Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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

Reduce Growth Significantly By Being Out Of The Market!

edited November 28 in Other Investing
I recently received the latest Fidelity Viewpoints newsletter.
One of the articles referenced in the newsletter is titled "6 reasons why you should consider investing right now."
According to this article, "a hypothetical investor who missed just the best 5 days in the market since 1988
could have reduced their long-term gains by 37%."


I've read many articles over the years which draw similar conclusions, but still find it amazing
that being out of the market for only a few days has such a detrimental effect on long-term returns.
This is just one reason why I don't try to time the market!

https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/wealth-management-insights/reasons-to-invest-now

Comments

  • edited November 28
    While the above is true, it missed an important fact. What is better, missing the 10 best days or the 10 best worst days? The answer is the worst days.
    Read my link
    Conclusions:
    1. The stock market historically has gone up about two-thirds of the time.
    2. All of the stock market return occurs when the market is already uptrending.
    3. The volatility is much higher when the market is declining.
    4. Most of the best and worst days occur when the market is already declining because markets are much riskier than models assuming normal distributions predict.
    5. The reason markets are more volatile when declining is because investors use a different part of their brain making money than when losing money.

    Timing is difficult but not impossible.
    * Beating the SP500, especially when you have a large portfolio, is not always the goal. Since 2000, my goal has been to have the best risk/reward performance.
    * When US LC doing well, it's usually the best risk/reward category. But, over long time, think 2-3 decades; it's definitely at the top or best. So why do most investors don't use the SP500 as their only stock choice? After all, Bogle and Buffett recommended it for decades.
    * After years of tweaking, exploring and trading, I concluded that timing works very well with slower bond OEFs, and not great with higher volatility categories. Read (link).
  • edited November 28
    Not disputing the conclusions in the OP. I certainly have done poorly fiddling with some of my accounts vs accounts I do not touch. Does seeking active over passive funds not include an expectation that the manager would practice some timing better than we could ourselves? If so, what aspects of timing is acceptable and what is not?

  • edited November 28
    BB, as I said already it has been proven decades ago that the SP500 beats most mutual funds over long term.
    This is how Vanguard got so big, but millions still trade, go figure.
    Many times the investors who don't know much and do nothing, out perform the ones who know more and trade, including pro fund managers.
    I also have been saying for years that investment sites encourage people to trade more.
    The most revealing are small and often trades without impact.
  • Successful investing rules from Benjamin Graham.
  • Crash said:

    Successful investing rules from Benjamin Graham.

    The book is a good read, but the devil is in the details. How many Buffets do we have?
    A lot of the wisdom was lost in the technology age.
    Divvies don't matter as much; the biggest tech companies don't pay much or none and had the best performance.
    Finding hidden gems isn't easy with the internet.
    Just because something is overvalued, it doesn't mean it can't continue for years to come.

  • edited November 28
    Somebody needs to send a copy of this “Reduce Growth Significantly By Being Out Of The Market” thread to Warren Buffett.

    Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway dumps $75.5 billion worth of stock and halves Apple stake

    ”Berkshire Hathaway Inc. slashed its stake in Apple Inc. by almost 50% as part of a massive second-quarter selling spree that sent billionaire Warren Buffett's cash pile to a record $276.9
    billion.”
    (Fortune - August 3, 2024)
  • He could buy a goodly chunk of COST with that amount, something Charlie Munger always advocated for.
  • edited November 29
    hank said:

    Somebody needs to send a copy of this “Reduce Growth Significantly By Being Out Of The Market” thread to Warren Buffett.

    Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway dumps $75.5 billion worth of stock and halves Apple stake

    ”Berkshire Hathaway Inc. slashed its stake in Apple Inc. by almost 50% as part of a massive second-quarter selling spree that sent billionaire Warren Buffett's cash pile to a record $276.9
    billion.”
    (Fortune - August 3, 2024)

    But look at the performance of BRK/B since Q3(7-1-24). It beat the SP500 by 8% (https://schrts.co/XnbnPKQD)
Sign In or Register to comment.