'Now I know who my real friends are'

Personally my take is if you are investing ideally you should also be working. Personally I find it quite hard to invest if I'm not working, the experience for me is very different because you have a sum of investible capital that needs some time to work out. What if the market tanked for 1 or 2 years what other income do you have?

At least when I have a job even if the market tanks I can still go around "half smiling" because at least I still have some bacon to bring home. just my 2 cts.

(29-05-2012, 07:35 PM)sgd Wrote: Personally my take is if you are investing ideally you should also be working. Personally I find it quite hard to invest if I'm not working, the experience for me is very different because you have a sum of investible capital that needs some time to work out. What if the market tanked for 1 or 2 years what other income do you have?

At least when I have a job even if the market tanks I can still go around "half smiling" because at least I still have some bacon to bring home. just my 2 cts.

I am far from suitable compare with Kopikat to response. But let me give my 2 cts on the topic

If I goes for full time in investing, a suitable portfolio with sufficient % in slow-grower/stalward companies (for dividend) as anchor. On top of that, a larger emergency fund of 1.5-2 years (compare with typical 6 months) should be able to survive when market tanks.

Your opinion? Kopikat

(29-05-2012, 08:22 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(29-05-2012, 07:35 PM)sgd Wrote: Personally my take is if you are investing ideally you should also be working. Personally I find it quite hard to invest if I'm not working, the experience for me is very different because you have a sum of investible capital that needs some time to work out. What if the market tanked for 1 or 2 years what other income do you have?

At least when I have a job even if the market tanks I can still go around "half smiling" because at least I still have some bacon to bring home. just my 2 cts.

I am far from suitable compare with Kopikat to response. But let me give my 2 cts on the topic

If I goes for full time in investing, a suitable portfolio with sufficient % in slow-grower/stalward companies (for dividend) as anchor. On top of that, a larger emergency fund of 1.5-2 years (compare with typical 6 months) should be able to survive when market tanks.

Your opinion? Kopikat

In my opinion if you don't have an amout of $1million it's not worth the time to go into full time investing by choice.this is bcos as WB said the realistic long term return is about 4-6% for most investor. So for $1million you get about $40-$60k/ yr to spend. For those with lower/higher needs you can adjust the amt accordingly.I would advocate holding your day job. There are many benefits besides the constant CF. You get to know how businesses makes money and help you in the circle of business knowledge.

KopiKat,

Respect!

Thanks for sharing more about yourself.

I helps to know more about the person behind the nick.

What you say is very true.

I guess the hawkers first suspect I was on shift work. But after 2-3 months, some I frequent more often will tease me: "You so free no need to work one?"

LOL!

(29-05-2012, 07:35 PM)sgd Wrote: Personally my take is if you are investing ideally you should also be working. Personally I find it quite hard to invest if I'm not working, the experience for me is very different because you have a sum of investible capital that needs some time to work out. What if the market tanked for 1 or 2 years what other income do you have?

At least when I have a job even if the market tanks I can still go around "half smiling" because at least I still have some bacon to bring home. just my 2 cts.

(29-05-2012, 09:04 PM)Jacmar Wrote: In my opinion if you don't have an amout of $1million it's not worth the time to go into full time investing by choice.this is bcos as WB said the realistic long term return is about 4-6% for most investor. So for $1million you get about $40-$60k/ yr to spend. For those with lower/higher needs you can adjust the amt accordingly.I would advocate holding your day job. There are many benefits besides the constant CF. You get to know how businesses makes money and help you in the circle of business knowledge.

Both of you are very right in that one should continue to work as long as one is able to. Nothing beats the FCF coming from a full time job - one gets paid on the dot, month after month. You can skive anytime you want to (as long as you don't get caught or mess up any major projects). You even get paid while you are sick (MC + Hospitalisation), when you have kids (maternity, paternity) and even get paid when you go on leave! You can claim for this and that (Health/Medical Benefits,..). So, why even quit at all?? You actually get the best of both worlds if you were to continue working and do your investing at the same time (extra income).

The alternative of investing for a living is actually quite scary. If you plan to survive only on a 4% to 6% returns, then yes, you'll most likely need $1Mil, assuming you don't plan to touch the original Capital.

In fact, if I'd not gotten retrenched all those years back, I wouldn't have had the guts to even try. No, I didn't start with a million bucks. In fact, I was in a negative equity position if I'd factored in my outstanding mortgage loan.

In my case, luck played a very strong role. Like 'swakoo' mentioned in an earlier post, I was lucky to have participated in the super bull from '03 onwards, which helped to turn my position to a very positive equity situation. I stumbled on this forum's predecessor in '05 when I was trying to get my act together, learnt a lot from the many gurus, ... and looking back, everything seems to just fall in place. But, I don't deny that it was a very, very stressful period of my life! It's only now that I looked back, it seems to have gone so smoothly and the ride seems to have been rather fun and enjoyable!

