Text Book Head and Shoulders Pattern
Anybody been watching the head and shoulders pattern on the S&P 500 & Dow?
Looks like it's breaking down like magic. If it acts like a textbook H&S typically would we should see 850, a historical area of support, on the S&P and 7800 on the DOW (ish in both cases) in the next few days. Any thoughts?Just numbness at this point.
[quote=Borker Boy]Just numbness at this point.[/quote] LOL
Well If it gets there quick there will be a three standard deviation penetration with a 97%+ probability of retracement. I'll be selling puts and going long with some rather tight stops and bag a few swing trades with any luck. I have stops on almost everything at this point. If we have the 1933 like secondary tank and or retest the lows. I'll be in almost all cash.Gaddock, do you run discretionary money? Seems tough to find the time to do all of that AND call all your clients to execute. Would be much easier in a UMA/discretionary account for RIA clients?
Both my managers think my gig is ripe for a PIM. Until then most of my clients are on board with what we are doing and can give a quick yes or no.
Now what ?
[quote=Ron 14]
Now what ?
[/quote] Looks like you would be better off selling American Funds door to door than listening to all the "technical analysis" out there. Filter out the noise and buy good companies and watch them grow over time! Just my .02I totally agree with you. Can the crap and buy at all times. I just couldn’t sell enough of them to make a living, doesn’t mean I don’t believe in their funds.
And I don't just mean American funds....I use lots of funds, preferred and otherwise! I have a friend with UBS that spouts his timing theories using technical analysis...Very few of the brightest financial minds in the world can do it successfully, but HE thinks he can!...I totally agree with you. Can the crap and buy at all times. I just couldn’t sell enough of them to make a living, doesn’t mean I don’t believe in their funds.
buy and hold only works if you have 80 year time horizons or catch a secular bull market.
We always see the graphics based on 1984-2002 market return 9.66
If you missed just the best: Your return fell to:
10days 6.44
20days 4.16
30days 2.18
40days 0.47
But they never show the flip side.
Missed the worst your return grew to
10days 14.67
20days 17.28
30days 19.46
40days 21.46
And for the crazy arguers
If you missed best and worst return
10days 11.30
20days 11.39
30days 11.31
40days 11.31
So maybe somewhere in the middle is the answer
Also why is the market up? AT&T reports a drop in profits and people are excited? McDonalds reports a lower qtrly profit…Ford refinances and everyone thinks they are great(and they are compared to the rest in their industry GM and chrysler bankrupt)… Jobless claims have peaked?? Really who is hiring? Hershey profits up 72% thanks to price hike and marketing effort(i didn’t even know they advertised anymore, so we can scratch the marketing and rely on the price hike(i am sure that will last with consumers))
No mention of commercial real estate, credit cards, no housing market(haven’t seen a new home built in a while)
[quote=Ron 14]I totally agree with you. Can the crap and buy at all times. I just couldn’t sell enough of them to make a living, doesn’t mean I don’t believe in their funds.
And I don’t just mean American funds…I use lots of funds, preferred and otherwise! I have a friend with UBS that spouts his timing theories using technical analysis…Very few of the brightest financial minds in the world can do it successfully, but HE thinks he can!..[/quote]
Being bright doesn’t make you good at investing. They can be smart all they want. Discipline is what wins.
You can be smart and not disciplined. People make money market timing because they have icewater in their veins. They don’t have “favorite investments” like Jones teaches people to ask.
and the typical investor doesn’t have ice water in their veins so if I am trying to help them it sure as hell won’t be market timing, it will be from a disciplined long term approach
How are you helping them by doing nothing when markets collapse…
For example:
buy caibx july 22 @49.10/share…
today 43.39/
so you clients over that period of time has lost 12%. cummulative… that doesn’t include dividends but it doesn’t include inflation either
so how is that better than them buying it themselves through schwab
and the typical investor doesn’t have ice water in their veins so if I am trying to help them it sure as hell won’t be market timing, it will be from a disciplined long term approach
This is true. But if you could be the disciplined guy, maybe they would be able to make money in any market. Of course typical investors don't have the discipline, they hire YOU for guidance, not a "disciplined, long term approach" which is fundamentally flawed by the way.
Buy and hold will never be dead, because people will be satisfied with mediocre returns and will respond to great "re-selling" and propaganda that firms put out to hold on to assets. If you are not trying to make money in the market, then just sell them an EIA. You make money, their money is protected. You're buying and holding.
I will only say this...the average investor bought CAIBX on July 22nd, then sold it in November, and lost like 30%. Then they gave up and bought CD's at 1.5%. My point is not that buy-and-hold is the answer to everything....there are times to sell. But through discipline, we can save the average investor from making stupid decisions on their own, and come out ahead of where they would be on their own. One caveat to trying to time the market is that it requires a legitimate, successful, repeatable strategy that you can interpret and have the persistance to execute. That's a lot to ask of people, when you would much rather be a little wrong by doing nothing, rather than a whole lot wrong by doing something.How are you helping them by doing nothing when markets collapse…
For example:
buy caibx july 22 @49.10/share…
today 43.39/
so you clients over that period of time has lost 12%. cummulative… that doesn’t include dividends but it doesn’t include inflation either
so how is that better than them buying it themselves through schwab
A little wrong by doing nothing??? Like give up a decade of returns?
So Squash when did you get everyone out ? When are you getting them back in ? Where are we going from here ? What is your value proposition ?
Disciplined long term approach is fundamentally flawed ? How ? When ?[quote=Ron 14] and the typical investor doesn’t have ice water in their veins so if I am trying to help them it sure as hell won’t be market timing, it will be from a disciplined long term approach[/quote]
This is true. But if you could be the disciplined guy, maybe they would be able to make money in any market. Of course typical investors don’t have the discipline, they hire YOU for guidance, not a “disciplined, long term approach” which is fundamentally flawed by the way.
Buy and hold will never be dead, because people will be satisfied with mediocre returns and will respond to great “re-selling” and propaganda that firms put out to hold on to assets. If you are not trying to make money in the market, then just sell them an EIA. You make money, their money is protected. You’re buying and holding.
Squash, I don't disagree with that. I truly believe in both a fundamental and technical approach. But here's part of the problem also...most long-tenured veterans were looking through the lense of a 17-year bull market where the rule was "buy equities and everything goes up." Nobody (nearly) was even TALKING about market timing until after the 90's were over (I'm excluding day-trading crap). So then the investement world thought the tech bubble was an anomoly and we were "back to normal". But we really weren't. By most measures, we are in the middle of an extended secular bear. But we also had a cyclical bull sandwiched in there from '02-'07. So it's easy to say "hey just time the market", but the reality is not quite the same. If it were THAT easy, wouldn't everyone be doing it? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying a flat decade is OK. But also keep in mind that not everyone is flat. Most people are not all in equities, so in a balanced portfolio, you are up maybe 3-6% annually. Not great, but not flat.A little wrong by doing nothing??? Like give up a decade of returns?
We started taking money out of equity fund/etfs in dec 2007(though it was a gradual process we were mostly out by may/june of 2008. We started buying individual equities in oct/nov, selectively on a case by case basis…(BP,MET,PRPX,SD,CHK,GS,MA,PFE,PM,Gild,T,DE… just to name a few) We add back into equity funds/etfs end of march… we are looking for a exit point…
Who is we ? Did you get 100% back in in Oct or Nov of 2008 ? Did you get 100% in in Mar 09 ? If you didnt why not ?
And if you can time it on a broad scale like that why don't you just trade futures for yourself and forget about the client BS. Just buy and sell for your personal account and take it all.
No I(used we, because talking about clients, but if this makes you feel better) averaged in(same way we got out in Dec07-June08. No I have not gotten fully back in for the same reason, we average in(though I made point only to put back 50%(over 4 weeks)of our original equity(funds/etfs) positions…
I stayed invested in a couple funds/etf constantly. I based my movements on 20/50/200 EMA. Not real sophisticated but it has served me well.
Wow, you mean to say if you miss good days, your returns will drop? And if you miss bad days, your returns will rise? Why didn't I think of that? What this propaganda does not tell you is when the best days happen. 8/10 happened smack dab in the middle of bear markets. Remember the 1000 point intraday swing in November? You are an idiot if you think you can catch good days and miss bad days. However, you don't have to sit through a bear market on your hands while your clients are decimated because you might miss one of the 10 best days.buy and hold only works if you have 80 year time horizons or catch a secular bull market.
