Author Topic: Market timing wins  (Read 32518 times)

Heckler

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1347
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #100 on: July 12, 2016, 07:57:31 AM »
Whoever sells this beauty in a bidding war with offshore buyers.

http://www.rew.ca/properties/R2072511/3538-w-29th-avenue-vancouver?property_search=404430739
« Last Edit: July 12, 2016, 08:00:51 AM by Heckler »

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2172
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #101 on: July 12, 2016, 07:59:02 AM »
Whoever sells this beauty in a bidding war with offshore buyers.

http://www.rew.ca/properties/R2072511/3538-w-29th-avenue-vancouver?property_search=404430739

Are you local?  Out of curiosity, has Brexit driven big Canadian city's real estate markets higher?

Heckler

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1347
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #102 on: July 12, 2016, 08:01:50 AM »
Brexit, not at all.  This is all foreign investors and supply and demand.   Welcome to Hongcouver.

« Last Edit: July 12, 2016, 08:03:58 AM by Heckler »

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2172
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #103 on: July 12, 2016, 08:03:58 AM »
Brexit, not at all.  This is all foreign investors and supply and demand.

From what I understand there's been a jump in Frankfurt and NYC real estate in part because capital-/finance-related jobs are assuming they'll be moved/London real estate won't be a good investment for long.  Maybe it's not affecting Canada. 

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7396
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #104 on: July 12, 2016, 02:47:08 PM »
I've heard a lot of wealthy Chinese are investing in US and Canada real estate in order to get their money out of China in case things turn south there. Mostly in big coastal cities.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2172
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #105 on: July 12, 2016, 02:58:43 PM »
I've heard a lot of wealthy Chinese are investing in US and Canada real estate in order to get their money out of China in case things turn south there. Mostly in big coastal cities.

Agreed, but I don't think that's news (unless it's picked up in the last few months?).  Vancouver and San Fran have been particularly badly (goodly? strongly?) hit, I think.

The move toward NYC and Frankfurt is newer: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/06/brexit-is-even-hitting-nyc-luxury-apartments-broker-says.html

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7396
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #106 on: July 12, 2016, 05:16:20 PM »
I've heard a lot of wealthy Chinese are investing in US and Canada real estate in order to get their money out of China in case things turn south there. Mostly in big coastal cities.

Agreed, but I don't think that's news (unless it's picked up in the last few months?).  Vancouver and San Fran have been particularly badly (goodly? strongly?) hit, I think.

The move toward NYC and Frankfurt is newer: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/06/brexit-is-even-hitting-nyc-luxury-apartments-broker-says.html

Yeah, I was just commenting on part of why Vancouver might be more expensive the past few years. It wouldn't surprise me if NYC was also a big place for the Chinese to invest pre-Brexit. No idea about Frankfurt.

beastykato

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 136
  • Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #107 on: July 12, 2016, 10:16:30 PM »
Sigh....sorry but I'll never agree.  You should always have some liquid cash available for opportunities.  I'm not saying your wrong in absolute returns when you have tunnel vision on one particular fund/index, but it neglects the opportunity to profit elsewhere.   

If I hadn't kept money on the sidelines I couldn't have bought silver funds (up over 100% btw), or the easy pickings I took on oil companies when the price crashed (I purchased shell, BP, and Exxon) which has also crushed the market returns.  Gun stocks are another good example.  Everytime the president comes out with an anti gun speech I buy gun stocks and dump them shortly after.   Is all of this stuff luck?  My personal stock portfolio is up 16% over the past year which I also know is crushing the market.

Some of it is luck, some of it is obvious, but the point everyone is making is that while some of the time it's easy to spot the value and buy low, by keeping money on the sidelines waiting for those deals you have necessarily paid an opportunity cost in the form of missing the run ups.  Your data set is way to small; it's only you.  If you look at everyone in aggregate the answer is clear: invest as soon as you have the money and you will end up with more money.

yep you're just getting lucky.  maybe you will forever and congrats on that but its a losing strategy in long term investing we currently have a volatile market where you are getting lucky.  if your strategy worked so well all the great finance minds would be writing about it and investing money in this manner.  the smartest investor of generations(warren buffett) even says that if you're not him you should just put your money in an index fund.  i'd be interested to see how your sidelining of monies worked waiting for a down fall in the 2013 run up b/c based on your amazing timing you likely would have kept thousands sidelined waiting for that drop while we all sat and made 30%+

I'm not disagreeing with ya man.  I'm just saying what's been working for me.  As I've said 90% of my assets are invested just the way everyone here is advocating and that's into low-cost index funds on a bi-weekly basis in my case.

Here is a photo of my returns so far since September.  I am not saying I'm gonna keep staying ahead, but I'm certainly having fun trying to do so.  Whenever I fall below the market average I'll be sure to post a photo of that too, so I can educate anyone who tries to follow me if I end up the fool.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2016, 10:18:25 PM by beastykato »

faramund

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #108 on: July 12, 2016, 11:39:22 PM »
Sigh....sorry but I'll never agree.  You should always have some liquid cash available for opportunities.  I'm not saying your wrong in absolute returns when you have tunnel vision on one particular fund/index, but it neglects the opportunity to profit elsewhere.   

If I hadn't kept money on the sidelines I couldn't have bought silver funds (up over 100% btw), or the easy pickings I took on oil companies when the price crashed (I purchased shell, BP, and Exxon) which has also crushed the market returns.  Gun stocks are another good example.  Everytime the president comes out with an anti gun speech I buy gun stocks and dump them shortly after.   Is all of this stuff luck?  My personal stock portfolio is up 16% over the past year which I also know is crushing the market.

Some of it is luck, some of it is obvious, but the point everyone is making is that while some of the time it's easy to spot the value and buy low, by keeping money on the sidelines waiting for those deals you have necessarily paid an opportunity cost in the form of missing the run ups.  Your data set is way to small; it's only you.  If you look at everyone in aggregate the answer is clear: invest as soon as you have the money and you will end up with more money.

yep you're just getting lucky.  maybe you will forever and congrats on that but its a losing strategy in long term investing we currently have a volatile market where you are getting lucky.  if your strategy worked so well all the great finance minds would be writing about it and investing money in this manner.  the smartest investor of generations(warren buffett) even says that if you're not him you should just put your money in an index fund.  i'd be interested to see how your sidelining of monies worked waiting for a down fall in the 2013 run up b/c based on your amazing timing you likely would have kept thousands sidelined waiting for that drop while we all sat and made 30%+

I still believe a variant of this, i.e. not buying when the market is 'frothy' and then putting that money in after the crash is worthwhile. And if you're wrong, all that means is either you keep buying while the method is 'frothy', and maybe you buy too early after the crash. In either of these cases, you just revert to the same as just putting money consistently into the market.