---

(29-05-2012, 08:22 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: If I goes for full time in investing, a suitable portfolio with sufficient % in slow-grower/stalward companies (for dividend) as anchor. On top of that, a larger emergency fund of 1.5-2 years (compare with typical 6 months) should be able to survive when market tanks.

I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution. IMO, each of us have to find an approach that's suitable for themselves.

In my case, I'm getting ~6% Dividend Yield as my anchor + ~2% from 'active' dividend management routines (cd/xd) + ?? % from other active switching routines. Most months, I have dividends coming in (I don't do cd/xd to all my stocks) and need to watch my cash flow closely only in Jan/Apr/Jul/Oct as these are usually zero/low dividends month. As I have 'switching' transactions (blame it on Peter Lynch) almost every week, I can also tap on the sales proceeds for my cash flow if required.

I'm used to not having any fixed emergency funds set aside (I do set aside some funds in a few different bank accounts to pay my different bills - GIRO, Visa and that does add up to a few months' worth of funds and which I top up whenever it gets depleted). My thinking is that I can easily liquidate any of my Stalwarts if I do suddenly need some extra funds urgently. In fact, the only time I have lots of free cash idling around in my bank accounts would be when many of my stocks have hit my selling price and I can't find any alternative to 'switch' to.

---

(29-05-2012, 06:42 PM)Temperament Wrote: Of course, some people will still try to avoid you for their own reasons.
Who cares? Definitely not me.

Yes! Who cares!

---

(29-05-2012, 10:25 PM)Jared Seah Wrote: I guess the hawkers first suspect I was on shift work. But after 2-3 months, some I frequent more often will tease me: "You so free no need to work one?"

My clothes must have been the give-away that I'm a jobless poor. Have to maintain my jobless image, you know...

(29-05-2012, 11:46 PM)KopiKat Wrote:

(29-05-2012, 08:22 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: If I goes for full time in investing, a suitable portfolio with sufficient % in slow-grower/stalward companies (for dividend) as anchor. On top of that, a larger emergency fund of 1.5-2 years (compare with typical 6 months) should be able to survive when market tanks.

I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution. IMO, each of us have to find an approach that's suitable for themselves.

In my case, I'm getting ~6% Dividend Yield as my anchor + ~2% from 'active' dividend management routines (cd/xd) + ?? % from other active switching routines. Most months, I have dividends coming in (I don't do cd/xd to all my stocks) and need to watch my cash flow closely only in Jan/Apr/Jul/Oct as these are usually zero/low dividends month. As I have 'switching' transactions (blame it on Peter Lynch) almost every week, I can also tap on the sales proceeds for my cash flow if required.

I'm used to not having any fixed emergency funds set aside (I do set aside some funds in a few different bank accounts to pay my different bills - GIRO, Visa and that does add up to a few months' worth of funds and which I top up whenever it gets depleted). My thinking is that I can easily liquidate any of my Stalwarts if I do suddenly need some extra funds urgently. In fact, the only time I have lots of free cash idling around in my bank accounts would be when many of my stocks have hit my selling price and I can't find any alternative to 'switch' to.

Well said. I am planning now (full time investor) as plan B if i am fully out of "normal job". No harm to have a contingency plan in place.

Your advice is useful to fine tuning the plan B. I am getting around the same ~6% from my anchor stock (stalward), I will sharpen my rotating skill to increase the %. Target to have 10% return (feasible?), and will adjust accordingly in due course.

The focus should on high-grower/Turnaround/Asset-play. Hope to grow the portfolio with this group.

Emergency fund planning? Your approach make sense. I will consider anchor stocks + emergency fund as single entity for emergency needs. Fine tuning it is necessary to maximize the return.

For me now, the dividends coming mostly during Q2/Q3, the least is on Q1 (where the most $ needed, NY, CNY etc ). But it is less of a concern for me, i can always have a fund to buffer it.

---

(29-05-2012, 11:46 PM)KopiKat Wrote: Both of you are very right in that one should continue to work as long as one is able to. Nothing beats the FCF coming from a full time job - one gets paid on the dot, month after month. You can skive anytime you want to (as long as you don't get caught or mess up any major projects). You even get paid while you are sick (MC + Hospitalisation), when you have kids (maternity, paternity) and even get paid when you go on leave! You can claim for this and that (Health/Medical Benefits,..). So, why even quit at all?? You actually get the best of both worlds if you were to continue working and do your investing at the same time (extra income).

The alternative of investing for a living is actually quite scary. If you plan to survive only on a 4% to 6% returns, then yes, you'll most likely need $1Mil, assuming you don't plan to touch the original Capital.

In fact, if I'd not gotten retrenched all those years back, I wouldn't have had the guts to even try. No, I didn't start with a million bucks. In fact, I was in a negative equity position if I'd factored in my outstanding mortgage loan.

In my case, luck played a very strong role. Like 'swakoo' mentioned in an earlier post, I was lucky to have participated in the super bull from '03 onwards, which helped to turn my position to a very positive equity situation. I stumbled on this forum's predecessor in '05 when I was trying to get my act together, learnt a lot from the many gurus, ... and looking back, everything seems to just fall in place. But, I don't deny that it was a very, very stressful period of my life! It's only now that I looked back, it seems to have gone so smoothly and the ride seems to have been rather fun and enjoyable!

