These 16 golden rules for investing came from a super investor, Walter Scholoss. The full article is posted on GuruFocus.
1. Price is the most important factor to use in relation to value
2. Try to establish the value of the company. Remember that a share of stock represents a part of a business and is not just a piece of paper.
3. Use book value as a starting point to try and establish the value of the enterprise. Be sure that debt does not equal 100% of the equity. (Capital and surplus for the common stock).
4. Have patience. Stocks don’t go up immediately.
5. Don’t buy on tips or for a quick move. Let the professionals do that, if they can. Don’t sell on bad news.
6. Don’t be afraid to be a loner but be sure that you are correct in your judgment. You can’t be 100% certain but try to look for the weaknesses in your thinking. Buy on a scale down and sell on a scale up.
7. Have the courage of your convictions once you have made a decision.
8. Have a philosophy of investment and try to follow it. The above is a way that I’ve found successful.
9. Don’t be in too much of a hurry to see. If the stock reaches a price that you think is a fair one, then you can sell but often because a stock goes up say 50%, people say sell it and button up your profit. Before selling try to reevaluate the company again and see where the stock sells in relation to its book value. Be aware of the level of the stock market. Are yields low and P-E rations high. If the stock market historically high. Are people very optimistic etc?
10. When buying a stock, I find it heldful to buy near the low of the past few years. A stock may go as high as 125 and then decline to 60 and you think it attractive. 3 yeas before the stock sold at 20 which shows that there is some vulnerability in it.
11. Try to buy assets at a discount than to buy earnings. Earning can change dramatically in a short time. Usually assets change slowly. One has to know much more about a company if one buys earnings.
12. Listen to suggestions from people you respect. This doesn’t mean you have to accept them. Remember it’s your money and generally it is harder to keep money than to make it. Once you lose a lot of money, it is hard to make it back.
13. Try not to let your emotions affect your judgment. Fear and greed are probably the worst emotions to have inconnection with purchase and sale of stocks.
14. Remember the work compounding. For example, if you can make 12% a year and reinvest the money back, you will double your money in 6 yrs, taxes excluded. Remember the rule of 72. Your rate of return into 72 will tell you the number of years to double your money.
15. Prefer stock over bonds. Bonds will limit your gains and inflation will reduce your purchasing power.
16. Be careful of leverage. It can go against you.
26.10.09
16.10.09
Index Investing: Track the Market with Passive Strategy
More and more institutional investors, especially pension funds, are applying index-investing strategy by shifting their assets from active managers to index funds.
SmartInMoney reported, there are four major attractions of indexing that motivate investors to track market performance, rather than try to outperform it.
1. They offer a remarkably simple, convenient way to create a diversified portfolio.
2. Index funds typically cost less to manage than actively managed funds.
3. Their performance track record has been impressive, even during bear markets.
4. Index funds are fully invested strategy that keeps investor staying in the game during market recover
Simple
Indexing is a very simple way of gaining exposure to an investment style or the broad market. Index funds can help investors to build a portfolio that's appropriately diversified to meet investors’ goals, time horizon, and tolerance for risk in a convenient way.
Low Cost
Index funds’ main advantage is lower cost than investors would get from an actively managed mutual fund. Index funds win in all three components of investment cost.
Index funds charge low expense ratio, which is the cost of managing the fund. An average non-index fund has an expense ratio of around 1.5%; whereas many index funds have an expense ratio somewhere between 0.15% to 0.5%. Index funds are not actively managed; they are managed largely using computer programs. There are no expensive analysts required to try to figure out what bets to take.
Index funds transaction costs are generally much lower. The costs are incurred as the portfolio manager is managing the portfolio. Indexing is a very low-turnover strategy, relatively low compared to active management. While active strategy involves relatively frequent buying and selling securities, index fund managers only need to maintain the appropriate weightings to match the index performance; the technique is known as passive management.
The third cost is associated with taxes, in the form of capital gains or taxes on dividends. Passive management generates realized capital gains from trading far less frequently than does active management. Consequently, more tax payments could be either deferred of avoided entirely.
What matters to investors are after-cost returns. A fund's return is the total return of the portfolio minus the fees an investor pays for the investment costs. If a fund charges 1.5%, then the portfolio manager have to outperform the fund’s benchmark by that amount just to be even. Anything less, and the fund's returns would lag its benchmark. Studies reveal main culprit for the failure of actively managed funds to beat the indexing is the high costs that they charge. The more you trade, the less you earn, because management fee, transaction costs, taxes and bad decisions always kill returns
Hard-to-Beat Performance
Historically, index funds have performed very competitively against actively managed funds, and frequently outperforming a majority of active funds whether it's a shorter time period, like a year, three years, five years, or extending out ten years.