And by frothy, I mean serious exuberance, ala pre-2000, or pre-2008.


boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7849
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #109 on: July 13, 2016, 03:35:15 AM »
Sigh....sorry but I'll never agree.  You should always have some liquid cash available for opportunities.  I'm not saying your wrong in absolute returns when you have tunnel vision on one particular fund/index, but it neglects the opportunity to profit elsewhere.   

If I hadn't kept money on the sidelines I couldn't have bought silver funds (up over 100% btw), or the easy pickings I took on oil companies when the price crashed (I purchased shell, BP, and Exxon) which has also crushed the market returns.  Gun stocks are another good example.  Everytime the president comes out with an anti gun speech I buy gun stocks and dump them shortly after.   Is all of this stuff luck?  My personal stock portfolio is up 16% over the past year which I also know is crushing the market.

Some of it is luck, some of it is obvious, but the point everyone is making is that while some of the time it's easy to spot the value and buy low, by keeping money on the sidelines waiting for those deals you have necessarily paid an opportunity cost in the form of missing the run ups.  Your data set is way to small; it's only you.  If you look at everyone in aggregate the answer is clear: invest as soon as you have the money and you will end up with more money.

yep you're just getting lucky.  maybe you will forever and congrats on that but its a losing strategy in long term investing we currently have a volatile market where you are getting lucky.  if your strategy worked so well all the great finance minds would be writing about it and investing money in this manner.  the smartest investor of generations(warren buffett) even says that if you're not him you should just put your money in an index fund.  i'd be interested to see how your sidelining of monies worked waiting for a down fall in the 2013 run up b/c based on your amazing timing you likely would have kept thousands sidelined waiting for that drop while we all sat and made 30%+

I still believe a variant of this, i.e. not buying when the market is 'frothy' and then putting that money in after the crash is worthwhile. And if you're wrong, all that means is either you keep buying while the method is 'frothy', and maybe you buy too early after the crash. In either of these cases, you just revert to the same as just putting money consistently into the market.

And by frothy, I mean serious exuberance, ala pre-2000, or pre-2008.

Çan I borrow the crystal ball you have been using to predict frothy.

PencilThinStash

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Chicago Suburbs
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #110 on: July 13, 2016, 10:53:25 AM »
When things started tanking in '08, I waited a few months and then threw what I could at the market - As a broke, unemployed college freshman, I could only afford about ~$300 at the time. It was largely teenage arrogance and luck, but that one purchase is easily worth double or triple the purchase price now. In hindsight, I wish high school/early college me was less of a slacker and had more cash to invest at that moment... oh well. Spilled milk.

Sort of market-timing related: I pulled about $13k out of VTSAX yesterday. I'm looking at buying property within the next year and have had that money allocated toward a down payment anyways... figured that a record high day was the perfect moment to sell. Sure, it could go higher, but it could also go down, and I'm getting more risk adverse with that chunk as I'm getting closer to purchase time. Perfectly content to lock in on that gain.

Granted, if the market crashes anytime soon and the price of VTSAX goes below $35, I'll put the property plans on hold, dive right back in with a smile on my face, and count myself one lucky sonofabitch.

faramund

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #111 on: July 13, 2016, 12:00:39 PM »


Çan I borrow the crystal ball you have been using to predict frothy.

You can't borrow it - you have to pay about $300 a year for it, its called an Economist subscription - or maybe try your local library.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #112 on: July 13, 2016, 12:45:09 PM »
I've got people here at the office convinced they are going to get rich buying Nintendo stock because of the Pokemon Go craze.  Keep in mind they did not own the stock before.  They are waiting for cash to clear a newly opened brokerage account to purchase shares in two days.  I've tried to talk some sense into them about market timing, but alas some people must learn the hard way.......

beastykato

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 136
  • Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #113 on: July 13, 2016, 04:01:38 PM »
Yeah, the crash in 2008 was easy pickings.  I don't see this as timing it's taking advantage and diverting liquid funds when an opportunity presents itself.  I don't actually try to "time" anything like selling high right now on the sp500 expecting a correction.  I wouldn't have sold in '08, I would have simply started putting more cash in while it was on sale. 

Selling at the current peak if you need cash is the best bet IMO as well.  It's never been higher, if you need it now is the time.

Back when BP had the gulf oil spill it dropped to $25 on June 25.  That was my birthday.  I bought all I could then because it was an obvious buy of a major company that would recover.  It being 25 on my birthday June 25th.... THAT is luck.  Taking advantage of the economic or environmental situation isn't luck at all its a calculated action.

I bought $400 of Sirius radio at $.25 and it went to between $2 or 3 when I was in college.  That was luck.

Saying that this doesn't work is like saying someone that keeps cash on hand and buys and flips houses/cars/etc is an idiot.  When a good deal pops up you take advantage.  A deal is a deal, when something is on sale you buy it.  Call it timing if you want, but that's a poor description of it. 

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7849
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #114 on: July 13, 2016, 08:03:46 PM »


Çan I borrow the crystal ball you have been using to predict frothy.

You can't borrow it - you have to pay about $300 a year for it, its called an Economist subscription - or maybe try your local library.

Just wondering what your trigger is some guy in a magazine. Got it.

faramund

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #115 on: July 13, 2016, 08:50:17 PM »


Çan I borrow the crystal ball you have been using to predict frothy.

You can't borrow it - you have to pay about $300 a year for it, its called an Economist subscription - or maybe try your local library.

Just wondering what your trigger is some guy in a magazine. Got it.
Well and its also quotes like "be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful". I've read a fair bit about historical financial bubbles, and there do seem to be similar patterns, a belief that some new technology will change the world, in particular that it means all the old rules are over, another strong telltale sign is that taxi drivers start to give stock tips.

Most recently, the Economist had been talking about the illogical prices being given to Unicorn funds, as they are largely private companies, they don't really affect the public markets, so it wasn't something that could be acted on, so I still trust their opinions.