My wish is to repeat your story and success on mine in the next bull run (near future?).

I am active in the last bull run, but following a less efficient and effective approach.

quote ".....So, why even quit at all?? You actually get the best of both worlds if you were to continue working and do your investing at the same time (extra income)......"

No wonder I see a lot of zoombies at work. Their minds are at somewhere else. (Are u reading this during your office hours using your office computer?)

One worry of a full time investor is that, during a bad year, dividends declared by listed companies are on the low side. That may put pressure on a full time investor to perform more switching to increase income. What happen if recession last for a few years? Belt tightening for the same duration?

(30-05-2012, 10:32 AM)wsreader Wrote: quote ".....So, why even quit at all?? You actually get the best of both worlds if you were to continue working and do your investing at the same time (extra income)......"

No wonder I see a lot of zoombies at work. Their minds are at somewhere else. (Are u reading this during your office hours using your office computer?)

One worry of a full time investor is that, during a bad year, dividends declared by listed companies are on the low side. That may put pressure on a full time investor to perform more switching to increase income. What happen if recession last for a few years? Belt tightening for the same duration?

IMO, every profession have their fair share of worries, the same applies to full time investor.

For "normal job", the worry are retrencement, pay cut, office politic, nasty bosses etc.

For "biz owner", the worry are staff shortage, rental rising, biz cost rising, supplier issue etc.

(30-05-2012, 10:32 AM)wsreader Wrote: quote ".....So, why even quit at all?? You actually get the best of both worlds if you were to continue working and do your investing at the same time (extra income)......"

No wonder I see a lot of zoombies at work. Their minds are at somewhere else. (Are u reading this during your office hours using your office computer?)

One worry of a full time investor is that, during a bad year, dividends declared by listed companies are on the low side. That may put pressure on a full time investor to perform more switching to increase income. What happen if recession last for a few years? Belt tightening for the same duration?

"One worry of a full time investor is that, during a bad year, dividends declared by listed companies are on the low side. That may put pressure on a full time investor to perform more switching to increase income. What happen if recession last for a few years? Belt tightening for the same duration? "

Unquote:
Yes,agree. So we all should hope one day our portfolio is large enough that the dividends receive per year is enough to cover our yearly expenses; regardless of the market conditions. IMHO, i think this is an ideal investment goal. Then you can invest in your "own terms"..... ER...... maybe a little like WB.

(30-05-2012, 09:49 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: Well said. I am planning now (full time investor) as plan B if i am fully out of "normal job". No harm to have a contingency plan in place.

With a Plan B in place, the savings + extra income can give you extra confidence in your job. As you are not totally dependent on the full time income for all your living expenses, it may actually give you the confidence to give your professional opinions in the work place even if it may offend others (as you're not as fearful of losing your job).

Quote:Target to have 10% return (feasible?), and will adjust accordingly in due course.

10% annual realised returns is not difficult to achieve as there's a already a base of 6% for dividends and you just need another 4% via active management (eg. switching). The bigger problem is the unrealised part, especially during a bad market year.

For eg. in 2008, my realised returns was 10.01% (Profits = 3.16% + Div = 6.86%). But, with STI = -49.41%, I was sitting on unrealised losses = -48.92%. Nett = -38.9%, scary? It's times like these that you get to see how well you'd selected your stocks and whether you have the stomach to be doing investing.

So, why invest?

Come 2009, STI = +64.49%!
Somehow, even though STI was still at a lower level than end-07, my total assets had surpassed my end-07 level.

Come 2010, STI = +10.09%
2010 was my dream year. One of my stock rx a G.O. and fortunately, I had accumulated a meaningful amount (I learnt from my previous G.O. 'lessons' where I made only tiny amount of $$ that don't make any significant impact on my total Net Worth).

2011 was another bad year with STI = -17.04%
I'd posted somewhere in another thread that I ended the year Nett -ve but within the 1st Q of 2012, I'd again surprisingly rebounded back and even now, am still Nett +ve wrt to end-'10.

So, one of the joys of DIY investing is the 'luck' of enjoying huge gains from G.O., Cyclicals, Turnarounds and Growth Stocks when you get it right and you happened to have accumulated a meaningful amount. At other times, you get to enjoy the upward rides of STI. In between, you'll realise that you can't survive on luck alone during STI downward rides ; you'll also get to know your stomach a lot better..

---

(30-05-2012, 01:30 PM)Temperament Wrote: Yes,agree. So we all should hope one day our portfolio is large enough that the dividends receive per year is enough to cover our yearly expenses; regardless of the market conditions. IMHO, i think this is an ideal investment goal. Then you can invest in your "own terms"..... ER...... maybe a little like WB.

Fully agree! Investing becomes a lot more fun then. BUT, Money Always No Enough... Don't know whether it's due to rampant inflation or inflation of expectations (greed)...