Posts: 2,641
Threads: 235
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
28
Advertising revenue is down(meta...), Freight rates is down, oil price is down, semiconductor demand is down.....
It does not take much for one to know what is going on...
For STI index, a drop to covid low is probable because US is likely to drop to covid low and probably lower... Where big brother(US) goes, small brother(STI) will follow...
Posts: 310
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2018
Reputation:
0
(06-10-2022, 11:41 AM)Behappyalways Wrote: Advertising revenue is down(meta...), Freight rates is down, oil price is down, semiconductor demand is down.....
It does not take much for one to know what is going on...
For STI index, a drop to covid low is probable because US is likely to drop to covid low and probably lower... Where big brother(US) goes, small brother(STI) will follow...
Bad news for macroeconomy may force the central banks to go slow in interest rate hike and thus good news for stock market. The rally in the US market in the past few days reflects this sentiment.
Posts: 2,641
Threads: 235
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
28
Posts: 2,641
Threads: 235
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation:
28
The market expectation for 75 actually increased.... This is a short squeeze in shortist not a pivot
https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/interes...-fomc.html
Posts: 3,936
Threads: 87
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
78
17-10-2022, 12:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 17-10-2022, 12:08 PM by weijian.)
I thought this Chin Hui Leong's article is an excellent article to address the thread's title.
However, I do take issue with his Apple's example because it is clouded by survivorship bias and just a single data point. One can ask the current investors of Covid winners (Zoom/Pelaton) or Chinese mega TECH in 2021 whether they should time the market (better than they did) in terms of buy/sell, and I suspect most of them may give a "silent nod".
VB old timers who subscribe to "time in the market" will focus on the fundamentals (NAV, FCF, moats) because that is what matters for "time in the market". On the other hand, folks who are holding onto losers or gave back HUGE paper gains in the market, hope to improve their "timing the market" skills.
And the old adage comes true once again - The young one knows the rules but the old one understand the exceptions.
How Great Value is Being Created in the Stock Market Today
When I bought shares of Apple in June 2010 at a split adjusted US$8.75 per share, the business had generated US$0.47 per share in FCF over its trailing 12 months.
The stock sported a P/FCF ratio of 18.7, as shown in the enclosed table.
The clear driver is Apple’s FCF per share that has ballooned from US$0.47 when I bought the shares to over US$6.60 today.
https://thesmartinvestor.com.sg/how-grea...ket-today/
Posts: 1,509
Threads: 29
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
33
(17-10-2022, 12:06 PM)weijian Wrote: ..
However, I do take issue with his Apple's example because it is clouded by survivorship bias and just a single data point. One can ask the current investors of Covid winners (Zoom/Pelaton) or Chinese mega TECH in 2021 whether they should time the market (better than they did) in terms of buy/sell, and I suspect most of them may give a "silent nod".
..
Give credit where credit is due, when people display great foresight (e.g., with regards to buying Apple early, and holding it through thick and thin, irregardless of market noise). They deserve their success. And credit where credit is due, where investors saw the writings on the wall when they divested early (e.g., with regards to Chinese tech, when the tide of politics turned against them).
Buy-and-hold cannot substitute due diligence and insights.
“If you buy a business just because it’s undervalued, then you have to worry about selling it when it reaches its intrinsic value. That’s hard. But if you can buy a few great companies, then you can sit on your ass. That’s a good thing.” - Charlie Munger
Posts: 3,936
Threads: 87
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
78
(17-10-2022, 02:22 PM)Wildreamz Wrote: (17-10-2022, 12:06 PM)weijian Wrote: ..
However, I do take issue with his Apple's example because it is clouded by survivorship bias and just a single data point. One can ask the current investors of Covid winners (Zoom/Pelaton) or Chinese mega TECH in 2021 whether they should time the market (better than they did) in terms of buy/sell, and I suspect most of them may give a "silent nod".
..
Give credit where credit is due, when people display great foresight (e.g., with regards to buying Apple early, and holding it through thick and thin, irregardless of market noise). They deserve their success. And credit where credit is due, where investors saw the writings on the wall when they divested early (e.g., with regards to Chinese tech, when the tide of politics turned against them).
Buy-and-hold cannot substitute due diligence and insights.
I want to be clear first - I do not have a problem with his personal success.
What I take issue is his single simple example Apple to illustrate "time in the market". As you have mentioned, it is more nuanced than just "buy and hold" because there are qualitative factors involved (making "buy and hold" work) which are not elaborated.
He is talking about simple heuristic rules to the audience, but not elaborating on the exceptions (and what make those rules work).
Posts: 1,509
Threads: 29
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation:
33
(17-10-2022, 03:24 PM)weijian Wrote: I want to be clear first - I do not have a problem with his personal success.
What I take issue is his single simple example Apple to illustrate "time in the market". As you have mentioned, it is more nuanced than just "buy and hold" because there are qualitative factors involved (making "buy and hold" work) which are not elaborated.
He is talking about simple heuristic rules to the audience, but not elaborating on the exceptions (and what make those rules work).
100%. I can get behind that. 99.9% of companies in the market isn't suitable for buy-and-hold. And it is the job of the long-term investors to identify these exceptional companies (resilient, innovative, brand-power, high return on capital, create value for stakeholders etc.), if they want to adopt that strategy.
“If you buy a business just because it’s undervalued, then you have to worry about selling it when it reaches its intrinsic value. That’s hard. But if you can buy a few great companies, then you can sit on your ass. That’s a good thing.” - Charlie Munger
Posts: 3,936
Threads: 87
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
78
(17-10-2022, 04:56 PM)Wildreamz Wrote: 100%. I can get behind that. 99.9% of companies in the market isn't suitable for buy-and-hold. And it is the job of the long-term investors to identify these exceptional companies (resilient, innovative, brand-power, high return on capital, create value for stakeholders etc.), if they want to adopt that strategy.
Well, the 0.1% suitability might be a tad too harsh. From a recent study by Bessembinder that was made popular by finance blogs, ~0.3% of stocks made some good gains but then again, I reckon 0.3% is not too far from 0.1%.
An interesting thought - I think as investors, if we happen to invest in 1 company for every two/five that we dive into detail. We are either super investors or delusional. I am personally guilty as charged of the latter.
Of the 26,000 stocks, a mere 1,000 have accounted for all of the profits in stocks since 1926. And just 86 stocks — one-third of 1% — were responsible for half of those gains.
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/invest...about.html
Posts: 2,300
Threads: 27
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
41
Interesting information Weijian. this means only about 4% of stocks are profitable over the long term.
So "time in the market comes" with a caveat, and are more applicable for the large caps and on hindsight, excellent small and medium caps that grow into corporates. I think a quick glance through of the dow jones index components since 1950s, many are still there, however, there were attrition as well with about 5-10 names being out.
Valuebuddies too have this, where some of the perceived medium cap stocks which were touted to have good management or cashflow ended up becoming duds as well (see Kingsmen Creative). Looks like buy and hold strategy also involves a lot of qualitative evaluation
|
Homepage
PR Newswire