Over the year 2008, which was a very difficult year in the marketplace, index funds still outperformed a majority of the actively managed portfolios. Over the same period of time, index fund performance was very competitive against the active investments in different segments within the marketplace. In the nine Morningstar "style boxes," such as large-cap value or large-cap growth, indexing outperformed active managers in three of those, according to Gus Sauter, Vanguard's chief investment officer. It underperformed in three, and matched the active managers in three.
Over longer time periods, index funds provided even more competitive performance because that's where the costs of active management get compounded over time. So investors tend to find that over a 10-year (or more) time horizons, most indexes have outperformed the active investments.
Recent studies provided more evidence that the failure of active management in beating their benchmark index is replicated across almost all categories, not only U.S. stock funds but also bond funds and even emerging-markets funds. What's more, a new study found that it is very hard, if not impossible, to justify active management for most individual, taxable investors over a long term. (Detail findings of the studies are elaborated in the "Index Investing Supremacy")
Investing in an index fund doesn't guarantee that you'll never lose money. Index funds will decline in a bear market and up in a bull market, right along with the market. Investors should really think long-term because indexing is a great way to capture the long-term returns of the marketplace with its low-cost benefit. If investors get nervous during a downturn and sell, they’ll probably miss the recovery.
Fully Invested
Index investing can be a great way to capture the typically fast burst that a market experiences when it's making the shift from a bear market to a bull market. A fully invested strategy of index investing positions investors very well to benefit from the large rate of return during the market recovery. It's designed to perform right in line with the market as it goes up. In the last five or six bear markets, particularly the very steep bear markets, the market typically had a very large increase in the first 12 months coming out of a bear market (read "One year after the bear").
Market just witnessed that after months of the most recent cruel bear market, which bottomed in March, the stock markets closed the third quarter ending Sept. 30. 2009 with huge gain and the Dow Jones Industrial Average reclaimed the 10,000 mark on Oct. 14, 2009.
As a bear market turns into a bull market, active managers may suffer from a couple of problems as a bear market turns into a bull market. First, the active managers tend to hold the most cash near market bottoms. Because of the cash drag in an actively managed portfolio, it won't fully benefit in the rebound.
SmartInMoney reported, there are four major attractions of indexing that motivate investors to track market performance, rather than try to outperform it.
1. They offer a remarkably simple, convenient way to create a diversified portfolio.
2. Index funds typically cost less to manage than actively managed funds.
3. Their performance track record has been impressive, even during bear markets.
4. Index funds are fully invested strategy that keeps investor staying in the game during market recover
Simple
Indexing is a very simple way of gaining exposure to an investment style or the broad market. Index funds can help investors to build a portfolio that's appropriately diversified to meet investors’ goals, time horizon, and tolerance for risk in a convenient way.
Low Cost
Index funds’ main advantage is lower cost than investors would get from an actively managed mutual fund. Index funds win in all three components of investment cost.
Index funds charge low expense ratio, which is the cost of managing the fund. An average non-index fund has an expense ratio of around 1.5%; whereas many index funds have an expense ratio somewhere between 0.15% to 0.5%. Index funds are not actively managed; they are managed largely using computer programs. There are no expensive analysts required to try to figure out what bets to take.
Index funds transaction costs are generally much lower. The costs are incurred as the portfolio manager is managing the portfolio. Indexing is a very low-turnover strategy, relatively low compared to active management. While active strategy involves relatively frequent buying and selling securities, index fund managers only need to maintain the appropriate weightings to match the index performance; the technique is known as passive management.
The third cost is associated with taxes, in the form of capital gains or taxes on dividends. Passive management generates realized capital gains from trading far less frequently than does active management. Consequently, more tax payments could be either deferred of avoided entirely.
What matters to investors are after-cost returns. A fund's return is the total return of the portfolio minus the fees an investor pays for the investment costs. If a fund charges 1.5%, then the portfolio manager have to outperform the fund’s benchmark by that amount just to be even. Anything less, and the fund's returns would lag its benchmark. Studies reveal main culprit for the failure of actively managed funds to beat the indexing is the high costs that they charge. The more you trade, the less you earn, because management fee, transaction costs, taxes and bad decisions always kill returns
Hard-to-Beat Performance
Historically, index funds have performed very competitively against actively managed funds, and frequently outperforming a majority of active funds whether it's a shorter time period, like a year, three years, five years, or extending out ten years.
