MJG: I am looking forward to your final interpretation and statement of results. Should be interesting. I enjoyed participating in your survey, but am curious about a few of its aspects. (1) I'm baffled that you were baffled to learn that quite a few members of MFO also enjoy viewing CNBC, Fox Business, or Bloomberg during the day. Seeing that financial markets are intricately woven into the fabric of both venues, I'd take that connectivity as a given. (2) Your assessment seems to rest on an underlying "black and white" premise: Those who view more than three hours a day of such programing must necessarily constitute frequent traders or market timers. Not so fast. I watch football a lot - but don't play the sport. I enjoy watching NASCAR racers travelling 200 MPH - but don't drive that way. Point is: many find something meaningful, even enjoyable to them personally, in viewing these networks part of he day. Any further inferences by you about their investment practices seem baseless. (3) You calculate the likely loss of "productivive time" in these hapless individuals' lives to be 20% or greater of their waking hours. Hmm ... Are you not aware that much of the viewing or listening takes place while otherwise engaged in productive activity - while driving, waiting in airports or working-out at gyms for example?
(4) I suspect your criticism isn't so much aimed at business programming as at commercial television in general. If that's the case, than I whole-heartedly share your consterntion. It does seem in large measure a vast waste-land or "sterile desert" (to borrow from Old Joe). As an experiment today, I moved around with the remote glancing at various channels to try and glean what one like yourself might be viewing at the time of day I often view CNBC. Hmm ... CNN was doing a feature story on a wrongful death suit involving Michael Jackson. Lots of graphic details about his untimely end (more than I cared to know). PBS was featuring "Clifford the Big Red Dog" - a children's animation. Surely C-Span can do better! I tuned in to an ongoing House Hearing on space and aviation - topics I normally enjoy. 71 year old Rep Bill Nelson of Florida was questioning 83 year old former astronaut Thomas Stafford. After the two droned on for 10-15 minutes, I noticed that at least two House aides visible on camera in the background appeared to have fallen asleep. About to do the same, I switched back to CNBC's "Closing Bell" with Maria Bartiromo - whom I find to be an engaging on-air personality - and pretty good financial journalist as well. (And Oh - I wasn't driven to call my broker and trade any funds today after watching Maria:-) So MJG, please share your daily viewing activities pursuant to our discussion. Hopefully you've discovered more to treasure in daytime programing than I uncovered today. Thanks. Regards
Comments
Apparently you took my market media survey far more seriously than I ever intended. I never planned a data review or interpretation analysis document. Sorry to disappoint you.
My original post on that matter clearly identified the flawed nature of the poll. I was amazed by the extensive interest it generated. I acknowledged in my original post that its’ results would quickly find the dust bin of history.
The survey was meant to be fun; it was designed to allow the MFO membership to pontificate on whatever media matters cause them pain or discomfort.
I correctly anticipated that the replies would be all very personal and would be probably all over the map. My expectations were realized. Take a quick examination of the numerous and mixed submittals. It would be yeoman work indeed to integrate these disparate comments and formats into a useful statistical analysis. It’s a mission impossible task. The replies include a few designed to do mischief; any sorting on my account would be subject to immediate challenge.
In reviewing my posting and your response to it, I’m dissatisfied that I did not state matters more clearly. Communications often is a high hurdle.
The 20 % number that I quoted and you used as an anchor, was simply inserted for illustrative purposes. In no way was it intended to serve in my assessments as some critical tipping point to segregate speculating day traders from longer term investors. I’m sorry that my poorly composed submittal confused you along those lines.
The sole purpose of the 20 % calculation was to demonstrate that investment time commitment should be scaled against some reduced time standard (less than the 24 hour day) to allow for other life necessities. From my prospective, each investor must decide for himself the proper investment time allocation depending on an endless array of personal parameters. There is no correct group answer; however, there is a personal correct number for each individual investor that likely changes over time.
The survey question was constructed to draw attention from the general MFO population. I certainly did not aim to impose my own biases and preferences. But you did ask, so you deserve an answer.
I never, never watch CNBC, Bloomberg, or Fox Business TV programming unless some Black Swan event is happening. I do watch perhaps one hour of general news after breakfast and near dinner. It is mostly repetitive stuff poorly delivered. My wife and I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times newspaper dailies. Those two papers and the Internet are our primary data sources. So I do not endorse nor do I condemn the daily TV programming; I simply do not participate enough to form a strong judgment. If any TV outlet appeals to you, by all means go for it.
Again, since you asked, my morning hours are usually spent walking aerobically, playing tennis doubles, reading a lot of books, listening to lectures from a variety of sources, doing yard work and gardening. In the mid-day hours, my wife and I do a little volunteer work delivering some lunch and dinner meals on wheels as a community service. It is not exciting stuff and I do not recommend it for anyone, but it’s okay for us.
Sorry that your expectations exceeded my objectives. Regardless, I respect your many fine contributions to the MFO discussions and your participation in the survey.
Best Wishes.
For all intents and purposes the post appeared to be a serious poll or survey directed to MFO members.
1. Here's your stated purpose: "Warning! Warning! This is a survey alert."
2. Here's the survey question: "On average, how many minutes per business day do you spend watching or listening to stock market reports? . Wait. That investment question is not properly posed. Better is: On average, how many hours or fractions thereof per business day do you spend watching or listening to stock market reports?"