I've been investing for some 20 years now, and the question about how well you can tell bubbles, is what did you think pre-2000, and pre-2008. If you thought, this is a bubble/frothy, its not a time to buy - and you didn't get the same strong sense at other times - you can detect bubbles, but if in those times, you didn't have any such opinion, or worse, if you got caught up in the hype and thought it was a good time to buy, then you haven't a sufficiently developed bubble sense, and yes, you should just consistently buy. Moreover that's probably true of most people.

beastykato

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 136
  • Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #116 on: July 13, 2016, 08:57:26 PM »
Buffet agrees...

"I will tell you how to become rich. Close the doors. Be fearful when others are greedy. Be greedy when others are fearful."

"Long ago, Ben Graham taught me that 'Price is what you pay; value is what you get.' Whether we're talking about socks or stocks, I like buying quality merchandise when it is marked down."

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3554
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #117 on: July 14, 2016, 08:20:49 AM »


Çan I borrow the crystal ball you have been using to predict frothy.

You can't borrow it - you have to pay about $300 a year for it, its called an Economist subscription - or maybe try your local library.

Just wondering what your trigger is some guy in a magazine. Got it.
Well and its also quotes like "be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful". I've read a fair bit about historical financial bubbles, and there do seem to be similar patterns, a belief that some new technology will change the world, in particular that it means all the old rules are over, another strong telltale sign is that taxi drivers start to give stock tips.

Most recently, the Economist had been talking about the illogical prices being given to Unicorn funds, as they are largely private companies, they don't really affect the public markets, so it wasn't something that could be acted on, so I still trust their opinions.

I've been investing for some 20 years now, and the question about how well you can tell bubbles, is what did you think pre-2000, and pre-2008. If you thought, this is a bubble/frothy, its not a time to buy - and you didn't get the same strong sense at other times - you can detect bubbles, but if in those times, you didn't have any such opinion, or worse, if you got caught up in the hype and thought it was a good time to buy, then you haven't a sufficiently developed bubble sense, and yes, you should just consistently buy. Moreover that's probably true of most people.

So how many millions is your net worth?

faramund

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #118 on: July 14, 2016, 09:57:01 AM »


Çan I borrow the crystal ball you have been using to predict frothy.

You can't borrow it - you have to pay about $300 a year for it, its called an Economist subscription - or maybe try your local library.

Just wondering what your trigger is some guy in a magazine. Got it.
Well and its also quotes like "be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful". I've read a fair bit about historical financial bubbles, and there do seem to be similar patterns, a belief that some new technology will change the world, in particular that it means all the old rules are over, another strong telltale sign is that taxi drivers start to give stock tips.

Most recently, the Economist had been talking about the illogical prices being given to Unicorn funds, as they are largely private companies, they don't really affect the public markets, so it wasn't something that could be acted on, so I still trust their opinions.

I've been investing for some 20 years now, and the question about how well you can tell bubbles, is what did you think pre-2000, and pre-2008. If you thought, this is a bubble/frothy, its not a time to buy - and you didn't get the same strong sense at other times - you can detect bubbles, but if in those times, you didn't have any such opinion, or worse, if you got caught up in the hype and thought it was a good time to buy, then you haven't a sufficiently developed bubble sense, and yes, you should just consistently buy. Moreover that's probably true of most people.

So how many millions is your net worth?
I don't really want to go into details on that - but, I've been happy with my net worth growth rate, but since I've started working, my savings rate hasn't been enormously high.. it was around 40% when my DW and I were saving for a house deposit, and then dropped down to single figures when our kids were born, now we're back to the 30s again. I'm now 46 and if our net worth grows at the same rate as it has historically, we could retire now, but I'm planning to wait until I'm 51 and than retire and just live off dividends.

 ... but avoiding bubbles is only something that happens about once a decade, so over that time, most of the time, I'm just putting money into the market, pretty much, as it comes available (if its lumpy - I spread it evenly over several months), and I'm a buy-and-hold investor. So avoiding bubbles doesn't make me radically different from an average index investor. Its just that when the market gets bubbly, I pay off my house and investment loans, and then take that money back out again and invest it after the crash.

For, the record, I don't think the markets are in a bubble now, I'm currently just putting money into the market as it becomes available.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3554
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #119 on: July 14, 2016, 10:24:30 AM »


Çan I borrow the crystal ball you have been using to predict frothy.

You can't borrow it - you have to pay about $300 a year for it, its called an Economist subscription - or maybe try your local library.

Just wondering what your trigger is some guy in a magazine. Got it.
Well and its also quotes like "be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful". I've read a fair bit about historical financial bubbles, and there do seem to be similar patterns, a belief that some new technology will change the world, in particular that it means all the old rules are over, another strong telltale sign is that taxi drivers start to give stock tips.

Most recently, the Economist had been talking about the illogical prices being given to Unicorn funds, as they are largely private companies, they don't really affect the public markets, so it wasn't something that could be acted on, so I still trust their opinions.

I've been investing for some 20 years now, and the question about how well you can tell bubbles, is what did you think pre-2000, and pre-2008. If you thought, this is a bubble/frothy, its not a time to buy - and you didn't get the same strong sense at other times - you can detect bubbles, but if in those times, you didn't have any such opinion, or worse, if you got caught up in the hype and thought it was a good time to buy, then you haven't a sufficiently developed bubble sense, and yes, you should just consistently buy. Moreover that's probably true of most people.

So how many millions is your net worth?
I don't really want to go into details on that - but, I've been happy with my net worth growth rate, but since I've started working, my savings rate hasn't been enormously high.. it was around 40% when my DW and I were saving for a house deposit, and then dropped down to single figures when our kids were born, now we're back to the 30s again. I'm now 46 and if our net worth grows at the same rate as it has historically, we could retire now, but I'm planning to wait until I'm 51 and than retire and just live off dividends.

 ... but avoiding bubbles is only something that happens about once a decade, so over that time, most of the time, I'm just putting money into the market, pretty much, as it comes available (if its lumpy - I spread it evenly over several months), and I'm a buy-and-hold investor. So avoiding bubbles doesn't make me radically different from an average index investor. Its just that when the market gets bubbly, I pay off my house and investment loans, and then take that money back out again and invest it after the crash.

For, the record, I don't think the markets are in a bubble now, I'm currently just putting money into the market as it becomes available.