Over the year 2008, which was a very difficult year in the marketplace, index funds still outperformed a majority of the actively managed portfolios. Over the same period of time, index fund performance was very competitive against the active investments in different segments within the marketplace. In the nine Morningstar "style boxes," such as large-cap value or large-cap growth, indexing outperformed active managers in three of those, according to Gus Sauter, Vanguard's chief investment officer. It underperformed in three, and matched the active managers in three.
Over longer time periods, index funds provided even more competitive performance because that's where the costs of active management get compounded over time. So investors tend to find that over a 10-year (or more) time horizons, most indexes have outperformed the active investments.
Recent studies provided more evidence that the failure of active management in beating their benchmark index is replicated across almost all categories, not only U.S. stock funds but also bond funds and even emerging-markets funds. What's more, a new study found that it is very hard, if not impossible, to justify active management for most individual, taxable investors over a long term. (Detail findings of the studies are elaborated in the "Index Investing Supremacy")
Investing in an index fund doesn't guarantee that you'll never lose money. Index funds will decline in a bear market and up in a bull market, right along with the market. Investors should really think long-term because indexing is a great way to capture the long-term returns of the marketplace with its low-cost benefit. If investors get nervous during a downturn and sell, they’ll probably miss the recovery.
Fully Invested
Index investing can be a great way to capture the typically fast burst that a market experiences when it's making the shift from a bear market to a bull market. A fully invested strategy of index investing positions investors very well to benefit from the large rate of return during the market recovery. It's designed to perform right in line with the market as it goes up. In the last five or six bear markets, particularly the very steep bear markets, the market typically had a very large increase in the first 12 months coming out of a bear market (read "One year after the bear").
Market just witnessed that after months of the most recent cruel bear market, which bottomed in March, the stock markets closed the third quarter ending Sept. 30. 2009 with huge gain and the Dow Jones Industrial Average reclaimed the 10,000 mark on Oct. 14, 2009.
As a bear market turns into a bull market, active managers may suffer from a couple of problems as a bear market turns into a bull market. First, the active managers tend to hold the most cash near market bottoms. Because of the cash drag in an actively managed portfolio, it won't fully benefit in the rebound.
15.10.09
Current bull is still below the median
As of Oct 14, 2009, the current bull market that started on Mar 9, 2009 has gained 61.41% within 219 calendar days. The current bull is still below the median in terms of both gains and days. The median gain for all bull markets has been 68%, and the median length has been 308 days, wrote Seeking Alpha.The table shows historical S&P 500 bull markets since index data begins in 1927. The table is sorted by bull market length. The bull markets had at least a 20% gain that was preceded by at least a 20% decline.
Table: Courtesy of Seeking Alpha
14.10.09
Confidence returned, Dow reclaimed 10,000 mark
U.S. stocks soared higher sparked by earnings news on Wednesday, Oct. 14, pushing the Dow Jones Industrial Average to close above 10,000 for the first time in more than year. The sharp rally signaled investors' confidence that the economy is recovering from the financial crisis and recession.
SmartInMoney reported that the Dow finished up 144.90 points, or 1.5%, to close at 10,015.86, its highest level since global markets plunge on Oct. 6, 2008, when the Dow fell below 10,000 amid the outbreak of financial crisis on Wall Street. The Dow first closed above 10,000 in May 1999 but retreated in the years after the dot-com bubble deflated. It then regained the 10,000 mark in late 2003 before peaking at 14,000 in October 2007.
Other indexes hit fresh one-year highs as well. The broader S&P 500 stock index gained 1.8% to end at 1,092.02, while the Nasdaq Composite rose 1.5% to 2,172.23.
The Dow is still more than 4,000 points off its all-time highs; while S&P 500, a broader measure of the market, are down 30 percent from their peaks.
The sharp rally was fueled by surprisingly better than expected results from two blue chips, Intel and J.P. Morgan Chase and a smaller decline than anticipated in U.S. retail sales.
SmartInMoney reported that the Dow finished up 144.90 points, or 1.5%, to close at 10,015.86, its highest level since global markets plunge on Oct. 6, 2008, when the Dow fell below 10,000 amid the outbreak of financial crisis on Wall Street. The Dow first closed above 10,000 in May 1999 but retreated in the years after the dot-com bubble deflated. It then regained the 10,000 mark in late 2003 before peaking at 14,000 in October 2007.
Other indexes hit fresh one-year highs as well. The broader S&P 500 stock index gained 1.8% to end at 1,092.02, while the Nasdaq Composite rose 1.5% to 2,172.23.
The Dow is still more than 4,000 points off its all-time highs; while S&P 500, a broader measure of the market, are down 30 percent from their peaks.
