|
|
Post by FD1000 on Mar 8, 2023 21:33:54 GMT
( seekingalpha.com/news/3945500-advisers-love-bonds-cash-and-value-stocks-shun-growth-and-gold-bofa?mailingid=30772207&messageid=2900&serial=30772207.61340&utm_campaign=rta-stock-news&utm_content=link-1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha&utm_term=30772207.61340) Among other highlights in the survey:
1) In stocks, 78% prefer Value (IWD) (VONV) vs. 12% who like Growth (IWF) (VONG). 2) Respondents are most bullish on Healthcare (XLV), 76% bullish, Energy (XLE), 73% bullish, and Financials (XLF), 67% bullish. They are most bearish on Consumer Discretionary (XLY), 51% bearish, Real Estate (XLRE), 44% bearish, and Info Tech (XLK), 37% bearish. Let's test the experts YTD. IWD(value) made 1.3...IWF(growth) 8.4 XLV -7%...XLE -2.9%...XLF 2.2% (the most 2 bullish by the experts lost the most) XLY 10.7...XLRE 3.3...XLK 12.7% The advisers="experts" were 100% wrong for the above. Pretty funny. I'm sure many believe in the above too. |
|
|
|
Post by archer on Mar 9, 2023 1:34:49 GMT
I wonder if the advisors really believe it. Maybe they think the current losers are the future long term gainers due to being beaten down. I lack the long term view, and do often get jerked around because of it. I like looking at the relative strength indicator on Stockcharts, and go for the sectors that are beating spy rather than the advisors picks that aren't.
|
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Mar 9, 2023 2:29:51 GMT
No need to wonder. Listen to CNBC and within 2 hours, you will hear the same opinions, and it's going on for at least 2-3 months. Health care is the best category, financial makes sense because rates are higher, value stocks are better, higher div stocks should be great, tech is over valued and on and on.
|
|
|
|
Post by mnfish on Mar 9, 2023 12:18:27 GMT
I'm going to assume that since the article is dated March 8 that they believe those are the funds they like going forward. That's what advisors try to do, look forward. Maybe we should revisit at the end of the year?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fearchar on Mar 9, 2023 17:57:24 GMT
Investments are typically held for a minimum of 3 years. Indefinite is an even better time frame.
Traders have extremely short time horizons and look at recent performance.
Investors look much further ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by habsui on Mar 9, 2023 19:09:43 GMT
Also, claiming that growth was best for the first few weeks this year while being in MMs is just as wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Mar 9, 2023 20:14:13 GMT
Investments are typically held for a minimum of 3 years. Indefinite is an even better time frame. Traders have extremely short time horizons and look at recent performance. Investors look much further ahead. Well, if "Indefinite is an even better time frame" then we should not discuss anything about investment, AKA Bogle=use 2-3 indexes and done. On the other hand indefinite can lower performance for years too. SP500 lost money in 10 years 2000-2010. Value, SC, international had lower performance for 10 years than SPY and especially QQQ from 2010 to end of 2019. Many experts were saying for several years starting in 2015 that EM is a bargain and were wrong for years. Prof Shiller claimed in 2012 that US equities are over valued based on his PE10 and will make 4% in the next 10 years, the SP500 made easily over 14% annually. GMO claimed at the end of 2010 that EM will make more than US in the next 7 years. Arnott made similar claims too. All were hugely wrong. So, with all do respect, I'm not convinced. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2023 21:59:28 GMT
Who wants to go on record about value vs growth from here to June 30? Or December 31, 2023? Or which sub-sectors will perform the best? Will MMF beat the S&P? Energy? Commodities? Gold?
The past is less interesting to me than the future when it comes to investing.
|
|
|
|
Post by newtecher on Mar 9, 2023 22:56:12 GMT
Who wants to go on record about value vs growth from here to June 30? Or December 31, 2023? Or which sub-sectors will perform the best? Will MMF beat the S&P? Energy? Commodities? Gold? The past is less interesting to me than the future when it comes to investing. For an absolute value investor, even Dec 31 is probably too short a timeframe. Still, given the preference for more disclosure expressed in this forum, I can share my current US equity holdings. I remember oildog doing it many years ago and it was very valuable. Stocks: PFE, QCOM, NFG (roughly equal weights). Would be interesting to compare the performance of these to S&P at the end of the year. I also have a long-dated CMG put option as a hedge but that would be hard to include. If someone put a gun to my head, forcing to choose one US equity fund, it would probably SCHD. I do not have opinions on gold, energy sector as a whole, commodities, S&P vs MMF, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by archer on Mar 9, 2023 23:13:45 GMT
I think short term or long term, it is risky to buy sectors that are doing the worst. They may be valued better than the leaders, but who knows how much lower they will go before turning around.
