Hi JR,
I must tell you.. initially you suggested a Mutual fund and added that one should hold for 30yrs..is this with systematic purchases (as in dollar cost averaging) . Funds change fund managers. economic environment change. but historically, I always thought stocks outperformed the funds. Moreover, you added about averaging 12% per year....Now I have had some very good years.....but if any broker threw a figure like that at me......without being in a fixed debt instrument and only mutual funds....he would not have my business. IMO for 30yrs...I would be doing some serious diversification and asset reallocation. everyone should be educated and learn rather than just rely on mutual funds or some broker. I know several registered reps that were once top performers with my firm...that have vanished.....at least from the company....and a few with their client's funds. I know others that have traded ahead of their client's to increase their profits. What's my point.....be it trading or investing......educate yourself.
so yea...I thru out trading. that is my opinion. and I don't believe the cost to do business outweighs the possible benefits. if one gets more seasoned...hell set up a Trading entity and write off expenses you mentioned along with losses because now you can write off more than the annual $3000 max.
QUOTE]
I wasn't meaning any disrespect either, just having a conversation. Not trying to hijack the thread or anything. I am speaking from direct experience and other sources my knowledge, known probabilities, my extensive research and practice in risk management, etc.
I wasn't saying only buy one fund and hold that one fund for 30 years. One fund can crash, the manager can lose his mind, quit or get axed (as you said), etc. I think that most people who are not sophisticated / accredited investors who don't have all the money in the world and are able to stomach at least some short term risk and fluctuation in account value can probably do quite well to invest in at least several different well-managed funds that will tend to serve different purposes and form a well-diversified portfolio that will mitigate risk and tend to fare well in good times and hold up well in bad times regardless of what lies ahead.
What I and just about everybody else in the investment field who has worked in institutions, subject to external (and often internal) regulations, and is or has been responsible for unaccredited / unsophisticated people's money recommend is to take a longer term approach. Again, that doesn't mean buy and hold one thing for 30 years. But at institutions, internal and external regulators are quick to pounce on what they consider "churning" with unsophisticated investors' money.
I did clarify in a later post yesterday that I invest on fundamentals. I'll buy, sell, go to cash, short, or whatever based upon fundamentals and changes in fundamentals - whether those changes are within a company, a sector, an industry, the overall economy, etc. I definitely recommend even a novice investor review everything with their advisor a minimum of once a year, or preferably every quarter if possible. And most of the better funds I've liked to use for novice investors and in my own retirement plan do re-allocate when the fundamentals call for it. But they're not turning over the entire portfolio every day or even every month.
But are you saying that if a broker or fund manager threw a 12% average at you, that would be too low for you? Very few mutual funds average that. The only fixed instruments that would offer anywhere near that these days are either scams or perhaps very distressed companies or other entities that would be a relatively huge risk to principal.
Very successful hedge fund managers like David Einhorn average roughly 20%. He's relatively young though, and takes pretty big risks on the short side.
Legends such as Buffet and Icahn are closer to 30%.
And the odd insider trader like Steve Cohen has averaged roughly 40% over the long haul.
John Paulson made 5 billion for himself and 20 billion for his investors with returns well into triple digits in 2007 from shorting subprime mortgages, and has been pretty mediocre both before and after that. In fact he's been pretty beaten up in recent years off of his huge bet on gold. I happen to think gold is a great long term investment, but in the near to mid term it can be extremely volatile.
I'd be curious as to how you did in 2008 and the first quarter of 2009? Typically, the better one's investment strategies do in good times, the worse they will do in bad times (risk / reward).
If you don't mind me asking, what % of your account value do you typically put into any one trade? I have a general rule where I try to use no more than 5% of my $ for any one investment. And if it's a quick trade (higher risk), I'll try to limit myself to 2%.
How much would you say you've averaged from the beginning and for how long? I'm just legitimately curious.
Again, when you're dealing with others' (particularly average, unsophisticated investors') money, regulations, etc - or have been through some ups and downs yourself - risk management, some degree of principal protection, and thinking about the long haul are very important.
This is about the best performing mutual fund in the past 6 years. But he's only been around about that long. He did incredibly well, and has gone to a large cash position recently:
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/osfdx/f?t=osfdx
*EDIT: Regarding that one trade that went from 3800 to 40 million, could you expand on that a little more? How much of the portfolio was invested in that?
Why buy into a franchise when you could set something like this up for yourself and not have to pay part of your profits to someone else? Do your homework and cut them out.
You're not boring me. I'm paying attention.
I'm the kind of person that likes to learn from other peoples mistakes so I dont make them.
Tell us what not to do.
There are currently 0 members watching this topic