The sharp rally was fueled by surprisingly better than expected results from two blue chips, Intel and J.P. Morgan Chase and a smaller decline than anticipated in U.S. retail sales.
13.10.09
Three providers control ETF market
Among 95 ETF providers, the trio of iShare, State Street Global Adviser (SSgA) and Vanguard control more than 71% of the worldwide asset under management and 85% of the U.S. assets at the end of August 2009, reports SmartInMoney.
As a the largest ETF provider in terms of both number of products and asset, iShare alone controls 48.2% global market and 52.9% U.S. market with $429.32 billion asset under management from 391 ETFs. SSgA is second with 15.6% market share followed by Vanguard with 15.6% market share.
SPDR (SPY) leads the ETF markets with $73.3 billion asset under management as of the end of August 2009. SPDR from the State Street Global Adviser tracks S&P 500 index, an index of 500 largest businesses in the U.S.
At the second place is iShares MSCI EAFE Index (EFA) that track MSCI EAFE index, an equity benchmark for its international stock performance, with $33.5 billion net assets. Tracking performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets index, iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index (EEM) trails closely at the third with 30.7 billion net assets. These three U.S. ETFs top the ranks in both U.S. and global markets.
This rank is not surprising as investors commonly use these three ETFs as vehicles to diversify their equity investment. Adding equity exposure of both developed nations outside of North America and emerging countries to equity of largest U.S. companies provides investor with a broad diversification covering global equities. This ability to offer exposure to such a wide variety markets and sectors with relative ease and cheap is EFTs’ main strength that is not offered by other investment vehicles. As a result, ETFs continue to enjoy considerable momentum.
As a the largest ETF provider in terms of both number of products and asset, iShare alone controls 48.2% global market and 52.9% U.S. market with $429.32 billion asset under management from 391 ETFs. SSgA is second with 15.6% market share followed by Vanguard with 15.6% market share.
SPDR (SPY) leads the ETF markets with $73.3 billion asset under management as of the end of August 2009. SPDR from the State Street Global Adviser tracks S&P 500 index, an index of 500 largest businesses in the U.S.
At the second place is iShares MSCI EAFE Index (EFA) that track MSCI EAFE index, an equity benchmark for its international stock performance, with $33.5 billion net assets. Tracking performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets index, iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index (EEM) trails closely at the third with 30.7 billion net assets. These three U.S. ETFs top the ranks in both U.S. and global markets.
This rank is not surprising as investors commonly use these three ETFs as vehicles to diversify their equity investment. Adding equity exposure of both developed nations outside of North America and emerging countries to equity of largest U.S. companies provides investor with a broad diversification covering global equities. This ability to offer exposure to such a wide variety markets and sectors with relative ease and cheap is EFTs’ main strength that is not offered by other investment vehicles. As a result, ETFs continue to enjoy considerable momentum.
11.10.09
ETF assets hit an all time high
The ETF benefits have attracted many institutional investors and retail investors since the first launch in U.S. in 1993. U.S. ETFs enjoyed $47.4 billion inflow in the first seven months of 2009 while regular mutual funds suffered an outflow of $50.6 billion, reports SmartInMoney.
During the first seven month of 2009 global net sales of ETFs was $65.7 billion, which was still lower than the net sales of mutual funds of $97.5 billion, according to Strategic Insight.
A worldwide trend has seen global ETF assets hit an all time high of $891 billion at the end of August 2009 according to the September 2009 edition report from Barclays Global Investors (BGI). The new high of global ETF assets is 3.9% above the previous all time high of $858 billion set in July 2009. Year-to-date assets have risen by 25.3% which is more than the 18.0% rise in the MSCI World Index in US dollar terms. The universal ETF industry had 1,773 ETFs with 3,137 listings from 95 providers on 41 exchanges at the end of August 2009.
The U.S. ETF assets also hit an all time high of $607 billion at the end of August 2009, a 4.3% increase from the previous all time high of $582 billion set in July 2009. Meanwhile, the U.S. ETF industry had 710 ETFs, from 22 providers on 3 exchanges.
During the first seven month of 2009 global net sales of ETFs was $65.7 billion, which was still lower than the net sales of mutual funds of $97.5 billion, according to Strategic Insight.
A worldwide trend has seen global ETF assets hit an all time high of $891 billion at the end of August 2009 according to the September 2009 edition report from Barclays Global Investors (BGI). The new high of global ETF assets is 3.9% above the previous all time high of $858 billion set in July 2009. Year-to-date assets have risen by 25.3% which is more than the 18.0% rise in the MSCI World Index in US dollar terms. The universal ETF industry had 1,773 ETFs with 3,137 listings from 95 providers on 41 exchanges at the end of August 2009.