|
|
|
|
Post by racqueteer on Mar 9, 2023 23:27:15 GMT
Age old dilemma: Momentum versus reversion to the mean (also possibly resulting in catching a falling knife); either one a slam dunk.
|
|
|
|
Post by habsui on Mar 9, 2023 23:57:15 GMT
Who wants to go on record about value vs growth from here to June 30? Or December 31, 2023? Or which sub-sectors will perform the best? Will MMF beat the S&P? Energy? Commodities? Gold? The past is less interesting to me than the future when it comes to investing. I will guarantee that on June 30 somebody will tell you what did best for the last 3 months. |
|
|
|
Post by newtecher on Mar 10, 2023 0:09:25 GMT
I think short term or long term, it is risky to buy sectors that are doing the worst. They may be valued better than the leaders, but who knows how much lower they will go before turning around. As a value investor, I almost always buy securities that have done terribly in the preceding period. When I posted that bonds look attractive in late Oct, they had had an absolutely terrible year. To each their own. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2023 0:16:56 GMT
I think short term or long term, it is risky to buy sectors that are doing the worst. They may be valued better than the leaders, but who knows how much lower they will go before turning around. From what I can tell, what is doing worst (YTD) is LCV, followed by MCV. That is without getting too granular. But, now the notion of more/bigger rate hikes has suddenly appeared more likely. |
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Mar 10, 2023 0:25:18 GMT
I think short term or long term, it is risky to buy sectors that are doing the worst. They may be valued better than the leaders, but who knows how much lower they will go before turning around. As a value investor, I almost always buy securities that have done terribly in the preceding period. To each their own. Buying individual stocks is completely another game which is not recommended for most. It's time consuming, and not guaranteed to do better, after all, the "stupid" SPY have been beating most fund managers for decades and these guys definitely have more tools and time than typical individual investors. There is a good reason indexes have taken a bigger share over the years. Buffett which is probably the best stock expert of our time recommends using the SP500. Buying the worse sectors isn't a good idea either because better ones have shown to do better for years. Raq, looking at wide range indexes and using risk/reward (or performance with lower volatility) 2-3 times annually and switching will keep you in the right place. |
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on May 26, 2023 21:05:42 GMT
( seekingalpha.com/news/3945500-advisers-love-bonds-cash-and-value-stocks-shun-growth-and-gold-bofa?mailingid=30772207&messageid=2900&serial=30772207.61340&utm_campaign=rta-stock-news&utm_content=link-1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha&utm_term=30772207.61340) Among other highlights in the survey:
1) In stocks, 78% prefer Value (IWD) (VONV) vs. 12% who like Growth (IWF) (VONG). 2) Respondents are most bullish on Healthcare (XLV), 76% bullish, Energy (XLE), 73% bullish, and Financials (XLF), 67% bullish. They are most bearish on Consumer Discretionary (XLY), 51% bearish, Real Estate (XLRE), 44% bearish, and Info Tech (XLK), 37% bearish. Let's test the experts YTD. IWD(value) made 1.3...IWF(growth) 8.4 XLV -7%...XLE -2.9%...XLF 2.2% (the most 2 bullish by the experts lost the most) XLY 10.7...XLRE 3.3...XLK 12.7% The advisers="experts" were 100% wrong for the above. Pretty funny. I'm sure many believe in the above too. The above is from March 8th. Let's give the experts the benefit of the doubt. We already know they missed the big run until March 8th. You can see it above. What happen since March? IWD(value) lost -2.1%...IWF(growth) 12.2% XLV +0.8%...XLE -7.1%...XLF -8% This means, they were wrong again and again...mmm...and probably still kept their jobs...why? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2023 21:37:35 GMT
It is hard to sell a newsletter or get invited by tv stations to market your firm or get peple to invest with you if only thing you can say is - I do not know.
Kashkari and raghuram rajan can say they do not know and no one knows and they do say so.
How does one tune out such Market experts? I do not have tv channels snd have stopped listening to wealthtrack as well. I have always regretted whenever i have listened to these market and economy experts.
