Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
The four common obsessions of successful traders and investors
I have never been all that fond of Tony Robbins. But other than his dismissal of luck (a key ingredient to success) I thought the above was pretty good. Especially obsession Number One ( Don't Lose) which from my experience is the most lacking in the majority of traders and investors.
I like this, although the source makes me look askance. "Personal Motivators" are showmen, first and foremost. The article is not too long and manages to SAY something. It is consistent with my own way of putting the question: "Is investing a Science or an Art?" The answer, of course, is YES.
*Also, let's not forget the Zurich Axioms, too. Some here at MFO have noted that there are contradictions within them, and so, what good are they? But I just think that they (Zurich Axioms) are a perfect example of the Science AND Art which we call "investing." There is some intuition necessary. I don't mean acting on hunches. Do your due diligence and your research and your homework, yes. But then consider the unspoken and maybe unspecified interplay concerning all of your work, and THEN go. ..... And YES: "you're never done." Some years ago, I thought I had it licked, and followed a recipe that worked. Only, the recipe stopped working, amid changing circumstances. I switched-up my portfolio, but it was pretty late to do so. Luckily, I'm still in the game and still managed some profit. What I've got to work with is small potatoes. But in the article, it says you must be looking to hit home runs--- yet, NOT with your entire stake, just a little of your stash. "Risk a LITTLE to make a LOT." I'm into nothing exotic, solely open-ended funds. But along those lines, my best 2 examples are TRAMX and MSCFX. Have I done SOME things correctly, just by instinct? Maybe.
'Don't lose' is at the same level of utility as luck. It means nothing. If it is your mantra or whatever the word is, you will never invest, or only in things so sure you will never make serious money. It should be recast as Avoid All and I Do Mean All Risk. zzzzzzz
Davidrmoran, there is another way to look at "don't lose". It can also be seen as know when to fold them or don't try and catch a falling knife.
If you invest or trade in things that are already trending up and adhere to set stops, that is one system that works. I believe this is the junkster way and I've copied it myself with success on HY muni bonds.
There are plenty of fund managers that have the same don't lose mantra.
Just another thought David. No need to be sarcastic.
Would you call Romick successful? How about Yacktman. Both have montras to preserve capital, aka don't lose. Sounds to me like Junkster has had pretty good luck with his system too. Or is all that a lie? Cause you say it ain't so, it can't be true... huh
I do like Wesley's description of window dressing...
Under the pressure of career risks, mutual/hedge fund managers tend to "window-dress" before disclosing performances to clients, especially at the end of quarter/year. To "paint" a clean portfolio picture, and dress their window, managers sell those stocks with large losses, and buy stocks that have done well.
Comments
*Also, let's not forget the Zurich Axioms, too. Some here at MFO have noted that there are contradictions within them, and so, what good are they? But I just think that they (Zurich Axioms) are a perfect example of the Science AND Art which we call "investing." There is some intuition necessary. I don't mean acting on hunches. Do your due diligence and your research and your homework, yes. But then consider the unspoken and maybe unspecified interplay concerning all of your work, and THEN go. ..... And YES: "you're never done." Some years ago, I thought I had it licked, and followed a recipe that worked. Only, the recipe stopped working, amid changing circumstances. I switched-up my portfolio, but it was pretty late to do so. Luckily, I'm still in the game and still managed some profit. What I've got to work with is small potatoes. But in the article, it says you must be looking to hit home runs--- yet, NOT with your entire stake, just a little of your stash. "Risk a LITTLE to make a LOT." I'm into nothing exotic, solely open-ended funds. But along those lines, my best 2 examples are TRAMX and MSCFX. Have I done SOME things correctly, just by instinct? Maybe.
Believe that was first article I've ever read by Tony Robbins.
I agree...it's a good one.
Thanks for sharing.
If you invest or trade in things that are already trending up and adhere to set stops, that is one system that works. I believe this is the junkster way and I've copied it myself with success on HY muni bonds.
There are plenty of fund managers that have the same don't lose mantra.
Whenever one can tell the future, that is.
Lemme know some of those 'plenty of fund manager'.
Market is trending up, and I know how to use stops, so maybe I should dive in more, huh.
Would you call Romick successful? How about Yacktman. Both have montras to preserve capital, aka don't lose. Sounds to me like Junkster has had pretty good luck with his system too. Or is all that a lie? Cause you say it ain't so, it can't be true... huh
http://www.alphaarchitect.com/blog/2014/11/17/does-doubling-down-work/#.VG0iofnF_5M
I do like Wesley's description of window dressing...