The U.S. ETF assets also hit an all time high of $607 billion at the end of August 2009, a 4.3% increase from the previous all time high of $582 billion set in July 2009. Meanwhile, the U.S. ETF industry had 710 ETFs, from 22 providers on 3 exchanges.
1.10.09
Big gains followed a brutal bear market
Stock markets closed its best quarter since 1998 on Wednesday and posted big gains following a seventeenth months of cruel bear market. Stock markets have rallied since the early spring and gained steam over the summer, wrote SmartInMoney.com.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average index is up 48% from its March 9 low and up 11% this year, although still down 31% from its October 2007 record.
The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index is up 17% for the year and up 56% from its March low but off 32% from its October 2007 high.
For the past seven months, it has been a beta-driven rally. As investors took advantage of the easy money and moved back into riskier assets, many of the biggest decliners during the crisis posted the largest gains. Buying volatile stocks is known as a beta trade. A financial statistic called beta is a measure of an individual stock's moves in relation to the market. A stock with a beta of two, it historically moves twice as much as the market.
Read the full article at SmartInMoney
The Dow Jones Industrial Average index is up 48% from its March 9 low and up 11% this year, although still down 31% from its October 2007 record.
The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index is up 17% for the year and up 56% from its March low but off 32% from its October 2007 high.
For the past seven months, it has been a beta-driven rally. As investors took advantage of the easy money and moved back into riskier assets, many of the biggest decliners during the crisis posted the largest gains. Buying volatile stocks is known as a beta trade. A financial statistic called beta is a measure of an individual stock's moves in relation to the market. A stock with a beta of two, it historically moves twice as much as the market.
Read the full article at SmartInMoney
1.9.09
September effect mystery
We are in the beginning of September, a well known month among investors with its September seasonal effect on stock markets around the world. Investors will find an interesting article about the September anomaly in SmartInMoney.com. Next are excerpts from the article.
... there is a puzzle whether the stock market will continue its upward momentum or will fall to follow the seasonal pattern of the September effect anomaly. According to the efficient market hypothesis (EMH), the stock return should not be predictable and thus, the behavior of the stock returns inconsistent with the EMH is considered an “anomaly”.
Jeremy J. Siegel in his book “Stocks for the Long Run” shows that September is by far the worst moth of the year. Dow Jones Industrials has an average negative return of 1% for the period of 1885 to 2006. Furthermore, the September effect has not only prevailed until recently, but it has actually been stronger since 1990 with an average negative return of 1.5% from 1990 to 2006.
The poor returns in September also prevail in the rest of the world. September is the only month of the year that has negative returns in a value-weighted index. September has been the worst month in 17 of the 20 countries analyzed and all the major world indexes, including the EAFE Index and the Morgan Stanley all world index.
A dissertation presented by Hyung-Suk Choi from Georgia Institute of Technology in December 2008 mentions that the U.S. stock market return in September was negative 0.24 % over the last two hundred years, and it is the only month with the negative mean return. The September average return is significantly negative in 15 out of 18 developed countries over the whole sample period, which varies from 38 years to 208 years upon data availability. Moreover, the September return is negative in all 18 countries over the period 1970 to 2007.
... there is a puzzle whether the stock market will continue its upward momentum or will fall to follow the seasonal pattern of the September effect anomaly. According to the efficient market hypothesis (EMH), the stock return should not be predictable and thus, the behavior of the stock returns inconsistent with the EMH is considered an “anomaly”.
Jeremy J. Siegel in his book “Stocks for the Long Run” shows that September is by far the worst moth of the year. Dow Jones Industrials has an average negative return of 1% for the period of 1885 to 2006. Furthermore, the September effect has not only prevailed until recently, but it has actually been stronger since 1990 with an average negative return of 1.5% from 1990 to 2006.
The poor returns in September also prevail in the rest of the world. September is the only month of the year that has negative returns in a value-weighted index. September has been the worst month in 17 of the 20 countries analyzed and all the major world indexes, including the EAFE Index and the Morgan Stanley all world index.
A dissertation presented by Hyung-Suk Choi from Georgia Institute of Technology in December 2008 mentions that the U.S. stock market return in September was negative 0.24 % over the last two hundred years, and it is the only month with the negative mean return. The September average return is significantly negative in 15 out of 18 developed countries over the whole sample period, which varies from 38 years to 208 years upon data availability. Moreover, the September return is negative in all 18 countries over the period 1970 to 2007.