We always see the graphics based on 1984-2002 market return 9.66
If you missed just the best: Your return fell to:
10days 6.44
20days 4.16
30days 2.18
40days 0.47
But they never show the flip side.
Missed the worst your return grew to
10days 14.67
20days 17.28
30days 19.46
40days 21.46
And for the crazy arguers
If you missed best and worst return
10days 11.30
20days 11.39
30days 11.31
40days 11.31
So maybe somewhere in the middle is the answer
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Ron 14] and the typical investor doesn’t have ice water in their veins so if I am trying to help them it sure as hell won’t be market timing, it will be from a disciplined long term approach[/quote] This is true. But if you could be the disciplined guy, maybe they would be able to make money in any market. Of course typical investors don’t have the discipline, they hire YOU for guidance, not a “disciplined, long term approach” which is fundamentally flawed by the way. Buy and hold will never be dead, because people will be satisfied with mediocre returns and will respond to great “re-selling” and propaganda that firms put out to hold on to assets. If you are not trying to make money in the market, then just sell them an EIA. You make money, their money is protected. You’re buying and holding.
Disciplined long term approach is fundamentally flawed ? How ? When ? [/quote]
Have you been around for the last couple of years?
How many wealthy people do you know that own buy and hold mutual funds? It’s not many. And I mean, WEALTHY people?
For all everybody talks about Warren Buffet being a buy and hold investor, the man times the market! He buys things when they are cheap and sells them when they become overpriced!
People who make money in the market are people who set realistic goals, trade based on a strategy and stick to the strategy. They don’t get tied to any one investment.
What kind of sense does buy and hold make if you retire on September '08 and begin taking distributions? It makes zero sense.
Amazing! I never knew there were so many renaissance men left! Only on RR can one find so many $1mil + producers who are also basically private active-fund-managers for their clients who consistently beat the teams at American Funds, consistently going from cash to equities and back just in the nick of time over and over AND are prolific chat-site contributors. Inspiring!
What do you do YHWY?
Wow, you mean to say if you miss good days, your returns will drop? And if you miss bad days, your returns will rise? Why didn't I think of that? What this propaganda does not tell you is when the best days happen. 8/10 happened smack dab in the middle of bear markets. Remember the 1000 point intraday swing in November? You are an idiot if you think you can catch good days and miss bad days. However, you don't have to sit through a bear market on your hands while your clients are decimated because you might miss one of the 10 best days.[/quote] I think you made his point...[quote=Squash1]buy and hold only works if you have 80 year time horizons or catch a secular bull market.
We always see the graphics based on 1984-2002 market return 9.66
If you missed just the best: Your return fell to:
10days 6.44
20days 4.16
30days 2.18
40days 0.47
But they never show the flip side.
Missed the worst your return grew to
10days 14.67
20days 17.28
30days 19.46
40days 21.46
And for the crazy arguers
If you missed best and worst return
10days 11.30
20days 11.39
30days 11.31
40days 11.31
So maybe somewhere in the middle is the answer
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Ron 14] [quote=Moraen] [quote=Ron 14] and the typical investor doesn’t have ice water in their veins so if I am trying to help them it sure as hell won’t be market timing, it will be from a disciplined long term approach[/quote] This is true. But if you could be the disciplined guy, maybe they would be able to make money in any market. Of course typical investors don’t have the discipline, they hire YOU for guidance, not a “disciplined, long term approach” which is fundamentally flawed by the way. Buy and hold will never be dead, because people will be satisfied with mediocre returns and will respond to great “re-selling” and propaganda that firms put out to hold on to assets. If you are not trying to make money in the market, then just sell them an EIA. You make money, their money is protected. You’re buying and holding.[/quote]
Disciplined long term approach is fundamentally flawed ? How ? When ? [/quote]
Have you been around for the last couple of years?
How many wealthy people do you know that own buy and hold mutual funds? It's not many. And I mean, WEALTHY people?
For all everybody talks about Warren Buffet being a buy and hold investor, the man times the market! He buys things when they are cheap and sells them when they become overpriced!
People who make money in the market are people who set realistic goals, trade based on a strategy and stick to the strategy. They don't get tied to any one investment.
What kind of sense does buy and hold make if you retire on September '08 and begin taking distributions? It makes zero sense.[/quote] Well JPMorgan's Global Asset Management team has managed portfolio's consisting of mutual funds, SMA's, and ETF's and the account minimum is 25mil so I would say that hurts your argument. Also, if you employ a simple Nick Murray philosophy of having 2-3 yrs in cash to take from in retirement when the market retreats 20% or more so you don't erode your investments retiring in Sep of 08 isn't really a problem. I guess you guys are smarter than American Funds managers and Franklin Temp and Legg Mason and Alliance Bernstein. What you guys don't understand is buy and hold actually diminishes the money fund companies can make. Dont you think that if these companies believe they could enhance returns by managing more actively that they would do that, while also raising the expenses on the funds to 2 or 3% a year to cover trading costs. Wouldn't you pay a higher expense for a fund manager who went to cash at Dow 12k like you guru's and bought back in at Dow 7k. Where is that guy ? I will pay him 4,5% a yr!
Ron, I would pay a higher expense for that kind of management. Problem is, most of the time it doesn’t exist.
Ron, why do you worship fund managers? Just because they work somewhere with a name on it, does that mean they are geniuses? Are they smarter than me because I went to a state school to get my MBA (which is in the top 25 btw)? Are they smarter than me because I started my CFA later than them?
I’m not saying I’m smarter, I’m just saying that mutual funds are designed to make the mutual fund company money. Pay a fee, stay in for a while, sign this switch letter b/c FT bought you a better dinner. Then back to American Funds b/c FT isn’t working or the Alliance Bernstein chick is hot.
In addition, mutual funds are designed to make people mediocre returns. My clients are up quite a bit for the year and in some cases didn’t lose any account value during the downturn. 3% to them would be a small price to pay for that kind of return.
[quote=iceco1d] [quote=Ron 14]
Wouldn’t you pay a higher expense for a fund manager who went to cash at Dow 12k like you guru’s and bought back in at Dow 7k. Where is that guy ? I will pay him 4,5% a yr!
[/quote]
It’s me Ron. My support of indexing and rigid asset allocation is a sham. I’m a market timer. I sold out of equity when the Dow hit 14K. I repurhased @ 6800…with 3x leverage, no less. [/quote]
Send all yo moneee to ice!
I don't worship fund managers. What they have that most of us don't is the time and resources to do the research on the economy and the companies involved. Yes a mutual fund company is trying to make money. If they could time the market, trade more, beat the returns of every other fund manager wouldnt they do it ?? If they were crushing the other funds every year and getting in and out like you guys claim they would have huge inflows, thus increasing profits and allowing them to raise their fees. With your reasoning buy and hold is costing them money, which proves your reasoning is wrong. NOBODY CAN CONSISTENTLY TIME THE MARKET. Even if you caught a few swings accurately clients will expect that year after year. The first time you miss, they are gone, looking for the next tool who thinks they can time the market.Ron, I would pay a higher expense for that kind of management. Problem is, most of the time it doesn’t exist.
Ron, why do you worship fund managers? Just because they work somewhere with a name on it, does that mean they are geniuses? Are they smarter than me because I went to a state school to get my MBA (which is in the top 25 btw)? Are they smarter than me because I started my CFA later than them?
I’m not saying I’m smarter, I’m just saying that mutual funds are designed to make the mutual fund company money. Pay a fee, stay in for a while, sign this switch letter b/c FT bought you a better dinner. Then back to American Funds b/c FT isn’t working or the Alliance Bernstein chick is hot.
In addition, mutual funds are designed to make people mediocre returns. My clients are up quite a bit for the year and in some cases didn’t lose any account value during the downturn. 3% to them would be a small price to pay for that kind of return.