You have led us to believe you can accurately predict bubbles ahead of time and not just in hindsight like everybody else can.  The fact that you have been investing for 20 years, claim to have predicted both bubbles, and yet are not FI multiple times over is suspicious.  You should have quintupled your wealth from 2000 until now, in addition to saving for an additional 16 years and getting fantastic value on those investments.  Even with a modest salary you should be a millionaire by now.

faramund

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #120 on: July 14, 2016, 11:18:13 AM »


Çan I borrow the crystal ball you have been using to predict frothy.

You can't borrow it - you have to pay about $300 a year for it, its called an Economist subscription - or maybe try your local library.

Just wondering what your trigger is some guy in a magazine. Got it.
Well and its also quotes like "be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful". I've read a fair bit about historical financial bubbles, and there do seem to be similar patterns, a belief that some new technology will change the world, in particular that it means all the old rules are over, another strong telltale sign is that taxi drivers start to give stock tips.

Most recently, the Economist had been talking about the illogical prices being given to Unicorn funds, as they are largely private companies, they don't really affect the public markets, so it wasn't something that could be acted on, so I still trust their opinions.

I've been investing for some 20 years now, and the question about how well you can tell bubbles, is what did you think pre-2000, and pre-2008. If you thought, this is a bubble/frothy, its not a time to buy - and you didn't get the same strong sense at other times - you can detect bubbles, but if in those times, you didn't have any such opinion, or worse, if you got caught up in the hype and thought it was a good time to buy, then you haven't a sufficiently developed bubble sense, and yes, you should just consistently buy. Moreover that's probably true of most people.

So how many millions is your net worth?
I don't really want to go into details on that - but, I've been happy with my net worth growth rate, but since I've started working, my savings rate hasn't been enormously high.. it was around 40% when my DW and I were saving for a house deposit, and then dropped down to single figures when our kids were born, now we're back to the 30s again. I'm now 46 and if our net worth grows at the same rate as it has historically, we could retire now, but I'm planning to wait until I'm 51 and than retire and just live off dividends.

 ... but avoiding bubbles is only something that happens about once a decade, so over that time, most of the time, I'm just putting money into the market, pretty much, as it comes available (if its lumpy - I spread it evenly over several months), and I'm a buy-and-hold investor. So avoiding bubbles doesn't make me radically different from an average index investor. Its just that when the market gets bubbly, I pay off my house and investment loans, and then take that money back out again and invest it after the crash.

For, the record, I don't think the markets are in a bubble now, I'm currently just putting money into the market as it becomes available.

You have led us to believe you can accurately predict bubbles ahead of time and not just in hindsight like everybody else can.  The fact that you have been investing for 20 years, claim to have predicted both bubbles, and yet are not FI multiple times over is suspicious.  You should have quintupled your wealth from 2000 until now, in addition to saving for an additional 16 years and getting fantastic value on those investments.  Even with a modest salary you should be a millionaire by now.

Well, our NAs exceed one million, so your prediction is correct.

Probably the main reason I'm not FI now, is that my expenditure has increased with income - so we now earn around 4 times as much as we did 20 years ago, spend about 5 times as much, and my net assets have increased by about 10 times. 

Our net assets are now 25 times as much as our annual expenditure in 2007 - but our current expenditure is about 50% bigger than that - also (amusingly) our NA is now 70 times what our annual spending was back in 1996 (oh the joy of long term spreadsheets).

You mentioned NA, our NAs are now 16 times bigger than in 2000.

faramund

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #121 on: July 14, 2016, 11:28:09 AM »


Çan I borrow the crystal ball you have been using to predict frothy.

You can't borrow it - you have to pay about $300 a year for it, its called an Economist subscription - or maybe try your local library.

Just wondering what your trigger is some guy in a magazine. Got it.
Well and its also quotes like "be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful". I've read a fair bit about historical financial bubbles, and there do seem to be similar patterns, a belief that some new technology will change the world, in particular that it means all the old rules are over, another strong telltale sign is that taxi drivers start to give stock tips.

Most recently, the Economist had been talking about the illogical prices being given to Unicorn funds, as they are largely private companies, they don't really affect the public markets, so it wasn't something that could be acted on, so I still trust their opinions.

I've been investing for some 20 years now, and the question about how well you can tell bubbles, is what did you think pre-2000, and pre-2008. If you thought, this is a bubble/frothy, its not a time to buy - and you didn't get the same strong sense at other times - you can detect bubbles, but if in those times, you didn't have any such opinion, or worse, if you got caught up in the hype and thought it was a good time to buy, then you haven't a sufficiently developed bubble sense, and yes, you should just consistently buy. Moreover that's probably true of most people.

So how many millions is your net worth?
I don't really want to go into details on that - but, I've been happy with my net worth growth rate, but since I've started working, my savings rate hasn't been enormously high.. it was around 40% when my DW and I were saving for a house deposit, and then dropped down to single figures when our kids were born, now we're back to the 30s again. I'm now 46 and if our net worth grows at the same rate as it has historically, we could retire now, but I'm planning to wait until I'm 51 and than retire and just live off dividends.

 ... but avoiding bubbles is only something that happens about once a decade, so over that time, most of the time, I'm just putting money into the market, pretty much, as it comes available (if its lumpy - I spread it evenly over several months), and I'm a buy-and-hold investor. So avoiding bubbles doesn't make me radically different from an average index investor. Its just that when the market gets bubbly, I pay off my house and investment loans, and then take that money back out again and invest it after the crash.

For, the record, I don't think the markets are in a bubble now, I'm currently just putting money into the market as it becomes available.

You have led us to believe you can accurately predict bubbles ahead of time and not just in hindsight like everybody else can.  The fact that you have been investing for 20 years, claim to have predicted both bubbles, and yet are not FI multiple times over is suspicious.  You should have quintupled your wealth from 2000 until now, in addition to saving for an additional 16 years and getting fantastic value on those investments.  Even with a modest salary you should be a millionaire by now.

Well, our NAs exceed one million, so your prediction is correct.

Probably the main reason I'm not FI now, is that my expenditure has increased with income - so we now earn around 4 times as much as we did 20 years ago, spend about 5 times as much, and my net assets have increased by about 10 times. 

Our net assets are now 25 times as much as our annual expenditure in 2007 - but our current expenditure is about 50% bigger than that - also (amusingly) our NA is now 70 times what our annual spending was back in 1996 (oh the joy of long term spreadsheets).