9.8.09
ETFs keep flourishing
SmartInMoney.com wrote in the article "ETF Structure and Advantage" that Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) keep flourishing as they recorded their largest month on record in July with US$646-billion in assets, according to Birinyi Associates
Exchange traded funds in their basic form are baskets of securities that are traded, like individual stocks, on an exchange. Funds can track any number of indexes from the large-cap S&P 500, small-cap Russell 2000, or even commodities. Most of ETFs on the market currently are passively managed, tracking a wide variety of broad to narrow market indexes.
As of July, SPDR (SPY) remains the largest ETF at US$69-billion. SPDR Trust is an exchange-traded fund that holds all of the S&P 500 Index stocks
Exchange traded funds have grown rapidly to cover most broad investment purchases and many niche markets. Funds that drill down into specific sectors, industries, regions, countries, and asset classes make up a great percentage of the ETF universe, offering relatively inexpensive access to investments such as currencies, precious metals, or emergent industries that thus far have been the sole province of larger institutional and wealthy investors.
Recently, fund companies have also launched actively managed ETFs. These funds are not tied to a benchmark, but continue to sport the familiar benefits of ETFs.
ETFs attract both investors and traders who do not wish to make individual stock selections but only capture the broad movement of the market. ETFs appeal to different types of do-it-yourself investors. Investors who prefer index funds over actively managed offerings find ETFs appealing because many of them are very cheap. Some day-traders like ETFs because of their stock-like qualities and their focus on individual sectors or markets.
Read full article at smartinmoney.com
Exchange traded funds in their basic form are baskets of securities that are traded, like individual stocks, on an exchange. Funds can track any number of indexes from the large-cap S&P 500, small-cap Russell 2000, or even commodities. Most of ETFs on the market currently are passively managed, tracking a wide variety of broad to narrow market indexes.
As of July, SPDR (SPY) remains the largest ETF at US$69-billion. SPDR Trust is an exchange-traded fund that holds all of the S&P 500 Index stocks
Exchange traded funds have grown rapidly to cover most broad investment purchases and many niche markets. Funds that drill down into specific sectors, industries, regions, countries, and asset classes make up a great percentage of the ETF universe, offering relatively inexpensive access to investments such as currencies, precious metals, or emergent industries that thus far have been the sole province of larger institutional and wealthy investors.
Recently, fund companies have also launched actively managed ETFs. These funds are not tied to a benchmark, but continue to sport the familiar benefits of ETFs.
ETFs attract both investors and traders who do not wish to make individual stock selections but only capture the broad movement of the market. ETFs appeal to different types of do-it-yourself investors. Investors who prefer index funds over actively managed offerings find ETFs appealing because many of them are very cheap. Some day-traders like ETFs because of their stock-like qualities and their focus on individual sectors or markets.
Read full article at smartinmoney.com
4.8.09
Flash orders will be banned
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is moving toward banning a trading practice, called as “flash orders”, that gives some brokerages a split-second advantage in buying or selling stocks.
Flash orders give certain members of exchanges including Nasdaq, Direct Edge and BATS the ability to buy and sell order information for milliseconds before that information is made public. High-speed computer software can take advantage of that brief period to allow those members to get better prices and profits.
Flash orders give certain members of exchanges including Nasdaq, Direct Edge and BATS the ability to buy and sell order information for milliseconds before that information is made public. High-speed computer software can take advantage of that brief period to allow those members to get better prices and profits.
26.3.09
Investing in bear market by dollar cost averaging
At times like these you may even admit that shares are probably pretty cheap now. But what if things get a lot worse?
Investing by dollar cost averaging can facilitate your investment appetite and your worry about the risk. The idea is that you put exactly the same amount of money into mutual funds or stocks every month or certain interval of time.
Choosing to dollar cost average strategy, you are giving up any attempt to time or catch the market bottom. Trying to catch the bottom is like attempting grasp a falling knife.
To see how dollar cost averaging might have helped an ordinary investor during the worst meltdown in history, Brett Arends looked at the Great Depression data from Ibbotson Associates. He looked at total shareholder returns, which includes reinvested dividends, for a basket of the top 500 companies on the market. He wrote the following results on the Wall Street Journal.
At the worst moment in the crash of 1929-1932, someone who dollar cost averaged had still lost about two-thirds of his or her money.
That is plenty scary. Terrifying, even. But before you bolt from your mutual funds, never to return, let me add several things.
First, these are the numbers for the unluckiest investor - the guy who began dollar cost averaging at the absolute worst moment in history, namely Sept. 3, 1929. Those who started later in the crash did at least slightly better.