I don't worship fund managers. What they have that most of us don't is the time and resources to do the research on the economy and the companies involved. Yes a mutual fund company is trying to make money. If they could time the market, trade more, beat the returns of every other fund manager wouldnt they do it ?? If they were crushing the other funds every year and getting in and out like you guys claim they would have huge inflows, thus increasing profits and allowing them to raise their fees. With your reasoning buy and hold is costing them money, which proves your reasoning is wrong. NOBODY CAN CONSISTENTLY TIME THE MARKET. Even if you caught a few swings accurately clients will expect that year after year. The first time you miss, they are gone, looking for the next tool who thinks they can time the market. [/quote] Good post Ron. If you build your relationships on performance then you will have nothing to stand on the first time you don't get it right, and it's not an "if" but "when"[quote=Moraen]Ron, I would pay a higher expense for that kind of management. Problem is, most of the time it doesn’t exist.
Ron, why do you worship fund managers? Just because they work somewhere with a name on it, does that mean they are geniuses? Are they smarter than me because I went to a state school to get my MBA (which is in the top 25 btw)? Are they smarter than me because I started my CFA later than them?
I’m not saying I’m smarter, I’m just saying that mutual funds are designed to make the mutual fund company money. Pay a fee, stay in for a while, sign this switch letter b/c FT bought you a better dinner. Then back to American Funds b/c FT isn’t working or the Alliance Bernstein chick is hot.
In addition, mutual funds are designed to make people mediocre returns. My clients are up quite a bit for the year and in some cases didn’t lose any account value during the downturn. 3% to them would be a small price to pay for that kind of return.
[quote=Moraen]Ron, I would pay a higher expense for that kind of management. Problem is, most of the time it doesn’t exist. Ron, why do you worship fund managers? Just because they work somewhere with a name on it, does that mean they are geniuses? Are they smarter than me because I went to a state school to get my MBA (which is in the top 25 btw)? Are they smarter than me because I started my CFA later than them? I’m not saying I’m smarter, I’m just saying that mutual funds are designed to make the mutual fund company money. Pay a fee, stay in for a while, sign this switch letter b/c FT bought you a better dinner. Then back to American Funds b/c FT isn’t working or the Alliance Bernstein chick is hot. In addition, mutual funds are designed to make people mediocre returns. My clients are up quite a bit for the year and in some cases didn’t lose any account value during the downturn. 3% to them would be a small price to pay for that kind of return.
I don’t worship fund managers. What they have that most of us don’t is the time and resources to do the research on the economy and the companies involved. Yes a mutual fund company is trying to make money. If they could time the market, trade more, beat the returns of every other fund manager wouldnt they do it ?? If they were crushing the other funds every year and getting in and out like you guys claim they would have huge inflows, thus increasing profits and allowing them to raise their fees. With your reasoning buy and hold is costing them money, which proves your reasoning is wrong. NOBODY CAN CONSISTENTLY TIME THE MARKET. Even if you caught a few swings accurately clients will expect that year after year. The first time you miss, they are gone, looking for the next tool who thinks they can time the market. [/quote]
I doubt they are allowed to time the market by prospectus. Even if they had a good strategy, they wouldn’t be able to use it. If you are U.S. SmallCaps, it’s not like you can look at Global Mid-caps. If you are a sector fund manager, that sucks.
If you are an American Fund “portfolio counselor”, you have to follow your mandate, but you also have to worry about what others are doing (you should anyway - what up with the overlap!).
It’s not about swinging and getting lucky. It’s about actually analyzing securities (hell just read the damn quarterly and annual reports and you’ll be doing as much as most analysts) finding where they are cheap (and ignoring your anchors) and selling them when they become expensive. That is not timing the market, that is just good business sense. Although people call it timing the market.
How is buy and hold costing them money? That is general investment consensus. Everybody thinks MPT and asset allocation are the keys to investment returns. As long as they have advisors talking about b & h, they are going to keep getting inflows. The investing public is sold on b & h.
Buy and Hold costs them money because they could be doing much better if they hired you to "read the damn quarterly and annual reports, buy cheap and sell expensive." If American Funds came out with a "flexible equity fund" that made money last year and this year and traded frequently they would have people pooring into it and because of "trading expenses" they could charge 3-4%. That is a lot more than .75% they are charging now.
Buy and Hold costs them money because they could be doing much better if they hired you to “read the damn quarterly and annual reports, buy cheap and sell expensive.” If American Funds came out with a “flexible equity fund” that made money last year and this year and traded frequently they would have people pooring into it and because of “trading expenses” they could charge 3-4%. That is a lot more than .75% they are charging now.
Ron - Economies of scale and pricing. Why does American Funds charge what they do? They have $1 trillion in asssets.
And it's "pouring", although if you were attempting to make a joke, then it was funny.
There is no reason trading expenses should be that high. At all.
The question is, what is the value add for an advisor who sells actively managed funds? Rebalancing? Keeping them from making stupid mistakes?
You can only charge relative to the kind of service you are providing. If they were providing a strategy that didn't lose clients money in 2008 and then had them coverting from cash to equities in Mar of this year the demand would be extremely high and people would have no problem paying that fee, whether it is labeled trading expenses or some other type of management fee. If you are successfully timing the market you should be charging much more than a 1-1.5% management fee. The reason nobody does is because nobody can do it over time with any success.
Value prop is simply this, right from Nick Murray, the client can take it or leave it - Will the advisor and his firm be able to provide you a return that is 1% better than what you would do on your own? Will he save you 1% in time, worry, rebalancing, paperwork, research? Will he save you from making the big mistake which costs the average investor 6.5%/yr relative to the index? If any or all of those statements make sense to the client then he pays for your services. If not he finds a market timer who will charge him the same, not consistently provide what he offered and the client runs off pissed into CD's for the rest of his life and at age 85 just complains about what everything costs because inflation ran his ass over.[quote=Ron 14]
You can only charge relative to the kind of service you are providing. If they were providing a strategy that didn’t lose clients money in 2008 and then had them coverting from cash to equities in Mar of this year the demand would be extremely high and people would have no problem paying that fee, whether it is labeled trading expenses or some other type of management fee. If you are successfully timing the market you should be charging much more than a 1-1.5% management fee. The reason nobody does is because nobody can do it over time with any success.
Value prop is simply this, right from Nick Murray, the client can take it or leave it -
Will the advisor and his firm be able to provide you a return that is 1% better than what you would do on your own?
Will he save you 1% in time, worry, rebalancing, paperwork, research?
Will he save you from making the big mistake which costs the average investor 6.5%/yr relative to the index?
If any or all of those statements make sense to the client then he pays for your services. If not he finds a market timer who will charge him the same, not consistently provide what he offered and the client runs off pissed into CD’s for the rest of his life and at age 85 just complains about what everything costs because inflation ran his ass over. [/quote]
Like I said, if people want to actually make money in the market (which my clients do), they use my services (or Gaddock’s apparently). If they want to match the “index”, why not buy an EIA? And I would be happy to refer them to Bobby.
And yes, we charge 2% (now anyway). Because the market will bear that.
All I am saying is mutual funds don’t make sense if someone is actually trying to make money.
What research do you do? Which funds are good? That varies. 1% is already too much.
Provide a 1% better return? Can you guarantee that? What happens when you don’t provide that 1% better return? Same thing as what would happen to me if I guaranteed clients anything… they would leave. Once again 1% is too much, especially if you are only giving them 1% better return.
Making big mistakes? You mean like paying an advisor 1% and watching their money disappear? By the way, a lot of those “average investors” have advisors. So are they providing 1% worth of service. Doubtful.
Here’s what you tell clients and they can take it or leave it.
You should be prepared to lose everything. There is no such thing as a 100% safe investment. Period.
If you truly want to make money in the market, this is what I charge. If you are just trying to make market returns, here is a flat fee. Open up an E-Trade account, follow these recommendations and if you want more advice on it periodically, this is what I charge.
Do I suggest you build a relationship based on returns? Nope. I suggest you build a relationship based on expectations. Theirs and yours.
So you believe you can get people in and out of the market at the right times each and every year ? And you charge people only 2% ?
No. It’s not “the market”. It’s individual positions. It’s called if I buy a stock $6 a share, I am going to sell it at $15 (if that’s the price target) no matter what. There is no, “well, I hope it will go higher”. You then look for another opportunity. I had a client that at the time was unhappy with a sell we made. He thought, “it will probably go higher”. And it did.
It’s called if a stock we choose drops below a certain percentage, we sell it. No questions asked. But the key is to look for buying opportunities.
Then trade for your own account and keep all the profits. Why do it for someone else and only take 2%? That just doesn’t make sense. Why deal with clients and all of that crap ? Keep it all.