You mentioned NA, our NAs are now 16 times bigger than in 2000.
Sorry, I put the wrong number of zero's into my calculator, NA are now around 100 times bigger than in 1996 (not 10). And that last sentence should have been
You mentioned 2000

nawhite

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: An RV somewhere in the West
    • The Reckless Choice
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #122 on: July 14, 2016, 11:49:02 AM »
I have to say I'm with faramund on this one. Identifying bubbles (or even just people being stupid) is possible and some people do it very successfully. But an even more reasonable expectation is being able to identify assets that are undervalued in the market relative to their intrinsic value. Maybe people can identify when houses in their neighborhoods come up for sale that are undervalued, they're called flippers. Warren Buffet, Joshual Kennon, Benjamin Graham and many other investors who actually care about long term returns can do the same with companies. Can I do it? No, that's why I use indexing as a tool for investing. Can other people do much better if they are good at value investing? Absolutely.

(I'm a little skeptical that the silver purchase was just being lucky but the oil stocks and timing were a beautiful buy imo. Anyone can look up an oil company's projected reserves and come up with a value for the company. Some companies were priced so low at some points that oil prices would have needed to continue going down into the teens and staying there forever to justify the prices.)

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1322
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #123 on: July 14, 2016, 11:57:48 AM »
We were told that our company had "had a great quarter", (that was literally all of the information) and that we now had insider information so we could not buy any stock until after earnings. I thought, fine, no big deal--but I did change my 401k allocations so that more of it went to company stock. Well, we did have a great quarter, but the market never really recognized it so I never really made anything off of it. So much for my trying to time the market. I switched it back to my normal 1% of the 401k contribution going to the company stock after a few months (I'd honestly forgotten I'd done it).

Well, 1 paycheck after I made that change back to a "normal" allocation, the company was acquired. All my stock in my 401k made my 401k increase by about 15% overnight. I re-balanced after about a week since the deal won't go down for almost a year and the stock price can only rise about 1%.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3554
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #124 on: July 14, 2016, 12:12:35 PM »
Well, our NAs exceed one million, so your prediction is correct.

Probably the main reason I'm not FI now, is that my expenditure has increased with income - so we now earn around 4 times as much as we did 20 years ago, spend about 5 times as much, and my net assets have increased by about 10 times. 

Our net assets are now 25 times as much as our annual expenditure in 2007 - but our current expenditure is about 50% bigger than that - also (amusingly) our NA is now 70 times what our annual spending was back in 1996 (oh the joy of long term spreadsheets).

You mentioned NA, our NAs are now 16 times bigger than in 2000.
Sorry, I put the wrong number of zero's into my calculator, NA are now around 100 times bigger than in 1996 (not 10). And that last sentence should have been
You mentioned 2000


boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7849
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #125 on: July 14, 2016, 08:05:36 PM »
My net assets are 250k times bigger than 1992. When grandma gave me a 2 dollar bill. I love picking random end points and equating it to net assets. Would love to see you networth/ contributions trend over time so we can all see how you predicted both bubbles.

faramund

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #126 on: July 14, 2016, 11:55:38 PM »
My net assets are 250k times bigger than 1992. When grandma gave me a 2 dollar bill. I love picking random end points and equating it to net assets. Would love to see you networth/ contributions trend over time so we can all see how you predicted both bubbles.

Well they weren't random, I said I've been investing for about 20 years, so I picked 1996 as 20 years ago. But yes, as I'd started work in 1994, it was a low base - it was about half of our annual income at that time - which is why I also gave 2000 as a base, as asked.

I generally found the, well how come you aren't worth a lot now line-of-argument, a bit odd.. This has as much to do with how and when you saved, as what sort of gains you make.

In any case, my shares, out-side of superannuation/retirement accounts is about my 3rd or 4th smallest asset class. So in looking at my overall net worth, it doesn't say much about how I pick when I buy shares.

So, as to your request - its a bit ugly, but below is the history of my share purchases, the first number in each row is obviously the year, the second, is what share of my total share purchases were made in that year, the third is how much the amount of money I had paid in shares was increased, over the total amount of money I had ever paid, the fourth is the increase in the AllOrds in that year (basically an index of the largest shares in the Australian market).

As you can see, I didn't buy pre-2000, instead any extra money was just used paying down debt and/or going towards down payments for our first house. Our kids were born 1998 and 2001x2, so not much free-investment money until a bit after that, which was then leading up to the 2008 bubble. So then the wait... until after the crash when 2008 and 09 became the first chance of major investments, the 08 investments are predominantly in Oct,Nov, but about 1/7th of that was in July, which was probably a bit early - but I'm not trying to claim perfection. Then we get into the Greek default period, where I decided to hold off buying shares until after the Greek 2nd default, which probably meant I started buying about a year late, and since then I've pretty much been trying to buy into the market with everything I can mobilise. This year's a bit slower than the previous years, but only because we're building equity to move to a larger house.

2000 0.1   inf           2.9
2001                           2.6
2002                          -9.5
2003                      8.8
2004    0.3   324.6   22.9
2005                          15.7
2006   0.2   54.7           19.8
2007   -0.1   -7.5           17.6
2008   2.5   247.2   -45.7
2009   9.0   250.6   34.3
2010   0.2   1.3           2.1
2011   0.5    3.8           -12.4
2012   0.5   3.8            8.7
2013   11.7   79.6           13.4
2014   26.3   99.2           1.4
2015   38.1   71.5           1.0
2016   7.4   7.9           -0.3
« Last Edit: July 14, 2016, 11:57:30 PM by faramund »

faramund

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #127 on: July 15, 2016, 02:32:35 AM »
Ok, how about we get philosophical. Say there's an activity, call it A, I'm sure we agree that more than half of people can't be better than average at A. We can even think about people who train at A, there will be some ratio of the overall that the average of people who train reach (say A'). Once again, obviously the majority of people who train at A, will not be better then (A'). Now let's also say there's a cutoff point(G), and only some percentage of people can meet it, say G% (and let's say G%<A').

What does this mean. In advising people, we can say, you probably won't make G and you probably won't be better than average. Also, even if you train, you probably won't make G, and you probably won't be better than the average person who trains.

But it is incorrect to say, no one can reach G (unless G is 0%).