Second, the performance in real terms wasn't quite as bad as it seems. That's because of deflation - the phenomenon of falling prices that helped cause the crash in the first place. A dollar in 1932 bought a lot more than a dollar in 1929: Average prices fell by about a third. So in real terms even the unluckiest investor - one who started in September 1929 - was only down, at the low point, by just over a half.
Third, they recovered fast. When the market turned, those who stuck quietly to their plan got repaid quickly. Forget that stuff about 1954. According to Ibbotson data, someone who dollar cost averaged was back on level terms by 1933. And by 1936 he had doubled his money (though the crash of 1938 then knocked him back to evens for a while).
Incidentally, while Wall Street plummeted 89% at its lows, overseas markets did not do quite so badly. They fell, overall, about two-thirds according to data from Philippe Jorion, an economics professor at University of California-Irvine. That's still bad, but it is very different from 89%.
It's an argument for sticking to regular investments through this crash: Not bailing, and not jumping in with both feet either. The simplest strategy worked; investing the same amount, every month. It's also an argument for investing globally, and not just in the U.S., which is a lot easier to do today than it was in 1929.
Sponsored Links
Futurist69
Consfin
Investing by dollar cost averaging can facilitate your investment appetite and your worry about the risk. The idea is that you put exactly the same amount of money into mutual funds or stocks every month or certain interval of time.
Choosing to dollar cost average strategy, you are giving up any attempt to time or catch the market bottom. Trying to catch the bottom is like attempting grasp a falling knife.
To see how dollar cost averaging might have helped an ordinary investor during the worst meltdown in history, Brett Arends looked at the Great Depression data from Ibbotson Associates. He looked at total shareholder returns, which includes reinvested dividends, for a basket of the top 500 companies on the market. He wrote the following results on the Wall Street Journal.
At the worst moment in the crash of 1929-1932, someone who dollar cost averaged had still lost about two-thirds of his or her money.
That is plenty scary. Terrifying, even. But before you bolt from your mutual funds, never to return, let me add several things.
First, these are the numbers for the unluckiest investor - the guy who began dollar cost averaging at the absolute worst moment in history, namely Sept. 3, 1929. Those who started later in the crash did at least slightly better.
Second, the performance in real terms wasn't quite as bad as it seems. That's because of deflation - the phenomenon of falling prices that helped cause the crash in the first place. A dollar in 1932 bought a lot more than a dollar in 1929: Average prices fell by about a third. So in real terms even the unluckiest investor - one who started in September 1929 - was only down, at the low point, by just over a half.
Third, they recovered fast. When the market turned, those who stuck quietly to their plan got repaid quickly. Forget that stuff about 1954. According to Ibbotson data, someone who dollar cost averaged was back on level terms by 1933. And by 1936 he had doubled his money (though the crash of 1938 then knocked him back to evens for a while).
Incidentally, while Wall Street plummeted 89% at its lows, overseas markets did not do quite so badly. They fell, overall, about two-thirds according to data from Philippe Jorion, an economics professor at University of California-Irvine. That's still bad, but it is very different from 89%.
It's an argument for sticking to regular investments through this crash: Not bailing, and not jumping in with both feet either. The simplest strategy worked; investing the same amount, every month. It's also an argument for investing globally, and not just in the U.S., which is a lot easier to do today than it was in 1929.
Sponsored Links
Futurist69
Consfin
12.3.09
Madoff goes to jail for running Ponzi scheme
Bernie L. Madoff pleaded guilty to all charges against him for running the largest Ponzi scheme at a hearing in Federal District Court on Thursday, Mar. 12. He also said he was deeply sorry and ashamed.
Mr. Madoff delivered a plea allocution, essentially an explanation of his crime and an acknowledgment of guilt. “I am painfully aware that I have deeply hurt many, many people, including the members of my family, my closest friends, business associates and the thousands of clients who gave me their money,” he said in his statement. “I cannot adequately express how sorry I am for what I have done.”
Madoff was also pulled away to jail, after the judge Denny Chin refused to let him remain free until sentencing. “I don’t need your statement,” the judge told prosecutors, who were waiting to argue against setting Madoff free until his sentencing time in June. “It is my intention to remand.”
Here's the AP's list of the government’s 11 counts and possibly penalties:
Count 1: Securities fraud. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison; fine of the greatest of $5 million or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; restitution.
Count 2: Investment adviser fraud. Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 3: Mail fraud. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 4: Wire fraud. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 5: International money laundering, related to transfer of funds between New York-based brokerage operation and London trading desk. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 6: International money laundering. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 7: Money laundering. Maximum penalty: 10 years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 8: False statements. Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 9: Perjury. Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 10: Making a false filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Maximum Penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 11: Theft from an employee benefit plan, for failing to invest pension fund assets on behalf of about 35 labor union pension plans. Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, fine and restitution.