Why do anything? First of all, I have said a few times already on these boards that I’m done dealing with clients.
If I pay someone else to deal with clients, wouldn’t it stand to reason I’d make more money? The more assets, the more money.
And, it’s about more than money. Not because I’m bored, just because I feel there is a better way. Maybe it’s an experiment. Maybe it’s a huge study that I can use for my Ph.D. dissertation. Does it really matter why? We all have our motives, right?
I have said the same to Gaddock. If you can make money trading the market it is only logical to do it for yourself. Less expenses, less hassle, less overhead, less legal issues, more money.
I have said the same to Gaddock. If you can make money trading the market it is only logical to do it for yourself. Less expenses, less hassle, less overhead, less legal issues, more money.
I hear you. It's not about the money. It's about attempting to carve out a new path in an industry that is institutionalized.
[quote=Ron 14] I have said the same to Gaddock. If you can make money trading the market it is only logical to do it for yourself. Less expenses, less hassle, less overhead, less legal issues, more money.
I hear you. It's not about the money. It's about attempting to carve out a new path in an industry that is institutionalized. [/quote]
...or, it's about lying through your teeth. Since none of your results are published anywhere, I think I'll go with the latter.
Yep. Or I’m a liar.
I’ll send you an invite to my dissertation defense, and you can ask any questions you wish. And pore through the research.
I don't worship fund managers. What they have that most of us don't is the time and resources to do the research on the economy and the companies involved. Yes a mutual fund company is trying to make money. If they could time the market, trade more, beat the returns of every other fund manager wouldnt they do it ?? If they were crushing the other funds every year and getting in and out like you guys claim they would have huge inflows, thus increasing profits and allowing them to raise their fees. With your reasoning buy and hold is costing them money, which proves your reasoning is wrong. NOBODY CAN CONSISTENTLY TIME THE MARKET. Even if you caught a few swings accurately clients will expect that year after year. The first time you miss, they are gone, looking for the next tool who thinks they can time the market. [/quote] Ron, do you know why American Funds (since they are the biggest) were considered very average during the 90's? Considered one of the best from 2000-07? Got hit just as hard during this bear? It isn't about timing the market, it is about understanding the market which you obviously don't. Keep blaming things you don't understand on "market timing" and discounting the skill of Financial Professionals if this helps you sleep at night. Remember, just because you are unable to do something does not mean that others cannot also.[quote=Moraen]Ron, I would pay a higher expense for that kind of management. Problem is, most of the time it doesn’t exist.
Ron, why do you worship fund managers? Just because they work somewhere with a name on it, does that mean they are geniuses? Are they smarter than me because I went to a state school to get my MBA (which is in the top 25 btw)? Are they smarter than me because I started my CFA later than them?
I’m not saying I’m smarter, I’m just saying that mutual funds are designed to make the mutual fund company money. Pay a fee, stay in for a while, sign this switch letter b/c FT bought you a better dinner. Then back to American Funds b/c FT isn’t working or the Alliance Bernstein chick is hot.
In addition, mutual funds are designed to make people mediocre returns. My clients are up quite a bit for the year and in some cases didn’t lose any account value during the downturn. 3% to them would be a small price to pay for that kind of return.
Morean,
I have no questions other than to see detailed reports of all your trading results, short, intermediate and long-term.
If you think constructing a dissertation on market timing, trading, financial planning or investing means anything in this business, then you’re definitely lying.
I don't worship fund managers. What they have that most of us don't is the time and resources to do the research on the economy and the companies involved. Yes a mutual fund company is trying to make money. If they could time the market, trade more, beat the returns of every other fund manager wouldnt they do it ?? If they were crushing the other funds every year and getting in and out like you guys claim they would have huge inflows, thus increasing profits and allowing them to raise their fees. With your reasoning buy and hold is costing them money, which proves your reasoning is wrong. NOBODY CAN CONSISTENTLY TIME THE MARKET. Even if you caught a few swings accurately clients will expect that year after year. The first time you miss, they are gone, looking for the next tool who thinks they can time the market. [/quote] Ron, do you know why American Funds (since they are the biggest) were considered very average during the 90's? Considered one of the best from 2000-07? Got hit just as hard during this bear? It isn't about timing the market, it is about understanding the market which you obviously don't. Keep blaming things you don't understand on "market timing" and discounting the skill of Financial Professionals if this helps you sleep at night. Remember, just because you are unable to do something does not mean that others cannot also.[/quote] It is not about just American Funds. I am talking about any fund family. Did any avoid what happened last year ? Do any of them make massive allocation swings that at all reflect entering and exiting the overall market ? Jeb, are you actually saying you can exit and enter the market successfully year after year after year?[quote=Ron 14][quote=Moraen]Ron, I would pay a higher expense for that kind of management. Problem is, most of the time it doesn’t exist.
Ron, why do you worship fund managers? Just because they work somewhere with a name on it, does that mean they are geniuses? Are they smarter than me because I went to a state school to get my MBA (which is in the top 25 btw)? Are they smarter than me because I started my CFA later than them?
I’m not saying I’m smarter, I’m just saying that mutual funds are designed to make the mutual fund company money. Pay a fee, stay in for a while, sign this switch letter b/c FT bought you a better dinner. Then back to American Funds b/c FT isn’t working or the Alliance Bernstein chick is hot.
In addition, mutual funds are designed to make people mediocre returns. My clients are up quite a bit for the year and in some cases didn’t lose any account value during the downturn. 3% to them would be a small price to pay for that kind of return.
Plenty of “wizards” were selling August 950 calls in the S&P to “protect” long positions that they recently acquired because the market was going to stay in a “range.” How is that working for them ?
I don't worship fund managers. What they have that most of us don't is the time and resources to do the research on the economy and the companies involved. Yes a mutual fund company is trying to make money. If they could time the market, trade more, beat the returns of every other fund manager wouldnt they do it ?? If they were crushing the other funds every year and getting in and out like you guys claim they would have huge inflows, thus increasing profits and allowing them to raise their fees. With your reasoning buy and hold is costing them money, which proves your reasoning is wrong. NOBODY CAN CONSISTENTLY TIME THE MARKET. Even if you caught a few swings accurately clients will expect that year after year. The first time you miss, they are gone, looking for the next tool who thinks they can time the market. [/quote] Ron, do you know why American Funds (since they are the biggest) were considered very average during the 90's? Considered one of the best from 2000-07? Got hit just as hard during this bear? It isn't about timing the market, it is about understanding the market which you obviously don't. Keep blaming things you don't understand on "market timing" and discounting the skill of Financial Professionals if this helps you sleep at night. Remember, just because you are unable to do something does not mean that others cannot also.[/quote] It is not about just American Funds. I am talking about any fund family. Did any avoid what happened last year ? Do any of them make massive allocation swings that at all reflect entering and exiting the overall market ? Jeb, are you actually saying you can exit and enter the market successfully year after year after year?[/quote] American Funds was the example. You could use the same example with Franklin. You could use a different example with Ja*** or AIM. You didn't answer my question, you posed your own question and then answered it poorly.[quote=Jebediah][quote=Ron 14][quote=Moraen]Ron, I would pay a higher expense for that kind of management. Problem is, most of the time it doesn’t exist.
Ron, why do you worship fund managers? Just because they work somewhere with a name on it, does that mean they are geniuses? Are they smarter than me because I went to a state school to get my MBA (which is in the top 25 btw)? Are they smarter than me because I started my CFA later than them?
I’m not saying I’m smarter, I’m just saying that mutual funds are designed to make the mutual fund company money. Pay a fee, stay in for a while, sign this switch letter b/c FT bought you a better dinner. Then back to American Funds b/c FT isn’t working or the Alliance Bernstein chick is hot.
In addition, mutual funds are designed to make people mediocre returns. My clients are up quite a bit for the year and in some cases didn’t lose any account value during the downturn. 3% to them would be a small price to pay for that kind of return.
There are tons of examples. John simons, George Soros, Jim Rogers…
The problem with mutual funds is that they are limited by prospectus as someone mentioned earlier. Plus they would have to disclose what they do and that would allow anyone to copy it.Just look at this thread closely. It was begun by one of these “Simons, Soror, Rogers”-esque market-timimg wizards (hahahahahahaaaa!!!). How did that head and shoulders collapse work out for his clients? I rest my case.
