can be your friend, but hold on, don't chew me yet as I'm not necessarily talking about trading, but about DCA for example, especially at a time when we have historically low [solid/quality] stock prices [yet it appears you have not taken advantage of any of the major dips we've had]. Also taking profits off the table before it disappears like magic, another words, like Argo said, increasing capital.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

It's also not clear whether Belguy is talking about buy and hold as an investment strategy during the accumulation phase of life, or whether buy and hold is still relevant in the decumulation phase - which can also be "long term."


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

My long term portfolio would have looked much worse so far this year if I didn't do any short term profitable trades.

As it has been said thousand times on this forums it doesn't have to be either or, and one size doesn't fit all, just make some goddamn money and be happy with it, if you are not producing the returns you want then re-evaluate your goals and strategies.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

brad said:


> 1. it's still the best strategy *for long term results*.
> 
> 2. One of the things that drives me crazy about this forum is that we have a broad mix of investors, some of whom are focused on short-term results and others who are investing for a distant goal.


1. I had to repeat this on purpose Brad. 

2. And those that do both, so don't let us drive you crazy Brad.  

And there are also some CMF members, who are very sophisticated investors indeed & no, I'm not talking about myself, LOL.  This same group of people also help a lot here, so thank you!


----------



## larry81 (Nov 22, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> 1. I had to repeat this on purpose Brad.
> 
> 2. And those that do both, so don't let us drive you crazy Brad.
> 
> And there are also some CMF members, who are very sophisticated investors indeed & no, I'm not talking about myself, LOL.  This same group of people also help a lot here, so thank you!


There should be separated forums, trading and investing !


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> My long term portfolio would have looked much worse so far this year if I didn't do any short term profitable trades.


Ditto! 

And it's not like we only had rare opportunities to do so, I mean how many rallies have we had in the last couple of years every time there was a major dip? I lost count.

Not only that, but I would also have a lot less shares as well as I used most of the profits to: i) accumulate through DCA, ii) SPP and iii) started new positions as well at prices not seen since 09. 

edit: Larry, *trading is investing!*


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

How fun would the forum be if we only talk about the long term. Talking about the events of the day or even the noise and how it effects us is entertaining.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The difference between trading and investing is simple:

- If your account is running a loss right now, you tell everyone you are investing for the long term
- If your account is running a profit right now, you tell everyone you are trading for the short term.

Adapt and change your story every day, as needed.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Money in the stock market = investing (for me). 

Trading is a separate activity and not all investors are traders.

Growth of capital and / or preservation of capital are possible investing goals, but not all investors will have these goals. 

Decumulators may be interested in preservation of lifetime income stream, and either planning for or not planning for an expected financial legacy.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

brad i sincerely hope i am not one of the ones driving you crazy although this may be the case ...

here is how markets work out for option sellers.

they have nice long positions in hi-quality stocks that they never talk about that would warm your heart & do you proud.

then day by day they race furiously at short term option thingies above & below the trading bands so as to scoop up extra profits.

i have gotten so good at the furious racing that capital gains income from options far exceeds dividend income. Even though i have some excellent dividends. The cap gains are most favourably taxed, as well.

this am i did another big ski jump in rrsp even though it's the tail end of the summer season. Fortunately there was plenty snow left high on the glaciers, a bit granular but still ok for jumping. 

took off in CAD, flew into the air in a norbert's gambit with td bank, bought merck in USD on the downdraft & landed with a perfect telemark of paired option trades. Oxygen.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

In reality that are already TWO distinct topics in this forum--this one for INVESTORS and a separate one for individual stocks/equities for TRADERS!!

Investing does not involve constant buying and selling and market timing as I understand the term.

I think that some people on this 'Investing' topic would be more appropriately involved in the 'Individual Stocks/Equities' topic'

As an investor, I do not participate in the latter.

As a trader and market timer, I don't believe that you should be participating in the 'Investing' topic.

Any thoughts?


----------



## larry81 (Nov 22, 2010)

Belguy said:


> In reality that are already TWO distinct topics in this forum--this one for INVESTORS and a separate one for individual stocks/equities for TRADERS!!
> 
> Investing does not involve constant buying and selling and market timing as I understand the term.
> 
> ...


I agree 100% !


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

Belguy said:


> As an investor, I do not participate in the latter.
> 
> As a trader and market timer, I don't believe that you should be participating in the 'Investing' topic.
> 
> Any thoughts?