Mr. Madoff delivered a plea allocution, essentially an explanation of his crime and an acknowledgment of guilt. “I am painfully aware that I have deeply hurt many, many people, including the members of my family, my closest friends, business associates and the thousands of clients who gave me their money,” he said in his statement. “I cannot adequately express how sorry I am for what I have done.”
Madoff was also pulled away to jail, after the judge Denny Chin refused to let him remain free until sentencing. “I don’t need your statement,” the judge told prosecutors, who were waiting to argue against setting Madoff free until his sentencing time in June. “It is my intention to remand.”
Here's the AP's list of the government’s 11 counts and possibly penalties:
Count 1: Securities fraud. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison; fine of the greatest of $5 million or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; restitution.
Count 2: Investment adviser fraud. Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 3: Mail fraud. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 4: Wire fraud. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 5: International money laundering, related to transfer of funds between New York-based brokerage operation and London trading desk. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 6: International money laundering. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 7: Money laundering. Maximum penalty: 10 years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 8: False statements. Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 9: Perjury. Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 10: Making a false filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Maximum Penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
Count 11: Theft from an employee benefit plan, for failing to invest pension fund assets on behalf of about 35 labor union pension plans. Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, fine and restitution.
31.1.09
How small investors got burned by Madoff
Bernard Madoff, was arrested Dec. 11, 2008 and charged criminally at federal court in Manhattan with securities fraud in masterminding a massive Ponzi scheme.
The alleged fraud of Bernard Madoff has put the heat on so-called feeders, the giant hedge funds that funneled more than $20 billion to the now-disgraced money manager. But it turns out those players depended on another group of smaller funds and individuals to gather money. The largely unregulated crowd, including accountants, lawyers, investment managers, even doctors, opened the exclusive world of hedge funds to more investors and charged exorbitant fees for the privilege.
A lot of small investors got exposure to Madoff through sub-feeders. The system allowed investors to gain entrée to Madoff with far fewer dollars, thereby expanding his clientele beyond big institutions and billionaires to wealthy individuals of more modest means. Many investors had no idea what they were buying since marketing documents rarely mentioned Madoff by name.
Fees were collected at every level. Investors paid layer upon layer of fees with seemingly little regard for how they ate into gains. Those at the bottom paid the biggest tab and realized the smallest returns; and now only see their investments disappear.
The alleged fraud of Bernard Madoff has put the heat on so-called feeders, the giant hedge funds that funneled more than $20 billion to the now-disgraced money manager. But it turns out those players depended on another group of smaller funds and individuals to gather money. The largely unregulated crowd, including accountants, lawyers, investment managers, even doctors, opened the exclusive world of hedge funds to more investors and charged exorbitant fees for the privilege.
A lot of small investors got exposure to Madoff through sub-feeders. The system allowed investors to gain entrée to Madoff with far fewer dollars, thereby expanding his clientele beyond big institutions and billionaires to wealthy individuals of more modest means. Many investors had no idea what they were buying since marketing documents rarely mentioned Madoff by name.
Fees were collected at every level. Investors paid layer upon layer of fees with seemingly little regard for how they ate into gains. Those at the bottom paid the biggest tab and realized the smallest returns; and now only see their investments disappear.
10.1.09
Lessons from tumultuous 2008
We just left the tumultuous year 2008, when
Entering this new year of 2009, investors should learn the lesson of the 2008. John C. Bogle, the founder and former chief executive of the Vanguard Group of Mutual Funds, shared his following thought about Six Lesson for Investor, as he wrote on The Wall Street Journal.
Beware of market forecasts, even by experts.
…Strategists aren't always wrong. But they have been consistent, betting year after year that the market will rise. Thus, they got it about right in 2004, 2006 and 2007, but also totally missed the market declines in 2000, 2001 and 2002, and vastly underestimated the resurgence in 2003…
Never underrate the importance of asset allocation.
…With all the focus on historical returns that greatly favor stocks, don't ignore bonds. Consider not only the probabilities of future returns on stocks, but the consequences if you are wrong…
Mutual funds with superior performance records often falter.
… Chasing past performance is all too often a loser's game…
Owning the market remains the strategy of choice.
…Active management strategies as a group lose because they are expensive. Passive indexing strategies win because they are cheap…
Look before you leap into alternative asset classes.
…When the investment grass looks greener on the other side of the fence, look twice before you leap…
Beware of financial innovation.
…Most of financial innovation is designed to enrich the innovators, not investors…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)