So if you think of this as say, swimming, this all holds, and maybe G could be, be one of the top 100 swimmers in your event. Obviously most people won't be able to do this, and unless they enjoy the process, shouldn't even (logically) aim for that G. But it doesn't mean no one should aim for 100 - after all 100 people have to reach it.

The people who do aim for G try to have training programs and schedules, and whatever else, to try to reach that G.

I'd say, this holds for almost every activity. So when it comes to investing - most people won't beat average, most people who study the market, won't beat the average person who studies the market. The real question, is what's G, what's the chance of beating the index.

If you think its zero, well there's not much to talk about.

 If its greater than 0, its still true, that most people won't beat G, and will be better off sticking with indexing - so that's the best advice for most people. And yet.. if G is greater than 0, then there's interesting possibilities to try to find approaches that do work.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7396
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #128 on: July 15, 2016, 10:40:28 AM »
Also, since the activity is totally optional, people who aren't good at it will be more likely to stop doing it (i.e. index). So the only people left playing the game are more and more and better and better experts (and likely with inside info that you don't have). So you are more and more likely to lose.

If you had to bet your life savings on a swimming race against Michael Phelps, would you? Sure, you might win. But it's not especially likely.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2172
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #129 on: July 15, 2016, 10:43:02 AM »
Ok, how about we get philosophical. Say there's an activity, call it A, I'm sure we agree that more than half of people can't be better than average at A. We can even think about people who train at A, there will be some ratio of the overall that the average of people who train reach (say A'). Once again, obviously the majority of people who train at A, will not be better then (A'). Now let's also say there's a cutoff point(G), and only some percentage of people can meet it, say G% (and let's say G%<A').

What does this mean. In advising people, we can say, you probably won't make G and you probably won't be better than average. Also, even if you train, you probably won't make G, and you probably won't be better than the average person who trains.

But it is incorrect to say, no one can reach G (unless G is 0%).

So if you think of this as say, swimming, this all holds, and maybe G could be, be one of the top 100 swimmers in your event. Obviously most people won't be able to do this, and unless they enjoy the process, shouldn't even (logically) aim for that G. But it doesn't mean no one should aim for 100 - after all 100 people have to reach it.

The people who do aim for G try to have training programs and schedules, and whatever else, to try to reach that G.

I'd say, this holds for almost every activity. So when it comes to investing - most people won't beat average, most people who study the market, won't beat the average person who studies the market. The real question, is what's G, what's the chance of beating the index.

If you think its zero, well there's not much to talk about.

 If its greater than 0, its still true, that most people won't beat G, and will be better off sticking with indexing - so that's the best advice for most people. And yet.. if G is greater than 0, then there's interesting possibilities to try to find approaches that do work.

This is an interesting way to look at it.  I work with hedge funds, who clearly think they can be G.

That said, I think there's something missing, which is that if you lose to Michael Phelps (to use the other poster's phrase), you just lost.  In this instance, market timing gone way wrong can have very destructive consequences if you're playing with real money and you need it to survive or retire.  It's more like losing and drowning.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3554
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #130 on: July 15, 2016, 11:56:32 AM »
Ok, how about we get philosophical. Say there's an activity, call it A, I'm sure we agree that more than half of people can't be better than average at A.

What if that activity is coin flipping?  I would not agree that anyone is better than anyone else, yet in a competition you will necessarily have top performers.  I would be surprised if year after year the same people continued to win the coin flip tourney though.  More likely those that win will have the illusion of superiority while not actually possessing any skill that makes them a better coin flipper.  In fact when you look at the statistics of the professionals that participate in this coin flipping tourney you see time and time again that they do not possess any special coin flipping ability and their recent wins were due to luck, and over time their average win rate falls in line with what you would expect if they did not have any special coin flipping ability.  And then some stranger shows up on an internet forum and claims to be a fantastic coin flipper because they possess the ability to accurately call the outcome of the coin flip - despite the fact that the vast, vast majority of professional coin flippers cannot even do this.  Our skepticism is understandable. 

faramund

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #131 on: July 15, 2016, 11:59:19 AM »
Ok, how about we get philosophical. Say there's an activity, call it A, I'm sure we agree that more than half of people can't be better than average at A.

What if that activity is coin flipping?  I would not agree that anyone is better than anyone else, yet in a competition you will necessarily have top performers.  I would be surprised if year after year the same people continued to win the coin flip tourney though.  More likely those that win will have the illusion of superiority while not actually possessing any skill that makes them a better coin flipper.  In fact when you look at the statistics of the professionals that participate in this coin flipping tourney you see time and time again that they do not possess any special coin flipping ability and their recent wins were due to luck, and over time their average win rate falls in line with what you would expect if they did not have any special coin flipping ability.  And then some stranger shows up on an internet forum and claims to be a fantastic coin flipper because they possess the ability to accurately call the outcome of the coin flip - despite the fact that the vast, vast majority of professional coin flippers cannot even do this.  Our skepticism is understandable.
Well, but that's just rephrasing the question, is outperforming the market purely random? i.e. is G = 0?

faramund

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #132 on: July 15, 2016, 12:03:02 PM »
Ok, how about we get philosophical. Say there's an activity, call it A, I'm sure we agree that more than half of people can't be better than average at A. We can even think about people who train at A, there will be some ratio of the overall that the average of people who train reach (say A'). Once again, obviously the majority of people who train at A, will not be better then (A'). Now let's also say there's a cutoff point(G), and only some percentage of people can meet it, say G% (and let's say G%<A').

What does this mean. In advising people, we can say, you probably won't make G and you probably won't be better than average. Also, even if you train, you probably won't make G, and you probably won't be better than the average person who trains.

But it is incorrect to say, no one can reach G (unless G is 0%).

So if you think of this as say, swimming, this all holds, and maybe G could be, be one of the top 100 swimmers in your event. Obviously most people won't be able to do this, and unless they enjoy the process, shouldn't even (logically) aim for that G. But it doesn't mean no one should aim for 100 - after all 100 people have to reach it.

The people who do aim for G try to have training programs and schedules, and whatever else, to try to reach that G.

I'd say, this holds for almost every activity. So when it comes to investing - most people won't beat average, most people who study the market, won't beat the average person who studies the market. The real question, is what's G, what's the chance of beating the index.

If you think its zero, well there's not much to talk about.