1) yes you do participate in topics related to trading

2) everyone should particapate in any topic they choose to

3) any thoughts? yes, stop participating in the topics you claim not to participate and let everyone do as they wish. This isn't world according to Belguy, it's a just a world.

Why are you so obsessed with this trader/investing division?

Traders should leave investment forum and go to individual equities forum? If I buy a blue chip individual equity and plan to hold it for ten years I do not belong to investment forum since I have became this nasty trader thingy?



Belguy said:


> In reality that are already TWO distinct topics in this forum--this one for INVESTORS and a separate one for individual stocks/equities for TRADERS!!


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> brad i sincerely hope i am not one of the ones driving you crazy although this may be the case ...


no, not at all, the only thing that drives me crazy is when people talk past each other because they are operating on different assumptions about timeframes, and it doesn't seem to even occur to them that this is an issue.

Imagine if a marathon runner posed a question about running technique, without mentioning that she only runs marathons, but she received responses from sprinters who assumed she was doing sprints. That's what I mean.

And yes, I understand that it's not necessarily either-or, and that many if not most investors combine short- and long-term investing. It just seems that many people will jump to conclusions or make assumptions about a poster's goals and offer advice based on their own goals without having any idea about the poster's timeframe for investing and what they're investing for.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Belguy said:


> As a trader and market timer, I don't believe that you should be participating in the 'Investing' topic.


Eh? Can you please identify for me the list of threads you'll allow me to participate under?  Given your investment attitude & beliefs [which is entirely your business], I think you're the one who should be excluding himself from certain topics [and I mean no disrespect].

This is a great forum; I have personally learned a lot here and have not limited myself to only the things I'm comfortable with. 

IMO, that's the reason we're here, to contribute, learn, participate and give back a little, not to b1tch & complain so much [but yes, prior to last Sat., you drove me crazy hp].  

Whatever and whoever drives anyone crazy may be easily remedied by simply ignoring them [me]. Also, there is a very useful ignore button for those who are not aware. 

*Dogcom:* you make an excellent point that it would be very limiting & boring to sticking to only long term strategy discussions. Moreover, it would be much less beneficial as less could be learned/understood that way. Discussions are meant to accumulate learning & to make us reflect and question things, not limit ourselves [yawn]. 

*M.gal:* IMO, committing capital in order to gain financial return = investing, no matter the strategy used, at least in my view, however, I'm not prepared to argue with a published author.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

how so, t.gal, a hedged approach drives you crazy, or drove you crazy

?

hedging is useful in volatile markets


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

If you're buy and holding and only making a move once a year, you'd run out of things to talk about pretty fast. Otherwise, if you're following the day-to-day movements you'd unnecessarily drive yourself crazy like poor Belguy. We need all types, IMO.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

please belguy now you are going too far imho.

it was just a few days ago you were a hysterical basket case with fear. Even suggesting that proud, magnificent Hellas had gotten herself into all her troubles just so as to flummox one obscure retiree in faraway canada named le beau gars.

after that performance, i have a bit of difficulty seeing whatever legitimate investing leg you think you may still have left to stand upon.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

The Options lingo hp.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> 1. everyone should particapate in any topic they choose to
> 
> 2. Why are you so obsessed with this trader/investing division?


1. Heck yes, and I'll only give *King Tut* the power to kick me out of this thread. 

2. Curious minds want to know, so yes, please enlighten us Belguy!


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Rogers stock was $4.36 in 2002. Rogers stock is $35.81 today in 2011. In 9 years, their stock is up 721%. If I live another 60 years until 2071, is it is a sure thing to be $294 by the time I'm ready for my fairy tale retirement?

Where will the growth come from? Will world population continue exponential growth? Is Canada the new China? Will Rogers LBO telecoms in emerging markets? Will Rogers increase all Canadian customer service fees 10% per year every year for the next 60 years to reach this target? Will they continue market concentration so the Big 4 become one entitiy? What if the Canadian government of 2050 get fed up with their bullshit and nationalize telecom infrastructure like Australia did with Telstra and force shareholder losses? What if in 2020 Rogers stock is worth $4.36 again? What if I'm wrong?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

_" How fun would the forum be if we only talk about the long term. Talking about the events of the day or even the noise and how it effects us is entertaining."_

exactly.

why waste time talking here about the good old b.o.r.i.n.g. buy-and-hold stuff.

like, if you're buying run-of-the-mill etfs 4 times a year, what are you going to say. Those 4 trades are Bee. Oh. Are. Eye. Enn. Gee.

verb in above-referenced paragraph should be "affect," though.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

So what's the consensus regarding, _"Is Stock buy and hold strategy old fashioned?"_. 