|
|
|
|
Post by archer on May 26, 2023 22:42:05 GMT
I've been enjoying Dave Keller daily on "The Final Bar". He presents the data, some bullish and some bearish and let's the listener decide. He does share his interpretation of the data, but he's pretty humble about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on May 26, 2023 22:46:18 GMT
I've been enjoying Dave Keller daily on "The Final Bar". He presents the data, some bullish and some bearish and let's the listener decide. He does share his interpretation of the data, but he's pretty humble about it. My "guy" isn't humble, he has been reading markets using T/A pretty well and is bullish about Tech for weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by archer on May 26, 2023 22:53:27 GMT
I've been enjoying Dave Keller daily on "The Final Bar". He presents the data, some bullish and some bearish and let's the listener decide. He does share his interpretation of the data, but he's pretty humble about it. My "guy" isn't humble, he has been reading markets using T/A pretty well and is bullish about Tech for weeks. If you are referring to Tom Bowley, I consider him humble in the sense that he calls it like he sees it, but also says anything can happen, the charts can reverse, and when they do he will change his view. |
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on May 26, 2023 22:59:36 GMT
Yes. The beauty of his calls is the fact of his conviction. Changing his opinion is another good point. A good analysis gives you higher certainly either way, giving generic advice is meaningless. Just my opinion. ,🙉
|
|
|
|
Post by oldskeet on May 27, 2023 9:03:25 GMT
Hi guys. For me, I generally put new money to work in funds that are currently trading towards their 52 week lows over those that are my current leaders. Since the first of the year I have added mostly to those funds that are kicking off a good income stream over those that are more of the capital appreciation type. When the FOMC makes it's pivot I am thinking there will be some good valuation appreciation coming to my income generators. No doubt, my growth type funds will benefit as well as growth has been the better performer thus far this year and a decline in interest rates should offer fuel to move them higher.
With this, I keep on keeping on and investing in much the same way as I have invested through much of my life time. After all in 1960, at the age of twelve, my first investment was Franklin Income Fund which I still own today. If it's NAV went to zero I'd still be a winner due to it's income payouts. So, yes, I favor those funds that put income in my pocket, over time, more so than capital appreciation (growth) only funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by uncleharley on May 27, 2023 12:47:14 GMT
Hi guys. For me, I generally put new money to work in funds that are currently trading towards their 52 week lows over those that are my current leaders. Since the first of the year I have added mostly to those funds that are kicking off a good income stream over those that are more of the capital appreciation type. When the FOMC makes it's pivot I am thinking there will be some good valuation appreciation coming to my income generators. No doubt, my growth type funds will benefit as well as growth has been the better performer thus far this year and a decline in interest rates should offer fuel to move them higher. With this, I keep on keeping on and investing in much the same way as I have invested through much of my life time. After all in 1960, at the age of twelve, my first investment was Franklin Income Fund which I still own today. If it's NAV went to zero I'd still be a winner due to it's income payouts. So, yes, I favor those funds that put income in my pocket, over time, more so than capital appreciation (growth) only funds. Good Grief!!!! I am 3 yrs older than you! |
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on May 27, 2023 13:45:18 GMT
Hi guys. For me, I generally put new money to work in funds that are currently trading towards their 52 week lows over those that are my current leaders. Since the first of the year I have added mostly to those funds that are kicking off a good income stream over those that are more of the capital appreciation type. When the FOMC makes it's pivot I am thinking there will be some good valuation appreciation coming to my income generators. No doubt, my growth type funds will benefit as well as growth has been the better performer thus far this year and a decline in interest rates should offer fuel to move them higher. With this, I keep on keeping on and investing in much the same way as I have invested through much of my life time. After all in 1960, at the age of twelve, my first investment was Franklin Income Fund which I still own today. If it's NAV went to zero I'd still be a winner due to it's income payouts. So, yes, I favor those funds that put income in my pocket, over time, more so than capital appreciation (growth) only funds. Why would you add to lower performing funds? The following is what Peter Lynch learned from Buffett "Selling your winners and holding your losers is like cutting the flowers and watering the weeds". Both are great investors. I only buy/hold funds that go mostly up. Within the funds that go up I hold the ones with good risk-adjusted performance. Basically, you should hold/add only to winners and sell losers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2023 14:44:41 GMT
fd1000, "I only buy/hold funds that go mostly up. Within the funds that go up I hold the ones with good risk-adjusted performance.
Basically, you should hold/add only to winners and sell losers."
18 months ago techs were "Winners". 6 months ago they were "losers". Now they are "winners" again. When does a fund become a "Loser" or "Winner"? Selling "Losers" and buying "Winners" sounds like sell low and buy high. I think there's some very important timing involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by retiredat48 on May 27, 2023 15:30:13 GMT
Hi guys. For me, I generally put new money to work in funds that are currently trading towards their 52 week lows over those that are my current leaders. Since the first of the year I have added mostly to those funds that are kicking off a good income stream over those that are more of the capital appreciation type. When the FOMC makes it's pivot I am thinking there will be some good valuation appreciation coming to my income generators. No doubt, my growth type funds will benefit as well as growth has been the better performer thus far this year and a decline in interest rates should offer fuel to move them higher. With this, I keep on keeping on and investing in much the same way as I have invested through much of my life time. After all in 1960, at the age of twelve, my first investment was Franklin Income Fund which I still own today. If it's NAV went to zero I'd still be a winner due to it's income payouts. So, yes, I favor those funds that put income in my pocket, over time, more so than capital appreciation (growth) only funds. Good Grief!!!! I am 3 yrs older than you! So oldskeet, is not so old!! R48 |
|
|
|
Post by roi2020 on May 27, 2023 16:04:49 GMT
fd1000, "I only buy/hold funds that go mostly up. Within the funds that go up I hold the ones with good risk-adjusted performance. Basically, you should hold/add only to winners and sell losers." 18 months ago techs were "Winners". 6 months ago they were "losers". Now they are "winners" again. When does a fund become a "Loser" or "Winner"? Selling "Losers" and buying "Winners" sounds like sell low and buy high. I think there's some very important timing involved.
