The cost benefit of self-directed value investment

Quote:Just to clarify - I was not trying to demean Edison.

For those who are interested in the feuds between Edison and Tesla. The following link was very interesting and funny.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

Tesla was liked Tony Stark.

Hi fat al

Neither am I trying to amplify Edison

Indeed we should learn from their respective strengths and ignore their weakness. Just as Buffett isn't exactly a good model for family man

IMHO between these 2 greats Edison had managed to be more inspirational and direct impact into solving common man's conundrum. Which is in that sense not dissimilar to Buffett and leads back to my original question: if the gurus all make around 20% CAGR why is Buffett way apart from the pack?

(16-05-2014, 04:38 PM)specuvestor Wrote: Hi fat al

Neither am I trying to amplify Edison

Indeed we should learn from their respective strengths and ignore their weakness. Just as Buffett isn't exactly a good model for family man

IMHO between these 2 greats Edison had managed to be more inspirational and direct impact into solving common man's conundrum. Which is in that sense not dissimilar to Buffett and leads back to my original question: if the gurus all make around 20% CAGR why is Buffett way apart from the pack?

Because Buffet is in reinsurance. He opmi.

(16-05-2014, 03:45 PM)yeokiwi Wrote:

Quote:Just to clarify - I was not trying to demean Edison.

For those who are interested in the feuds between Edison and Tesla. The following link was very interesting and funny.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

Tesla was liked Tony Stark.

Very interesting. Didn't know about this. All true?

(16-05-2014, 08:16 PM)GPD Wrote:

(16-05-2014, 03:45 PM)yeokiwi Wrote:

Quote:Just to clarify - I was not trying to demean Edison.

For those who are interested in the feuds between Edison and Tesla. The following link was very interesting and funny.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

Tesla was liked Tony Stark.

Very interesting. Didn't know about this. All true?

Not all are 100% true. But Edison was rather overhyped in his achievements(inventor of light bulb??) while Tesla was not as recognized despite his amazing contributions to power distribution, AC and induction motors and RF transmission.
Think of it, what are taught currently in the basics of AC electricity generation and AC motors in engineering courses are essentially the same as what Tesla had come out a century ago. The designs are so good that they are roughly the same as what they were a hundred years ago.

(15-05-2014, 01:05 PM)tanjm Wrote: Let me put it to you this way. Let's say you generate a annual long term return of 7% after passing through 2 business cycles. How do you know if your effort was worthwhile?

It's worthwhile if you did better through the 2nd cycle than the 1st cycle.

Better can be relative to the index, in absolute %, or even in the amount of $$ made per unit time. As mentioned earlier, size does matter. A 7% gain in earlier years may not be significant but as the portfolio builds up, so does the $$ (worthwhile).

Also mentioned earlier that the accumulation of investment knowledge over the years will make investing easier as it gets along. So hopefully if one persists he will have more $$ and is wiser at later stage. That's when the "compounding" will be most rewarding.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/7-reaso...lcountdown

Of course one has to take into account this was analyzed for mutual funds, which have overheads.

Nevertheless, this article gives you food for thought that beating the market, even by a little bit, is already an achievement. And I wonder how many VBuddies really do as well as they think they did.

(17-06-2014, 10:44 PM)tanjm Wrote: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/7-reaso...lcountdown

Of course one has to take into account this was analyzed for mutual funds, which have overheads.

Nevertheless, this article gives you food for thought that beating the market, even by a little bit, is already an achievement. And I wonder how many VBuddies really do as well as they think they did.

I am also not too sure but i know i have a tendency to remember my winners and forget about my losers.

i can understand about when investing in the stock market, one should have a "benchmark". But for me i have not think of any benchmark. i just use Microsoft Money software to track and capture every data about investing as accurately as possible.
i found (for me) it is really difficult to beat the benchmark. i will be happy if i can equal or slightly better than STI ETF as BenchMark.
That makes me think whether i should buy some STI ETF???

FROM SGX:-


//////////////////////
/////////////////////////

As noted above, the SPDR® STI ETF has been available to investors since 2002. Without dividends, over the ten years ending Feb 2014 the SPDR® STI ETF gained 63.9% in Net Asset Value. Including dividends, the 10 year return came to 123.56%. This meant that over the past 10 years, with dividends included, the SPDR® STI ETF returned 8.4% on an annualised basis.
//////////

http://www.fool.sg/2014/03/25/straits-ti...-10-years/

(17-06-2014, 11:17 PM)safetyfirst Wrote: I am also not too sure but i know i have a tendency to remember my winners and forget about my losers.

It is actually a very important psychological traits: it helps us to be optimistic and move forward, and helps to erase painful memories. In general psychologcial pain last not more than 18 months, from child-birth, break-ups etc.

It is however detrimental if we don't learn our lessons and we have to relearn again and again... That's what set good investors apart from the normal psychology