“Soros” sorry
You are kidding right… James Simons Medallion fund has averaged 35%/year since 1989. with 5% up front and 36% of profits fee…
For the 11 years ending in December 1999, Medallion’s cumulative returns were 2,478.6 percent. Among all offshore funds over that same period, according to the database run by veteran hedge fund observer Antoine Bernheim, the next-best performer was Soros Quantum fund, with a 1,710.1 percent return How do fund managers compare with that... The idea behind mutual funds was created for people who didn't have enough to build an equity portfolio. That is still the premise today. Active or Index funds cater to those who don't have the assets to do other things. The goal of the mutual fund manager is not to beat the market or decrease risk.. instead they are buying by prospectus a group of stocks so clients who couldn't afford to buy those stocks on their own can invest.[quote=YHWY] Morean, I have no questions other than to see detailed reports of all your trading results, short, intermediate and long-term. If you think constructing a dissertation on market timing, trading, financial planning or investing means anything in this business, then you’re definitely lying.
[/quote]
Sure. Send me your work email address.
[quote=YHWY] Morean, I have no questions other than to see detailed reports of all your trading results, short, intermediate and long-term. If you think constructing a dissertation on market timing, trading, financial planning or investing means anything in this business, then you’re definitely lying.
[/quote]
Are you serious? Constructing a dissertation has no meaning in this business? Your whole investment philosophy was taken from someone who conducted studies that were published (dissertations are often published in parts in different subject areas as specific studies). It just so happens you believe what someone else tells you rather than asking the questions yourself.
I don't worship fund managers. What they have that most of us don't is the time and resources to do the research on the economy and the companies involved. Yes a mutual fund company is trying to make money. If they could time the market, trade more, beat the returns of every other fund manager wouldnt they do it ?? If they were crushing the other funds every year and getting in and out like you guys claim they would have huge inflows, thus increasing profits and allowing them to raise their fees. With your reasoning buy and hold is costing them money, which proves your reasoning is wrong. NOBODY CAN CONSISTENTLY TIME THE MARKET. Even if you caught a few swings accurately clients will expect that year after year. The first time you miss, they are gone, looking for the next tool who thinks they can time the market. [/quote] Ron, do you know why American Funds (since they are the biggest) were considered very average during the 90's? Considered one of the best from 2000-07? Got hit just as hard during this bear? It isn't about timing the market, it is about understanding the market which you obviously don't. Keep blaming things you don't understand on "market timing" and discounting the skill of Financial Professionals if this helps you sleep at night. Remember, just because you are unable to do something does not mean that others cannot also.[/quote] I take the lack of a response to show you cannot answer any on my questions. Not surprising.[quote=Ron 14][quote=Moraen]Ron, I would pay a higher expense for that kind of management. Problem is, most of the time it doesn’t exist.
Ron, why do you worship fund managers? Just because they work somewhere with a name on it, does that mean they are geniuses? Are they smarter than me because I went to a state school to get my MBA (which is in the top 25 btw)? Are they smarter than me because I started my CFA later than them?
I’m not saying I’m smarter, I’m just saying that mutual funds are designed to make the mutual fund company money. Pay a fee, stay in for a while, sign this switch letter b/c FT bought you a better dinner. Then back to American Funds b/c FT isn’t working or the Alliance Bernstein chick is hot.
In addition, mutual funds are designed to make people mediocre returns. My clients are up quite a bit for the year and in some cases didn’t lose any account value during the downturn. 3% to them would be a small price to pay for that kind of return.
The questions about American Funds ? In the 90’s they didn’t chase any tech or telecom because they were businesses they did not understand thus they didnt see great returns because the 90’s were fueled by monster gains in those areas. 00-07 they were good because they werent in the tech that crashed and they were huge owners of financials (largest shareholders of AIG, BofA, Citi) that paid great dividends and had huge gains. When that sh*t hit fan so did their funds. This just adds to my argument that nobody can predict the market. If monster fund companies with all of the resources in the world miss these huge fluctuations I am not going to push my value proposition by saying that I can predict them.
Very good, I see you've been paying attention to the information posted on these boards. So what I am hearing is that as a financial professional, you cannot see (not predict) what sectors are doing well and position your clients to take advantage of that? Your value proposition is "I will tell you it's ok in the bad times, if you hold on long enough, you will be ok." Is that it? So you are predicting this based on the past? What you don't realize is that you rely far more heavily on predictions than I do. Ironic.The questions about American Funds ? In the 90’s they didn’t chase any tech or telecom because they were businesses they did not understand thus they didnt see great returns because the 90’s were fueled by monster gains in those areas. 00-07 they were good because they werent in the tech that crashed and they were huge owners of financials (largest shareholders of AIG, BofA, Citi) that paid great dividends and had huge gains. When that sh*t hit fan so did their funds. This just adds to my argument that nobody can predict the market. If monster fund companies with all of the resources in the world miss these huge fluctuations I am not going to push my value proposition by saying that I can predict them.
Very good, I see you've been paying attention to the information posted on these boards. So what I am hearing is that as a financial professional, you cannot see (not predict) what sectors are doing well and position your clients to take advantage of that? Your value proposition is "I will tell you it's ok in the bad times, if you hold on long enough, you will be ok." Is that it? So you are predicting this based on the past? What you don't realize is that you rely far more heavily on predictions than I do. Ironic.[/quote] You are correct I don't predict anything. You are telling me that you look at what sectors are doing well and then position your clients to take advantage of that, AFTER THEY HAVE STARTED DOING WELL. That is usually late to the party and proves you just follow the crowd. Genius ![quote=Ron 14]The questions about American Funds ? In the 90’s they didn’t chase any tech or telecom because they were businesses they did not understand thus they didnt see great returns because the 90’s were fueled by monster gains in those areas. 00-07 they were good because they werent in the tech that crashed and they were huge owners of financials (largest shareholders of AIG, BofA, Citi) that paid great dividends and had huge gains. When that sh*t hit fan so did their funds. This just adds to my argument that nobody can predict the market. If monster fund companies with all of the resources in the world miss these huge fluctuations I am not going to push my value proposition by saying that I can predict them.
Just to clarify I don’t pick sectors. I use broad indexes and EMA to decide when to move portfolios… And I am not talking on a daily on monthly basis… i tend to make about sixteen trades/years or less(this is the high end for aggressive accounts where we use short etfs… 1 trade equals a sell or buy… so about 8 roundtrip a year on the high end… not including individual equities)
I think if American funds could have they would have started dumping their investments, but by prospectus they are limited not their fault…Very good stock pickers in a buy and hold market, intl bias helped boost their numbers previous to the crash… And they openly admit that some of their funds own the same things(something I don’t have a problem with, if it keeps popping up probably not a bad idea to own it)
Very good, I see you've been paying attention to the information posted on these boards. So what I am hearing is that as a financial professional, you cannot see (not predict) what sectors are doing well and position your clients to take advantage of that? Your value proposition is "I will tell you it's ok in the bad times, if you hold on long enough, you will be ok." Is that it? So you are predicting this based on the past? What you don't realize is that you rely far more heavily on predictions than I do. Ironic.[/quote] You are correct I don't predict anything. You are telling me that you look at what sectors are doing well and then position your clients to take advantage of that, AFTER THEY HAVE STARTED DOING WELL. That is usually late to the party and proves you just follow the crowd. Genius ![/quote] You predict that buying and holding will do well based on past performance. Of course every piece of sales lit you hand out says "Past performance..." You are correct, I go into areas of the market after they have begun to do well as opposed to when they are doing poorly. As far as following the crowd, you couldn't be farther off. I got out in Jan 08. Went back in last week. Your weak mind will say "You missed a 40% rally!!! Hahahaha". I will reply that I missed a 30% downturn. To each his own. I have never had a prospect who was down any amount tell me how beneficial DCA is, how it allows you to buy more shares at a cheaper price lower your cost basis. I have had many prospects ask me "why can't a professional do anything during a bad market?" You are the reason companies like Vangaurd and E*Trade exist. Clients can close their eyes and buy all by themselves, which judging by the fact you failed at Jones and have to work for a bank demonstrates you know all too well.[quote=Jebediah][quote=Ron 14]The questions about American Funds ? In the 90’s they didn’t chase any tech or telecom because they were businesses they did not understand thus they didnt see great returns because the 90’s were fueled by monster gains in those areas. 00-07 they were good because they werent in the tech that crashed and they were huge owners of financials (largest shareholders of AIG, BofA, Citi) that paid great dividends and had huge gains. When that sh*t hit fan so did their funds. This just adds to my argument that nobody can predict the market. If monster fund companies with all of the resources in the world miss these huge fluctuations I am not going to push my value proposition by saying that I can predict them.
