Fully vested always vs Market Timing approach

Anyway, it seems most forummers practiced some short of market timing approach. Willing to hold cash for considerable period of time and increasing it.

I think very few do yearly investment without keeping a significant warchest.

Japan risks Asian currency war with fresh QE blitz
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econo...blitz.html

(04-11-2014, 05:00 PM)koh_52 Wrote: We at now at stag-inflation state. High cost of living and low return or low yield in stock & rental...all $ sucken by the papies...Cash put in bank FD collecting dust.
Currently I also do nothing., since last year been cashing out my money out from an investment managed by a fund manager with net net return of 5% per annum, not so bad lar.
I am a market timer, hehe..got burnt in 1997 during asian crisis but hit jackpot in SAR 2003/4 and again time correctly in 2009...most gain come from ppty investment.

IMO, stay away from property this 2 years (2015-16) you may ask how about selling now...i dunno, for me ppty is a long term investment, enter at a low price and have holding power after GE think ppty will chiong (provided garment remove the TDSR, I think they will)..but you have to enter early...hehe, when all are fearful, you greedy lor...so cash is king when market tank.

(04-11-2014, 05:29 PM)Greenrookie Wrote: Anyway, it seems most forummers practiced some short of market timing approach. Willing to hold cash for considerable period of time and increasing it.

I think very few do yearly investment without keeping a significant warchest.

Cunning double meaning or accident: 'some short of market timing approach'? Humour much appreciated, so thank you.

Agree that having a warchest is important, to take advantage of good opportunities when they arise - and they are more likely to appear after a good bear market.

(04-11-2014, 05:21 PM)Greenrookie Wrote:

(04-11-2014, 04:48 PM)Temperament Wrote:

(04-11-2014, 04:38 PM)yeokiwi Wrote:

(04-11-2014, 04:31 PM)Temperament Wrote: Yes, inflation should be low. But is it low in Singapore or high?
CNA had flashed news on why hawkers' food prices are high. Can you name any necessary daily living items not inflated in Singapore?
If you can soon it will be inflated too.

Sure-win question. I concede defeat.
Last reply.

Seriously,
Daily necessities of living is getting more and more expensive. O. K. some of the prices of tvs, electronics good may be going down but that's because newer and newer models are coming out faster and faster. It use to take 4 or 5 years for newer models to be in the market, now maybe 1 to 2 years. Granted a tv may be a "daily necessities of living now" but you don't have to change if you don't have the spare cash. But we need to eat everyday. Especially at hawker's centres.

HI uncle Temperament,

I have to disagree gently. The scourge of inflation is everywhere, having deflation is not actually a good idea.

Inflation is Singapore is reasonable, of course never ideal. The only crazy inflation are those of cars and properties.

But look at it this way, govt do try to regulate the properties prices through curbs, GLS to regulate supply. PPI from 1999 (post AFC) the lowest point till now is about slighly more than 100% increase, and we all KBKP like we are conned of our money, we forget we can don't buy, walk away, In china, it is a circus with few folds jumps in a matter of years in the early 2000s, I am talking about 2nd tier and 3rd tier cities too.

Again, it is a blessing to have a choice of hawker food. I know Malaysia is cheaper and SEA countries have roadside peddlers that sell damn cheap food here, but I think it is only fair to compare apple with apple, say compare Singapore with the capital cities of the world, and perhaps Australia. Even Shanghai is super expensive now compared to a decade ago. I am not talking about the upmarket malls in Shanghai.

How many countries actually let their citizens study for free if they do not meet certain salary thresholds? Pardon me, if many countries do that, then I am ignorant. FAS criteria is not actually damning strict, and we have NGOs picking up the cracks.

Of course, I do understand, Singapore is not actually a very nurturing place for ideas like democracy, complete freedom of speech, etc...

But when we talk about inflation and basic necessities prices, I think they are not doing too badly

Sorry for OT

No offense, can agree to disagree. LOL

Yes of course. We can agree to disagree.

Let me share with you we have been depending on hawker centre food for all these years. We rarely cook at home. We have our own transport so we go to many different hawker centres. Recently a few hawker centres seem to have many vacant stalls. Many stall holders have given up due to whatever reasons and yet no one seems keen to rush in. This remind me of the songs -"Fools rush in where angels fear to thread".

Why? Is it no more lucrative enough to be a hawker at hawker's centre anymore? Or/And is it that less and less people can afford to eat at hawker centre?
We have not seen such "phenomenon" of so many vacant stalls before in all our life. And it is more than one hawker centres. Maybe we need less hawker centres in future?
Something have definitely changed in Singapore?