I'm having difficulty coming up with my own answer to the original question because it makes no sense to me. What does fashion have to do with investing strategy?

but no matter ... since this seems to have become a free-4-all, I have a suggestion for belguy.

> compile all your posts (which number at least 6,000***) in audio format and market as "sleep aids" ... it would be a very effective tool.

*** please don't try to dispute the number; I was born in the dark but it weren't yesterday. I distinctly recall you bragging about more than 4,000 on *50+*, evidence of your contribution also exists on *4-nitwits-ring*, and you have over 1,200 and counting here; and who knows where else you've been.

> seriously, no disrespect intended. your collection, if marketed properly, would do very well.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

oh and here's another topic, as long as we're having a free-for-all.

i for one don't believe that an OP who sets up a new thread has any bagging rights whatsoever.

this is an open message board.
thread is cast adrift upon the waters.
moses in his tiny boat floating among the bullrushes.
anyone may find & adopt.
anyone may hijack in any direction.
jmho.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> *M.gal:* IMO, committing capital in order to gain financial return = investing, no matter the strategy used, at least in my view, however, I'm not prepared to argue with a published author.


Two gals agree. I meant exactly that. Money in market = investor. And investors may have different strategies...doesn't mean they aren't investors and are are now [shudder] _traders_.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

Ben Graham defined investing as an operation which "upon thorough analysis promises safety of principal and an adequate return". I suppose we have two types of investors that Graham talks about in his book. Defensive investors, who are today called passive investors are those who are mainly interested in safety and freedom from effort. Enterprising investors want to earn better returns than passive investors through stock selection or market timing. 

I don't see why one cannot comment on the other. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool passive investor but I find stock selection a fascinating subject to follow.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

CanadianCapitalist said:


> Defensive investors, who are today called passive investors are those who are mainly interested in safety and freedom from effort. Enterprising investors want to earn better returns than passive investors through stock selection or market timing.


Passive investing doesn't equal defensive investing, and neither does active investing equal enterprising investing.
It is entirely possible to lose large % of capital as a passive investor and it's totally possible to construct an active portfolio that is lower risk than a passive portfolio.

Risk tolerance should be separate from investing style (active vs. passive).

I think our friend Belguy is mixing up the two as well.
He needs a passive investing style and a lower risk portfolio.
He has ensured the passive part, but the risk level is higher than his tolerance.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

But there are two types of market returns: returns due to business activity (investing), and valuation/price:earnings (speculation).


----------



## jamesbe (May 8, 2010)

Related to the topic title....

I have noticed a lot lately we are bouncing around like crazy. You could make good money just buying last afternoon and selling early morning on the TSE. I've notice almost every single day my entire portfolio is UP between 9am and 11am then by 4pm it's DOWN


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> But there are two types of market returns: returns due to business activity (investing), and valuation/price:earnings (speculation).


The former is owner's earnings and the latter is the recognization of the former by the market.

The former is often partially (or fully) paid out as dividends.
But the latter is equally important.
if the market never appreciates the nominal price of the stock and it languishes for years and years, that can't be good.
You may get the dividend yield but it is often not enough (except in rare cases where high yields have been sustained for many years).

I don't think it is fair to regard all expectations of price appreciation as speculation.


----------



## Mockingbird (Apr 29, 2009)

_"Is Stock buy and hold strategy old fashioned?"_

In a prolonged up market cycle, "NO" 
In a prolonged down market cycle, "YES". (Of course, all in hindsight) 

MB


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

jamesbe said:


> Related to the topic title....
> 
> I have noticed a lot lately we are bouncing around like crazy.


Watching last 30 minutes of trading day is quite interesting, today the additional twist was the TSX headed higher, and US markets down, usually they go more or less hand in hand between 3.30 and 4 pm


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

OK, so I was out of line again! At least I'm consistent!!

And so the quarter has ended up on a down note which seems only appropriate.

If the markets always go up over the longer term, how can a buy-and-hold investor lose any capital if he never sells anything?


----------