Worked out well. It lost it's validity and I removed the protective hedging that was used to profit from it if it made the usual H&S move. No biggy. Point is we were ready for it and will be the next time. What's the bid deal? If you are market neutral it's just another way to make money. Do you not believe in technical analysis?Just look at this thread closely. It was begun by one of these “Simons, Soror, Rogers”-esque market-timimg wizards (hahahahahahaaaa!!!). How did that head and shoulders collapse work out for his clients? I rest my case.
Gaddock, you’re too nice. This guy is being a d**k and you keep giving him the benefit of the doubt.
He only believes in selling false hope to old ladies.
Yeah, the bummer is his ability to make production trumps their need to have a decent living…sigh. I guess FINRA is a good thing after all.
Very good, I see you've been paying attention to the information posted on these boards. So what I am hearing is that as a financial professional, you cannot see (not predict) what sectors are doing well and position your clients to take advantage of that? Your value proposition is "I will tell you it's ok in the bad times, if you hold on long enough, you will be ok." Is that it? So you are predicting this based on the past? What you don't realize is that you rely far more heavily on predictions than I do. Ironic.[/quote] You are correct I don't predict anything. You are telling me that you look at what sectors are doing well and then position your clients to take advantage of that, AFTER THEY HAVE STARTED DOING WELL. That is usually late to the party and proves you just follow the crowd. Genius ![/quote] You predict that buying and holding will do well based on past performance. Of course every piece of sales lit you hand out says "Past performance..." You are correct, I go into areas of the market after they have begun to do well as opposed to when they are doing poorly. As far as following the crowd, you couldn't be farther off. I got out in Jan 08. Went back in last week. Your weak mind will say "You missed a 40% rally!!! Hahahaha". I will reply that I missed a 30% downturn. To each his own. I have never had a prospect who was down any amount tell me how beneficial DCA is, how it allows you to buy more shares at a cheaper price lower your cost basis. I have had many prospects ask me "why can't a professional do anything during a bad market?" You are the reason companies like Vangaurd and E*Trade exist. Clients can close their eyes and buy all by themselves, which judging by the fact you failed at Jones and have to work for a bank demonstrates you know all too well.[/quote] Past performance doesn't do much when the market has been flat over 10 years. Explain to me how using past performance would help anyone sell anything after the last decade. If you think owning equities is the wrong choice for the long term, but jumping in and out is the right choice, good luck. People go to Vanguard and ETrade because they think they can jump in and out like you think you can. The average investor always bails at the wrong time and a brief look at the history of mutual fund in/outflows would show you that, but you are too busy reading a Jim Cramer book to follow logic.[quote=Ron 14][quote=Jebediah][quote=Ron 14]The questions about American Funds ? In the 90’s they didn’t chase any tech or telecom because they were businesses they did not understand thus they didnt see great returns because the 90’s were fueled by monster gains in those areas. 00-07 they were good because they werent in the tech that crashed and they were huge owners of financials (largest shareholders of AIG, BofA, Citi) that paid great dividends and had huge gains. When that sh*t hit fan so did their funds. This just adds to my argument that nobody can predict the market. If monster fund companies with all of the resources in the world miss these huge fluctuations I am not going to push my value proposition by saying that I can predict them.
What if you could consistently set up positions that are successfully no matter where the market goes? If such magic existed would it be something you would consider? YOU CAN EVEN DCA into it.
What would you think about that?Very good, I see you've been paying attention to the information posted on these boards. So what I am hearing is that as a financial professional, you cannot see (not predict) what sectors are doing well and position your clients to take advantage of that? Your value proposition is "I will tell you it's ok in the bad times, if you hold on long enough, you will be ok." Is that it? So you are predicting this based on the past? What you don't realize is that you rely far more heavily on predictions than I do. Ironic.[/quote] You are correct I don't predict anything. You are telling me that you look at what sectors are doing well and then position your clients to take advantage of that, AFTER THEY HAVE STARTED DOING WELL. That is usually late to the party and proves you just follow the crowd. Genius ![/quote] You predict that buying and holding will do well based on past performance. Of course every piece of sales lit you hand out says "Past performance..." You are correct, I go into areas of the market after they have begun to do well as opposed to when they are doing poorly. As far as following the crowd, you couldn't be farther off. I got out in Jan 08. Went back in last week. Your weak mind will say "You missed a 40% rally!!! Hahahaha". I will reply that I missed a 30% downturn. To each his own. I have never had a prospect who was down any amount tell me how beneficial DCA is, how it allows you to buy more shares at a cheaper price lower your cost basis. I have had many prospects ask me "why can't a professional do anything during a bad market?" You are the reason companies like Vangaurd and E*Trade exist. Clients can close their eyes and buy all by themselves, which judging by the fact you failed at Jones and have to work for a bank demonstrates you know all too well.[/quote] Past performance doesn't do much when the market has been flat over 10 years. Explain to me how using past performance would help anyone sell anything after the last decade. If you think owning equities is the wrong choice for the long term, but jumping in and out is the right choice, good luck. People go to Vanguard and ETrade because they think they can jump in and out like you think you can. The average investor always bails at the wrong time and a brief look at the history of mutual fund in/outflows would show you that, but you are too busy reading a Jim Cramer book to follow logic. [/quote] You have completely talked yourself around in a circle. So tell me, what is your basis behind reccomending buy and hold? That is doesn't work because of the last ten years? Or are you saying that as a buy and hold advisor, you haven't been able to sell anything due to the market action? People go to Vangaurd because they see no value in buying and holding, yes there are traders, but the majority of DIY investors go to Vangaurd et al because they have see no value in the "hold on, historically equities are the only way to beat inflation" pitch. They can suffer a 38% loss without paying you for it. If you consider getting out in Jan 08 and back in July 09 to be trading, then you need to get out more. I will give you a thought which will make you money. Job #1 is not to lose money. Job #2 is to not let little mistakes become big mistakes. A 38% drawdown violates both. As does a 35%, 28%, 25% (whatever you claim to be your 08 #) drawdown.[quote=Jebediah][quote=Ron 14][quote=Jebediah][quote=Ron 14]The questions about American Funds ? In the 90’s they didn’t chase any tech or telecom because they were businesses they did not understand thus they didnt see great returns because the 90’s were fueled by monster gains in those areas. 00-07 they were good because they werent in the tech that crashed and they were huge owners of financials (largest shareholders of AIG, BofA, Citi) that paid great dividends and had huge gains. When that sh*t hit fan so did their funds. This just adds to my argument that nobody can predict the market. If monster fund companies with all of the resources in the world miss these huge fluctuations I am not going to push my value proposition by saying that I can predict them.