(04-11-2014, 08:20 PM)Temperament Wrote: Let me share with you we have been depending on hawker centre food for all these years. We rarely cook at home. We have our own transport so we go to many different hawker centres. Recently a few hawker centres seem to have many vacant stalls. Many stall holders have given up due to whatever reasons and yet no one seems keen to rush in. This remind me of the songs -"Fools rush in where angels fear to thread".

Why? Is it no more lucrative enough to be a hawker at hawker's centre anymore? Or/And is it that less and less people can afford to eat at hawker centre?
We have not seen such "phenomenon" of so many vacant stalls before in all our life. And it is more than one hawker centres. Maybe we need less hawker centres in future?
Something have definitely changed in Singapore?

Uncle Temp. You are lucky your area still have a few hawker centers. I have been living near the Jurong Point shopping area for 10+ years and there is 0 hawker centers. After the last election result, we were promised a hawker center by our MP. But unfortunately the idea was scrapped. Was told the reason cant find enough pp willing to be hawkers.

(04-11-2014, 09:26 PM)Bibi Wrote:

(04-11-2014, 08:20 PM)Temperament Wrote: Let me share with you we have been depending on hawker centre food for all these years. We rarely cook at home. We have our own transport so we go to many different hawker centres. Recently a few hawker centres seem to have many vacant stalls. Many stall holders have given up due to whatever reasons and yet no one seems keen to rush in. This remind me of the songs -"Fools rush in where angels fear to thread".

Why? Is it no more lucrative enough to be a hawker at hawker's centre anymore? Or/And is it that less and less people can afford to eat at hawker centre?
We have not seen such "phenomenon" of so many vacant stalls before in all our life. And it is more than one hawker centres. Maybe we need less hawker centres in future?
Something have definitely changed in Singapore?

Uncle Temp. You are lucky your area still have a few hawker centers. I have been living near the Jurong Point shopping area for 10+ years and there is 0 hawker centers. After the last election result, we were promised a hawker center by our MP. But unfortunately the idea was scrapped. Was told the reason cant find enough pp willing to be hawkers.

Ha! Ha!
Yes i am more lucky. But don't forget we have our own transport.

Do you know when i ask a famous MEE POK stall holder at one hawker centre why so many stalls are vacant, he answers, "The G wants more people to go and study to be high flyers lol". Is he more or less giving the same answer as the MP at your ward. That is, it is no more lucrative enough to be a hawker one reason or another at hawker centres.
Die liu where to find cheap hawker's food? Must force myself to cook more at home liu.

(04-11-2014, 02:50 PM)Behappyalways Wrote: I was invited by Professor Jeremy Siegel to Wharton for a public debate on stocks versus bonds. He, of course, favoured stocks and I advocated Treasury bonds. At one point, he addressed the audience of about 500 and said, "I don't know why anyone in their right mind would tie up their money for 30 years for a 4.75% yield[the then yield on the 30-year Treasury]." I got no answer, but pointed out that unless a company merges or goes bankrupt, the maturity on its stock is infinity - it has no maturity. My follow-up question was, " What is the yield on stocks?" to which someone correctly replied, "It's 2% on the S&P Index."

So I continued, " I don't know why anyone would tie up money for infinity for a 2% yield."

If S&P500 conglomerate continues to use that retained earnings (that wasn't distributed for the 2% yield) to invest in capex or even perform some financial engineering magic (sharebuyback), i will be glad to hold it even it gives a perpetual 2% yield. I mean who will reject the capital gains coming from the market re-rating it to 2% as it grows its earnings/payout??

(04-11-2014, 02:50 PM)Behappyalways Wrote: I am read Gary Shilling "The Age of Deleveraging" and a paragraph caught my eyes.....

Food For Thought

I was invited by Professor Jeremy Siegel to Wharton for a public debate on stocks versus bonds. He, of course, favoured stocks and I advocated Treasury bonds. At one point, he addressed the audience of about 500 and said, "I don't know why anyone in their right mind would tie up their money for 30 years for a 4.75% yield[the then yield on the 30-year Treasury]." I got no answer, but pointed out that unless a company merges or goes bankrupt, the maturity on its stock is infinity - it has no maturity. My follow-up question was, " What is the yield on stocks?" to which someone correctly replied, "It's 2% on the S&P Index."

So I continued, " I don't know why anyone would tie up money for infinity for a 2% yield."

You don't have to buy S&P 500.
You buy good stocks that increase dividends every year.
My experience tells me that stocks I bought 10 to 15 years ago is yielding 25 to 50 % based on price paid . And I DO NOT reduce the cost by deducting the dividends from the cost price. Many were unfortunately delisted over the years. This is the only downside.
Even though stocks have no maturity, good businesses always get privatised or merged or bought over. Looking for good businesses to buy is tough.