While some investors can achieve success using market timing, this strategy would be detrimental for most.
The market's best days and worst days often occur in close proximity.
Missing just a few of the market's best days can significantly reduce long-term returns.
For example, missing the 10 best days for the S&P 500 Index between 01/01/1980 and 12/31/2022
would reduce total returns by approximately 55% vs. staying invested during the entire period.
www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/dont-miss-best-days.pdf |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2023 16:40:29 GMT
fd1000, "I only buy/hold funds that go mostly up. Within the funds that go up I hold the ones with good risk-adjusted performance. Basically, you should hold/add only to winners and sell losers." 18 months ago techs were "Winners". 6 months ago they were "losers". Now they are "winners" again. When does a fund become a "Loser" or "Winner"? Selling "Losers" and buying "Winners" sounds like sell low and buy high. I think there's some very important timing involved.
Some investors can successfully time their investment purchases/sales, but unfortunately this is a losing proposition for most.
The market's best days and worst days often occur in close proximity.
Missing just a few of the market's best days can significantly reduce long-term returns.
For example, missing the 10 best days for the S&P 500 Index between 01/01/1980 and 12/31/2022
would reduce returns by approximately 55% vs. staying invested during the entire period.
www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/dont-miss-best-days.pdfAgreed. One important point is that the big positive difference staying invested in the index includes the worst down days. Missing them would be great but clairvoyance is not my strong suit. |
|
|
|
Post by oldskeet on May 27, 2023 16:50:30 GMT
Hi guys. Let me expand my comment. For me to go govern as FD1000 suggests since most of my invested wealth is in taxable accounts would create sizeable capital gains along with moving into a higher tax bracket along with higher medicare premiums. Rather than sell a secondary residence my wife and I have elected to gift it to our son for his family's enjoyment. In this way, since we don't need the cash, the home remains within the family and our expenses get reduced. Thus, I am sticking with buying out of favor good income generating mutual funds while they are out of favor in anticipation they will in time offer both some good capital appreciation while at the same time provide an income stream while I await their rebound. Call me a contrian investor for I am calling FD a momentum one. Now, I wonder what kind of tax advise FD gets?
|
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on May 28, 2023 0:49:45 GMT
Hi guys. Let me expand my comment. For me to go govern as FD1000 suggests since most of my invested wealth is in taxable accounts would create sizeable capital gains along with moving into a higher tax bracket along with higher medicare premiums. Rather than sell a secondary residence my wife and I have elected to gift it to our son for his family's enjoyment. In this way, since we don't need the cash, the home remains within the family and our expenses get reduced. Thus, I am sticking with buying out of favor good income generating mutual funds while they are out of favor in anticipation they will in time offer both some good capital appreciation while at the same time provide an income stream while I await their rebound. Call me a contrian investor for I am calling FD a momentum one. Now, I wonder what kind of tax advise FD gets? The following and many of my posts are about investing concepts. Undervalue funds really equal lagging. Undervalue just sounds better. It was probably invented as a marketing tool instead of admitting the obvious. Most investors with a larger portfolio have most of their money in deferred accounts. These are the people who used their 401K (or similar avenues) to invest/add monthly for years. You can use funds you know you will own for years in your taxable. Examples can be SPY/VOO/VTI, if you want Munis use VWALX. Someone with smaller portfolio don't need to think too much about taxes. I prefer to have a larger one with extra "problems". We have been down this road too...holding lagging income funds because of their higher distributions...using simple math proves that higher performance always wins...I had many posts proving this. Almost every "problem" has a reasonable solution, unless you are already too deep. There is a big difference between buying out of favor stocks vs funds. Buffett approach involves finding undervalued companies with strong potential for growth and investing in them for the long term. A lagging fund or a category can continue to lag for years to come. I can give many examples, a simple 2 should be enough. The SP500 lost money in 10 years during 2000-2010 while Value, SC, and international made money. The opposite happened in 2010-2021. I have been reading about 10 years now, that this coming year, cross my heart, international is going to beat the SP500. So, we are talking about 21 years of lagging. 2 questions: 1) What % of your total portfolio is in taxable? 2) After reading your posts, I know you trade several funds annually, I would not be surprise if you make 10+ trades per year. What stops you from buying better risk/reward momentum funds, instead of lagging funds? It's a choice. I hope you have a great future. |
|