Mutual Fund A share 3.5%
Wrap account 1.5% Seeing a person describe exactly why they sell a product that is the antithesis to their 'strategy' ... PricelessVery good, I see you've been paying attention to the information posted on these boards. So what I am hearing is that as a financial professional, you cannot see (not predict) what sectors are doing well and position your clients to take advantage of that? Your value proposition is "I will tell you it's ok in the bad times, if you hold on long enough, you will be ok." Is that it? So you are predicting this based on the past? What you don't realize is that you rely far more heavily on predictions than I do. Ironic.[/quote] You are correct I don't predict anything. You are telling me that you look at what sectors are doing well and then position your clients to take advantage of that, AFTER THEY HAVE STARTED DOING WELL. That is usually late to the party and proves you just follow the crowd. Genius ![/quote] You predict that buying and holding will do well based on past performance. Of course every piece of sales lit you hand out says "Past performance..." You are correct, I go into areas of the market after they have begun to do well as opposed to when they are doing poorly. As far as following the crowd, you couldn't be farther off. I got out in Jan 08. Went back in last week. Your weak mind will say "You missed a 40% rally!!! Hahahaha". I will reply that I missed a 30% downturn. To each his own. I have never had a prospect who was down any amount tell me how beneficial DCA is, how it allows you to buy more shares at a cheaper price lower your cost basis. I have had many prospects ask me "why can't a professional do anything during a bad market?" You are the reason companies like Vangaurd and E*Trade exist. Clients can close their eyes and buy all by themselves, which judging by the fact you failed at Jones and have to work for a bank demonstrates you know all too well.[/quote] Past performance doesn't do much when the market has been flat over 10 years. Explain to me how using past performance would help anyone sell anything after the last decade. If you think owning equities is the wrong choice for the long term, but jumping in and out is the right choice, good luck. People go to Vanguard and ETrade because they think they can jump in and out like you think you can. The average investor always bails at the wrong time and a brief look at the history of mutual fund in/outflows would show you that, but you are too busy reading a Jim Cramer book to follow logic. [/quote] You have completely talked yourself around in a circle. So tell me, what is your basis behind reccomending buy and hold? That is doesn't work because of the last ten years? Or are you saying that as a buy and hold advisor, you haven't been able to sell anything due to the market action? People go to Vangaurd because they see no value in buying and holding, yes there are traders, but the majority of DIY investors go to Vangaurd et al because they have see no value in the "hold on, historically equities are the only way to beat inflation" pitch. They can suffer a 38% loss without paying you for it. If you consider getting out in Jan 08 and back in July 09 to be trading, then you need to get out more. I will give you a thought which will make you money. Job #1 is not to lose money. Job #2 is to not let little mistakes become big mistakes. A 38% drawdown violates both. As does a 35%, 28%, 25% (whatever you claim to be your 08 #) drawdown.[/quote] You claimed I sell on past performance and I said how is that possible when the last 10yr performance wouldnt help in that area. A balanced ETF allocation over the last 10 yrs did 5.8%. If you are rebalancing and helping people avoid the big mistakes (jumping into smallcap in 2000 because it killed everything else, jumping into bonds in 2002 because it killed everything else, selling their portfolio to buy an apartment building in 2006 because it killed everything else) you are doing your job. There are different forms of buy and hold. I am not saying buy 30 individual stocks and never sell them. There are slight adjustments you can make to enhance a portfolio, but going completely in or out is not something that can be repeated successfully.[quote=Ron 14][quote=Jebediah][quote=Ron 14][quote=Jebediah][quote=Ron 14]The questions about American Funds ? In the 90’s they didn’t chase any tech or telecom because they were businesses they did not understand thus they didnt see great returns because the 90’s were fueled by monster gains in those areas. 00-07 they were good because they werent in the tech that crashed and they were huge owners of financials (largest shareholders of AIG, BofA, Citi) that paid great dividends and had huge gains. When that sh*t hit fan so did their funds. This just adds to my argument that nobody can predict the market. If monster fund companies with all of the resources in the world miss these huge fluctuations I am not going to push my value proposition by saying that I can predict them.
[quote=Gaddock]What if you could consistently set up positions that are successfully no matter where the market goes? If such magic existed would it be something you would consider? YOU CAN EVEN DCA into it.
What would you think about that?[/quote] Gaddock we have gone over this. I know this is what you do. Options aren't even on my product list. IF I WERE YOU I WOULD KEEP ALL OF THE PROFITS FOR MYSELF. I WOULDNT GIVE THOSE AWAY FOR A WRAP FEE.Very good, I see you've been paying attention to the information posted on these boards. So what I am hearing is that as a financial professional, you cannot see (not predict) what sectors are doing well and position your clients to take advantage of that? Your value proposition is "I will tell you it's ok in the bad times, if you hold on long enough, you will be ok." Is that it? So you are predicting this based on the past? What you don't realize is that you rely far more heavily on predictions than I do. Ironic.[/quote] You are correct I don't predict anything. You are telling me that you look at what sectors are doing well and then position your clients to take advantage of that, AFTER THEY HAVE STARTED DOING WELL. That is usually late to the party and proves you just follow the crowd. Genius ![/quote] You predict that buying and holding will do well based on past performance. Of course every piece of sales lit you hand out says "Past performance..." You are correct, I go into areas of the market after they have begun to do well as opposed to when they are doing poorly. As far as following the crowd, you couldn't be farther off. I got out in Jan 08. Went back in last week. Your weak mind will say "You missed a 40% rally!!! Hahahaha". I will reply that I missed a 30% downturn. To each his own. I have never had a prospect who was down any amount tell me how beneficial DCA is, how it allows you to buy more shares at a cheaper price lower your cost basis. I have had many prospects ask me "why can't a professional do anything during a bad market?" You are the reason companies like Vangaurd and E*Trade exist. Clients can close their eyes and buy all by themselves, which judging by the fact you failed at Jones and have to work for a bank demonstrates you know all too well.[/quote] Past performance doesn't do much when the market has been flat over 10 years. Explain to me how using past performance would help anyone sell anything after the last decade. If you think owning equities is the wrong choice for the long term, but jumping in and out is the right choice, good luck. People go to Vanguard and ETrade because they think they can jump in and out like you think you can. The average investor always bails at the wrong time and a brief look at the history of mutual fund in/outflows would show you that, but you are too busy reading a Jim Cramer book to follow logic. [/quote] You have completely talked yourself around in a circle. So tell me, what is your basis behind reccomending buy and hold? That is doesn't work because of the last ten years? Or are you saying that as a buy and hold advisor, you haven't been able to sell anything due to the market action? People go to Vangaurd because they see no value in buying and holding, yes there are traders, but the majority of DIY investors go to Vangaurd et al because they have see no value in the "hold on, historically equities are the only way to beat inflation" pitch. They can suffer a 38% loss without paying you for it. If you consider getting out in Jan 08 and back in July 09 to be trading, then you need to get out more. I will give you a thought which will make you money. Job #1 is not to lose money. Job #2 is to not let little mistakes become big mistakes. A 38% drawdown violates both. As does a 35%, 28%, 25% (whatever you claim to be your 08 #) drawdown.[/quote] You claimed I sell on past performance and I said how is that possible when the last 10yr performance wouldnt help in that area. A balanced ETF allocation over the last 10 yrs did 5.8%. If you are rebalancing and helping people avoid the big mistakes (jumping into smallcap in 2000 because it killed everything else, jumping into bonds in 2002 because it killed everything else, selling their portfolio to buy an apartment building in 2006 because it killed everything else) you are doing your job. There are different forms of buy and hold. I am not saying buy 30 individual stocks and never sell them. There are slight adjustments you can make to enhance a portfolio, but going completely in or out is not something that can be repeated successfully. [/quote] Small caps were bad in 2000? Hmmmmm. Might have to disagree with you. What exactly do you consider a balanced ETF portfolio?[quote=Jebediah][quote=Ron 14][quote=Jebediah][quote=Ron 14][quote=Jebediah][quote=Ron 14]The questions about American Funds ? In the 90’s they didn’t chase any tech or telecom because they were businesses they did not understand thus they didnt see great returns because the 90’s were fueled by monster gains in those areas. 00-07 they were good because they werent in the tech that crashed and they were huge owners of financials (largest shareholders of AIG, BofA, Citi) that paid great dividends and had huge gains. When that sh*t hit fan so did their funds. This just adds to my argument that nobody can predict the market. If monster fund companies with all of the resources in the world miss these huge fluctuations I am not going to push my value proposition by saying that I can predict them.
Can you read ? Small cap in 2000 because it killed everything else, meaning it did better than everything else. Everyone jumped in at the wrong time.
Balanced port would be 15% russell 1000 val, 15% russell 1000 growth, 10% Russell 2000, 20% MSCI EAFE, 30% Barclays Aggregate, 5% CS/Tremont Market Neutral, 5% NAREIT index
Depending on the time frame you run the above from, it is between 4.5-5.5%. Not great but not bad considering it was the worst decade ever for equity investing.
I can read, however translating your own statements back to you is becoming tiresome. http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/SP_600_vs_Russell2000_Concept_Paper.pdf You implied that getting into smallcaps in 2000 was the wrong move. However, smallcaps made money during the 2000-2002 market. Averaged about 5% annually from 2000-2008 (Yes that includes 2008). My statement was that I would have to disagree with you that smallcaps went bad in 2000. Care to disagree?Can you read ? Small cap in 2000 because it killed everything else, meaning it did better than everything else. Everyone jumped in at the wrong time.