(04-11-2014, 10:38 PM)amperex Wrote:

(04-11-2014, 02:50 PM)Behappyalways Wrote: I am read Gary Shilling "The Age of Deleveraging" and a paragraph caught my eyes.....

Food For Thought

I was invited by Professor Jeremy Siegel to Wharton for a public debate on stocks versus bonds. He, of course, favoured stocks and I advocated Treasury bonds. At one point, he addressed the audience of about 500 and said, "I don't know why anyone in their right mind would tie up their money for 30 years for a 4.75% yield[the then yield on the 30-year Treasury]." I got no answer, but pointed out that unless a company merges or goes bankrupt, the maturity on its stock is infinity - it has no maturity. My follow-up question was, " What is the yield on stocks?" to which someone correctly replied, "It's 2% on the S&P Index."

So I continued, " I don't know why anyone would tie up money for infinity for a 2% yield."

You don't have to buy S&P 500.
You buy good stocks that increase dividends every year.
My experience tells me that stocks I bought 10 to 15 years ago is yielding 25 to 50 % based on price paid . And I DO NOT reduce the cost by deducting the dividends from the cost price. Many were unfortunately delisted over the years. This is the only downside.
Even though stocks have no maturity, good businesses always get privatised or merged or bought over. Looking for good businesses to buy is tough.

i "market timing" all these years except for HP and BAC. Sometimes i wonder if i combine B & H with some market timing or more B & H then market timing, will i have better CAGR?
Anyway i think i have to do more "B & H" for dividend income (no more HC). But i won't say i won't switch to "market timing" if the time is ripe.

No need to react every time markets move
Published
3 hours ago

What happens when we're driving and we reach a red light? We stop, right? When the light turns green, we zoom off. If we don't, it usually doesn't take long for the driver behind us to start honking the horn.

Anyone who has survived driver's education (or sitting in the back of a taxi) knows we're inclined to connect certain behaviour with red and green lights. We've gotten so used to certain signals, in fact, that sometimes we forget to consider whether the signal truly requires us to act or has somehow managed to confuse us.

For instance, the light may be green, but what if a crazy pedestrian crosses the street in front of us? We don't keep going. We stop, wait for that person to reach the other side of the road, and then go.

So the real signal to go isn't the "noise" of the green light. We need the signal of an empty road in front of us and a green light. Saying, "But the light was green", isn't the best excuse for hitting a pedestrian, even if it may ultimately keep you out of trouble.

Now, consider the stock market's signals and noises. Its performance gets measured every moment of every day, down to a tenth of a point. That's a lot of noise, and we often confuse it for a signal. The most common example has to be down days versus up days. If the market goes up, the non-rational part of our brain hears the noise of that higher number and thinks, "Oh, that's a signal to buy". If the market goes down, that same area urges us to "Sell, sell, sell".

We've gotten so used to certain signals, in fact, that sometimes we forget to consider whether the signal truly requires us to act or has somehow managed to confuse us... We've grown used to the idea that when markets move, they're a signal for us to move too. In most cases, we're better off ignoring the noise and doing the exact opposite.

But what if - and maybe this is a silly idea - we didn't do anything? Or, what if we at least didn't do anything that wasn't based on a plan? What if we ignored the noise and instead focused on signals that relate to us personally?

Of course, if you don't have a simple financial plan guiding your overall strategy, this experiment will prove a little tricky. But let's assume you do have one, say, built on the weighty evidence of history, your goals and your values. What signals does your plan tell you actually matter? I'm betting it's not the daily movement of the markets.

In my experience, a well-designed plan relies on two signals.

First, there would need to be a change in goals or values before you bought or sold stock.

Second, there might be a change that you had actually scheduled, like selling stocks and buying bonds when stocks have gone up.

In both instances, how the markets are moving and what the talking heads are reporting are not signals to act. Instead, you're weighing what you said you wanted to happen five years ago with what you want to have happen right now or five years from now.

Did you decide you love your work, and retiring in a few years just doesn't make sense any more? That's a signal to change your plan.

As part of your investment strategy, did you decide to keep your portfolio divided 70/30 between stocks and bonds? If your portfolio value now measures closer to a 65/35 split, that's a signal to rebalance.

These signals are personal. They're based on what's happening to you, not what's happening in China or Greece.

But we've grown used to the idea that when markets move, they're a signal for us to move too. In most cases, we're better off ignoring the noise and doing the exact opposite.

NEW YORK TIMES

•The writer is a financial planner in Park City, Utah.