 If its greater than 0, its still true, that most people won't beat G, and will be better off sticking with indexing - so that's the best advice for most people. And yet.. if G is greater than 0, then there's interesting possibilities to try to find approaches that do work.

This is an interesting way to look at it.  I work with hedge funds, who clearly think they can be G.

That said, I think there's something missing, which is that if you lose to Michael Phelps (to use the other poster's phrase), you just lost.  In this instance, market timing gone way wrong can have very destructive consequences if you're playing with real money and you need it to survive or retire.  It's more like losing and drowning.

I agree its rare, which is why I advise people to index, but also say, if you don't index, you have to measure your performance against an index - so you know if you are just deluding yourself or not. And the goal is to beat an index, not to be the best investor in the world, which makes it comparitively easier than beating Phelps.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7849
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #133 on: July 15, 2016, 12:03:41 PM »
My net assets are 250k times bigger than 1992. When grandma gave me a 2 dollar bill. I love picking random end points and equating it to net assets. Would love to see you networth/ contributions trend over time so we can all see how you predicted both bubbles.

Well they weren't random, I said I've been investing for about 20 years, so I picked 1996 as 20 years ago. But yes, as I'd started work in 1994, it was a low base - it was about half of our annual income at that time - which is why I also gave 2000 as a base, as asked.



K I started investing at 10 I really did so that would have been 1996. I have 5k so I've seen 10000% growth over my investing career. I made money trying to pick stocks and time the market but it wasn't that much better and sometimes worse than the overall market gains. Apparently I needed a subscription to the economist. Must be one of life's best secrets. Started indexing after I found this and boggleheads and I was searching bc I barely bwat the market in 2013 with some nicely timed Tesla plays. To each their own but it's highly unlikely youre going to be the market long-term trying to time. Plus it's not predictable. If it was fund managers would be taking it in timing it.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7849
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #134 on: July 15, 2016, 12:05:39 PM »
So if you're so good at timing the market and beating it why then haven't you started a fund and marketed it bc you would be able to make way more selling your idea than the pennies youre making in comparison

nawhite

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Location: An RV somewhere in the West
    • The Reckless Choice
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #135 on: July 15, 2016, 04:21:25 PM »
Faramund, just keep doing what you're doing. Around here and Bogleheads, people can'y possibly believe that anyone could ever disprove John Bogle's "proof" despite the fact that a small minority of investors doing long-term value investing absolutely do beat the indexes consistently, year after year. This is what Warren Buffet does, his mentors and teachers did it too. The reason hedge funds and mutual funds don't beat indexes more than 50% of the time is because they are constrained by short term thinking. People who think in 20+ year time horizons absolutely beat the indexes.

I personally (and most people) don't have the knowledge or time required to investigate companies or other assets adequately in order to do true long term value investing but some people absolutely do.

faramund

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #136 on: July 15, 2016, 04:51:25 PM »
My net assets are 250k times bigger than 1992. When grandma gave me a 2 dollar bill. I love picking random end points and equating it to net assets. Would love to see you networth/ contributions trend over time so we can all see how you predicted both bubbles.

Well they weren't random, I said I've been investing for about 20 years, so I picked 1996 as 20 years ago. But yes, as I'd started work in 1994, it was a low base - it was about half of our annual income at that time - which is why I also gave 2000 as a base, as asked.



K I started investing at 10 I really did so that would have been 1996. I have 5k so I've seen 10000% growth over my investing career. I made money trying to pick stocks and time the market but it wasn't that much better and sometimes worse than the overall market gains. Apparently I needed a subscription to the economist. Must be one of life's best secrets. Started indexing after I found this and boggleheads and I was searching bc I barely bwat the market in 2013 with some nicely timed Tesla plays. To each their own but it's highly unlikely youre going to be the market long-term trying to time. Plus it's not predictable. If it was fund managers would be taking it in timing it.
I've been thinking about how to reply to this. I wasn't really trying to say, look at me woo hoo I can multiply my net assets by 100 times in 20 years... I'm the greatest! I certainly don't think that will happen in 20 years, because, as you know when you start investing the amount you put in each year is the dominant factor, so even if you only put in $1 the first year, and $1 the next, your net assets have doubled.

I was trying to answer fruganacho who was asking, if I'm so good, why haven't I retired. So the main point I was trying to show, was that because my net assets have grown by about 100 since then, I could retire, something like almost 3 times over, if I was still spending money as I was, back then. But I haven't my spending has multiplied by about 5, so I'm consequently, still a bit short.

Frankly, I'm still surprised how long this general thread has gone on for. Shiller has published research saying if you buy when CAPE is low, and sell when it is high, you would beat the market over the last ~130 odd years - so I've thought claiming avoiding buying in bubbles wasn't that argumentative. In other threads, I've discussed my belief that buying value stocks (i.e. low PE, high dividend, high ROE) has research to say that that can beat the market - which I think is much more controversial, and I don't think they've gotten this convoluted - still its been a bit interesting going through and pulling out some of my old data.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2016, 05:55:04 PM by faramund »

faramund

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #137 on: July 15, 2016, 05:00:35 PM »
Faramund, just keep doing what you're doing. Around here and Bogleheads, people can'y possibly believe that anyone could ever disprove John Bogle's "proof" despite the fact that a small minority of investors doing long-term value investing absolutely do beat the indexes consistently, year after year. This is what Warren Buffet does, his mentors and teachers did it too. The reason hedge funds and mutual funds don't beat indexes more than 50% of the time is because they are constrained by short term thinking. People who think in 20+ year time horizons absolutely beat the indexes.

I personally (and most people) don't have the knowledge or time required to investigate companies or other assets adequately in order to do true long term value investing but some people absolutely do.

Thanks for the comments, I really don't mean to be controversial. When I started buying shares, I knew about diversity, market efficiency and bubbles. So to begin with, I thought just buy anything - it doesn't really matter because the markets are efficient. But over time, I noticed that the companies I held that didn't pay dividends, performed very badly, and so I stopped buying them. A short while after that I heard about the wonders of index funds, and so thought, ok, I'll buy some of them, and they'll outperform my average performance, and then I'll give up on buying individual shares.. well, I'm still waiting.. so I know the arguments for indexing, and yet...