The average investor jumps into smcap in 2000 (or just tech companies because their uncles nephews teacher made 100k in a day), treads water for 2 years and then sees it go down 20%. They say “I could have made 10% had I been in bonds, I am investing in bonds, this economy and this market sucks.” They are always late to the party.
So ron what are you going to do when this short covering rally ends and the market drops back 20%? Ride it down and let your clients get crushed telling them everything will be alright? Doing nothing is worse than doing something in bear markets
That is exactly what I am going to do if that in fact happens and I hope it does. 85% of my clients are under age 55 so I want them to acquire as much as they possibly can at the lowest prices they possibly can. We will rebalance down there if the allocations have shifted enough. Are you saying you are taking everyone out of the market here ? If not where ? Where are you going to buy back in ?
I use active management and have no clients that DCA into mutual funds like yourself, however I rotated a good portion out of equities into fixed income last year and cash type investments when the yield curve became inverted, have purchased stocks ,commodities and foreign etfs at attractive prices since then and i have taken profits when needed. I am more proactive than reactive to market forces. I am not a buy and HOPE advisor.
Late to the party? This is where a Financial Professional comes in. Or you could just tell them how many shares they are acquiring and to ignore the balance, it's only a loss if you sell!The average investor jumps into smcap in 2000 (or just tech companies because their uncles nephews teacher made 100k in a day), treads water for 2 years and then sees it go down 20%. They say “I could have made 10% had I been in bonds, I am investing in bonds, this economy and this market sucks.” They are always late to the party.
You clowns still wont answer me. Are you getting out now ? When will you get back in ? Are you waiting to sell ? Were you like everyone else who thought we were going back down once we bounced back to dow 8k ? The reason you guys don’t answer is because you don’t know. You guys have no clue. Did you guys also sell your houses, rent, and you are now looking to buy a foreclosure because you predicted that too ?
First of all, you talk about the “market” like we buy the market. It’s called security selection, and if you do it right, it works. Who cares what the Dow is doing? Or the S & P for that matter.
If you start listening to talking heads or if you let mutual fund managers touch your clients’ money, those may be concerns.
Who can't read? You are a dunce. I scaled back my clients equity exposure greatly in Oct 2000, went back in April 03. Got out in Jan 08, back in last week. Missed tops, missed bottoms, have clients that are far happier and better off for it. Will the market go up from here? I don't know. What I do know is that I missed a 30% downturn and have a large margin for error before I "catch up" to your losses.You clowns still wont answer me. Are you getting out now ? When will you get back in ? Are you waiting to sell ? Were you like everyone else who thought we were going back down once we bounced back to dow 8k ? The reason you guys don’t answer is because you don’t know. You guys have no clue. Did you guys also sell your houses, rent, and you are now looking to buy a foreclosure because you predicted that too ?
So you pride yourself on the movement of your clients in and out of equities, but if you got a referral tomorrow you don’t have a market viewpoint. Sounds like a good strategy.
So you prospect, manage clients, put together full financial plans, and select the individual securities. Oh, I forgot you "own" and RIA so you don't do anything, but write your thesis and collect a check. What are you buying now ? What are you selling now ? What is going to lead the way the 2nd half of the year ?First of all, you talk about the “market” like we buy the market. It’s called security selection, and if you do it right, it works. Who cares what the Dow is doing? Or the S & P for that matter.
If you start listening to talking heads or if you let mutual fund managers touch your clients’ money, those may be concerns.
Keeping with the you can't read theme, I could have sworn that I typed that I got back in the market last week. Kinda resembles a market viewpoint. I will tell you what my viewpoint isn't. "Buy today and keep buying regardless because in 20 years you will be ok, at least that is what has happened in the past."So you pride yourself on the movement of your clients in and out of equities, but if you got a referral tomorrow you don’t have a market viewpoint. Sounds like a good strategy.
And you also said you didn't know if the market will go up from here So which is it ?
Nevermind. You have convinced me. Asset allocation, rebalancing, buy and hold are all dead.
Following this thread is like watching the business channels. Everybody says they see great opportunities in this or that but nobody ever narrows it down to a specific ticker symbol and time frame.
Ron every way to skin a cat can be proven and disproven. As long as the US is a strong growing nation only an unlucky dumbass can't make money over time. The market has and will go up more then down. Just do what you do and keep your clients best interest in mind. They will be better off in the end. But do know that the higher net worth clients expect more and can afford to invest in opportunities that give greater returns for example writing options, SMA's, Hedge funds, etc.[quote=Moraen]First of all, you talk about the “market” like we buy the market. It’s called security selection, and if you do it right, it works. Who cares what the Dow is doing? Or the S & P for that matter. If you start listening to talking heads or if you let mutual fund managers touch your clients’ money, those may be concerns.
So you prospect, manage clients, put together full financial plans, and select the individual securities. Oh, I forgot you “own” and RIA so you don’t do anything, but write your thesis and collect a check. What are you buying now ? What are you selling now ? What is going to lead the way the 2nd half of the year ?[/quote]
Yes. I do collect a check(s). You have to limit the number of securities you follow, otherwise you can get overwhelmed. It’s simple, really. I actually don’t do a whole lot of prospecting and financial plans are pretty easy to put together once you have the software in place. I mean, seriously? Is it that hard? If you want to know what I do, PM me and I’ll be happy to share. Of course, you’ll have to sign a contract and pay me $5k, but I’m sure you wouldn’t have a problem with that.
I think this argument doesn’t really matter. I will go back to the whole your method is the global warming of the financial services industry. People who are fanatics are fanatics. The other side (Me, Gaddock, Jebediah) are considered “deniers” (quite a repulsive term!).
You are going to continue to do what you think is best, and we are going to continue to do what we think is best. I don’t think there is anything wrong with your approach. I just don’t think people become wealthy like that.
Oh and a thesis is for a Master’s. Dissertation is for Ph.D.
And it’s not about prediction it’s about smart trading. I don’t predict anything.
I would say market timing or whatever it is you guys do is the global warming of today's industry, not buy and hold. Global warming isn't something that has been around for ever and now people are starting to doubt it. Either way who cares. As ND says this thread is getting old.
[quote=Ron 14]
I would say market timing or whatever it is you guys do is the global warming of today’s industry, not buy and hold. Global warming isn’t something that has been around for ever and now people are starting to doubt it. Either way who cares. As ND says this thread is getting old.
[/quote]
People have been making money in the market using strategies other than buy and hold for the longest.
Buy and hold and asset allocation are models developed from theories a while back. Global warming models have been around for a while.
And people are starting to doubt MPT.
I only bring up the GW debate because I was having a long debate the other day at Rotary. But it’s the same thing. “Our way is the only right way, you other people are deniers”.
I BELIEVE in your approach, for what it does. You just don’t believe in mine. Which is fine. Ok, last word to someone else and I’m fine letting the thread die.
Actually I was doing just that but was told that doing so may get FINRA on me as a non Series 7 may construe it as advice. I wish we could. I would love to see / share ideas that are tangible.Following this thread is like watching the business channels. Everybody says they see great opportunities in this or that but nobody ever narrows it down to a specific ticker symbol and time frame.
[quote=Ron 14]
And you also said you didn't know if the market will go up from here So which is it ?
[/quote] I can't see the future, can you? What does this have to do with this conversation? This is what is funny about buy and holders, they say unless you know what is going to happen 10 minutes from now 100% of the time, buy and hold is the only way to go. And since no one has a crystal ball, buy and hold is the only way to go. This very thread started with Gaddock talking about a H&S pattern and you jumped in saying "how did that work out for your clients?" Tech analysis is not perfect, nothing is. My clients are in the black from 1/1/2008 unitl now. How are your clients doing? The indicator I use went positive last week. Does this mean the market will go straight up? No. Does this mean that the market could not go straight down from here and the signal could turn negative again? No. What it means is that a $250m account on 01/01/2008 is worth more than that today instead of being worth $175m.Anyone who came to me in Jan of 2008 and said their main goal was to have their account be up in value in 18 months is also in the black because they weren’t in equities.
My clients were in equites before and also now. Guess that is the difference between you and I.Anyone who came to me in Jan of 2008 and said their main goal was to have their account be up in value in 18 months is also in the black because they weren’t in equities.
Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/general/text-book-head-and-shoulders-pattern