3. Here's your stated polling bias: "My answer to the question is a firm and absolute Zero hours."
4. Here's your request for responses: "Please respond."
In addition to looking like a real poll, here's two of your more egregious assertions to which I've previously taken exception:
1. The assertion that viewing financial news correlates to frequent trading: "I would be very surprised if your estimated hourly viewing is substantially larger than my commitment. Since you folks are regulars on a mutual fund website and that tells a lot about your investment program, it is highly unlikely that you day trade frequently."
2. The assertion that watching financial news constitutes a waste of time: "If you watch CNBC, Bloomberg, or even Fox Business for 3 hours daily, that task is consuming 20 % of your free optional hours. Is the information gained worth that time sink? My answer is “No” ....."
MJG: IMHO You would do well to keep a clear dileniation between (1) arguing a particular point of view (which you are certainly entitled to do and capable of) and (2) conducting polls-surveys on topics of interest to members. I believe co-mingling the two purposes - as you have done - creates unnecessary confusion about the purpose and is unfair to the members who generouly give of their time in the belief they are helping a fellow member assemble some real and purposeful information which will benefit all members when compiled or otherwise interpreted. Regards
If someone is successful investing in a different manner than me, I think that's interesting and maybe I can learn something from them/take something away from what they're doing. Or maybe I'll just find what they're doing interesting and not take anything away from it. I like hearing about people who are investing in ways different than my own.
I've never understood the philosophy that there is one general way to invest (everyone should be long-term, should be this that or the other.)
If people day trade frequently and do well at that, then hey great. We live in a world of high frequency trading and institutions that have the attention span of fruit flies. Those who advocate long-term investing as the way to invest should be well aware that they are in what I believe to be the minority in terms of investor activity level in this day and age. I've become more and more long-term, but I'm also in things (with a couple of exceptions) that provide a significant dividend yield where I'm getting paid to wait.
Me too. Actually, I bore myself and find other people far more interesting.
You MUST look at data and evaluate it. Raw data means nothing and can really screw you up if you don't know what to make of it. So far I've been very fortunate or lucky, or a combination of both. Ignore data at your own peril, but don't be paralyzed, data-collecting, and never DECIDING.
...And yet, all of this so far tastes like cardboard. I like to investigate on my own, and I don't even attempt to use ALL the data, either. There's too much of it, like some of the crazy baseball statistics these days. (Isn't it interesting that the Dodgers have won the past 8 games played at Dodger Stadium in June under a full moon in an odd-numbered year? Which means... WHAT? It means NOTHING.)
Europe is seriously in the shitter, but TBGVX has beat the odds there and done very well. Go figure. ..... PRASX gets positive reviews, but lags many of its Asia-peers. But if your 403b or 401k is married to TRP, well, then--- the Asia-choice has pretty much been made FOR you, hasn't it? Can't lose sleep over it. Can't afford NOT to invest in Asia, but you might choose to underweight that particular fund.
The playing field (If you're British, that's the "pitch") is never level, and no one has an equal chance. But you might be able to EVALUATE the info. at hand better than many professionals, and do very well.
As for me: i started with geography. Get Asia covered, USA/Canada. Europe? OK, if one fund or another has some stuff there. I've dabbled in Latin America (PRLAX) but am glad I'm not in PRLAX any more. I'll let Andrew Foster decide how to allocate my fund-dollars in Latin America... Now, i even have a small stake in TRAMX, and it's not on fire, but doing respectably well. If the lay of the land suddenly changes, I might do very well there, and if things go to hell in Africa/Middle East, I don't have enough invested in that fund to be too very worried.
When I held most of my $$$ in a 403b, my choices were limited, even though it was self-directed, because so many Fund Houses refuse to deal with that particular investment vehicle. I have (Trad.) IRAs now, and can put my money anywhere. But I move my money very seldom, often not at all during any given year. I'm still grossly overweight in PREMX and MAPIX. By the end of THIS year, I WON'T be so grossly overweight in those two: I have a sure $6,000 becoming available to me in summer, 2013 and I will deploy it in MAPOX and MSCFX, to get the full benefit ($6,000) of the IRA tax deduction. and then, boom: I'll have quite a bit more in the USA than I do now, which is an absurdly small amount.
"Break a leg," everyone.
You noted: Your plan is for a spousal related benefit Roth IRA for yourself, yes? You noted an IRA tax deduction; indicating a traditional IRA that may meet certain deductions based upon income levels. I would surely consider a ROTH IRA, too.
IRS info
Just my late night 2 cents worth. NOTE: I am not a tax attorney, nor portray one in any tv series.
To the pillow for me; as 6 am will arrive too soon.
Regards,
Catch
Roth? We have always been in the 10% bracket. I don't see that changing, up ahead. Should I give the government what I'm going to owe them earlier than I must? We have a will, medical power of attorney.
If you're seeing something I'm not, I'm "all ears." Or something like that. Don't mix your metaphors, Max. I don't follow your non-sequitur. Just don't lose arguments with yourself... OK, I'm done.
Regarding taxes paid by your wife. I think you meant 0 allowances on W-4 form. It is not clear what you meant.
This is the IRS 590 section, which should help you with doing forward calculations regarding a "deduction" benefit for a traditional IRA, versus the benefit of a ROTH IRA into the future.
As to tax rates going forward, well; that is anyone's guess today, eh?
My only point was to consider your choices available from your bond monies.
Okay, this discussion area has moved too far away from the original thread.
Take care,
Catch