So every so often I feel almost obliged to point out, that there is evidence that markets aren't fully efficient - and that gives opportunities for out performance, but yes, its not easy.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7849
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #138 on: July 15, 2016, 08:54:14 PM »
I was hoping you'd go to shiller so what's your shiller number. in 2008 it was 24. We're pushing 27 now but you're saying its fine and you're still pumping money in. But yet you predicted 08. Sounds questionable. So where is that number. And if you look at the 2000 bubble. You must have been investing in bonds in 96 bc it was higher then than it was in 08. And you'd have stayed in bonds til 04. Just trying to figure out your strategy that you still have yet to layout in black and white besides just saying I can predict the future and pointing at a past event. Just so excited you went shiller with this right now. Bc I love shiller my retirement date will be based on it more or less bc it tracks swr very well.

So layout your strategy

You said you started investing in 96. Yet predicted the 2k bubble and the 2008 bubble. Yet using shiller it doesn't add up.

Your conversation just keeps changing in this thread it has evolved from predicting 08 and 2k to picking value stocks trying to use the same strategy.  If I was that good at beating indexes I'd be leveraged to the fucking hilt just destroying value plays as you've said in your last statement.

You'd be retired doing this full time if you were that good at it but you aren't which begs forummm's first question.

I mean beating indexes on your own typically is what RE guys do and they do it well and guess what the basis is leverage.

What you're doing is walking into a room and telling everyone. I CAN COUNT A SIX DECK SHOE. no you can't.(general opinion around here) But if you could why aren't you rich as shit ?????

That's my and I believe others issue with your claims.

faramund

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #139 on: July 15, 2016, 09:53:02 PM »
I was hoping you'd go to shiller so what's your shiller number. in 2008 it was 24. We're pushing 27 now but you're saying its fine and you're still pumping money in. But yet you predicted 08. Sounds questionable. So where is that number. And if you look at the 2000 bubble. You must have been investing in bonds in 96 bc it was higher then than it was in 08. And you'd have stayed in bonds til 04. Just trying to figure out your strategy that you still have yet to layout in black and white besides just saying I can predict the future and pointing at a past event. Just so excited you went shiller with this right now. Bc I love shiller my retirement date will be based on it more or less bc it tracks swr very well.

So layout your strategy

You said you started investing in 96. Yet predicted the 2k bubble and the 2008 bubble. Yet using shiller it doesn't add up.

Your conversation just keeps changing in this thread it has evolved from predicting 08 and 2k to picking value stocks trying to use the same strategy.  If I was that good at beating indexes I'd be leveraged to the fucking hilt just destroying value plays as you've said in your last statement.

You'd be retired doing this full time if you were that good at it but you aren't which begs forummm's first question.

I mean beating indexes on your own typically is what RE guys do and they do it well and guess what the basis is leverage.

What you're doing is walking into a room and telling everyone. I CAN COUNT A SIX DECK SHOE. no you can't.(general opinion around here) But if you could why aren't you rich as shit ?????

That's my and I believe others issue with your claims.
First, I didn't talk about Shiller because I use Shiller, I mentioned Shiller because his work shows that its at least possible to take advantage of the bubble patterns that occur in the market.

The reason I use phrases like my bubble sense, is that when I previously thought bubbles occurred - it wasn't in anyway systematic - unlike Shiller.

Anyway, as to the rest of your post about why I don't think there's currently a bubble.

First, I'm in Australia, and our PEs are much lower than in the US, so I don't think the equivalent of US CAPE is signalling anything here.

So, as to why I think at the moment the US isn't in a bubble, even though CAPE is high. At the moment I think the reason why CAPE is high, is that the main alternative - bonds - is really unattractive. If I had to invest in the US, and choose between shares and bonds - I'd go for shares because of that.

Moreover, there just doesn't seem to be any 'hype' about shares - if anything it seems more like, well put money in shares because there isn't any good alternative - but be unhappy about it.

Bubbles often have a flood of IPOs as the finance system tries to churn out (bad) things for people to buy, and that also doesn't seem to be happening.

In larger terms, I think we're in a post-1928, -1880 (at least in Australia) situation, where the crash is so bad, people are scarred off being exuberant about shares for another generation. So I don't think there'll be another bubble in the Western world for at least another 10 years, then we'll probably go back to one every 10 years or so.

I'm trying to work out a way of being more systematic about detecting bubbles, then just an informed feeling, but I haven't had a chance to test it going forward, so until I've been through another couple of bubbles, I'm not going to make any claims about how good it is.. so maybe in 20 odd years I'll be ready to do so.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7849
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #140 on: July 16, 2016, 05:33:01 AM »
The shiller isn't exceptionally high now it's producing a slightly less that a 4% swr in 2008 it was producing a higher than 4% swr. It was over 32 in 1998. But kept running up thru 2001 which if tracking shiller to predict a bubble what year did you predict it in. Likely would have been 1998-99 and you'd have missed a run up. It's why market timing doesn't work.

CrispRetirement

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • Crisp Retirement
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #141 on: September 06, 2016, 12:18:31 PM »
A great performer for me was Jarden (now Newell) that I purchased in early 2013 and sold in 2015 for > 100% gains. That said, some other investments (such as in oil/gas) did not pay out well and my overall portfolio would've done a little better in an S&P index. Now I'm just invested in Vanguard funds and don't bother trying to pick stocks or time the market.

Vilgan

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 452
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #142 on: December 15, 2016, 10:00:06 AM »
I picked up a chunk of RSX for 14.09 back in January 2015 when everyone was freaking out about the ruble and people were talking about catching a falling knife.

Got a .52 distribution in 2015

Just liquidated the entire position for around 21.30

Total gain over the 23 month span was ~55%

Unfortunately, haven't seen anything else that was pushed crazy low for (imo) emotional reasons so that's been my only offbeat investment other than typical 3 fund stuff. Currently increasing bond allocation from 5% to 15% since that seems to be what people are down on at the moment and will keep my eyes open for other opportunities.

Vitai Slade

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Age: 30
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #143 on: December 17, 2016, 01:01:52 PM »
Bought $10,500 in NVDA stock on 8/15 around $63.14. 11/11 it jumps 30% and has been going up since. It just closed above $100/share yesterday.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #144 on: December 17, 2016, 02:00:22 PM »
Bought $10,500 in NVDA stock on 8/15 around $63.14. 11/11 it jumps 30% and has been going up since. It just closed above $100/share yesterday.

Nice. Let us know when you sell.

chasesfish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3346
  • Age: 37
  • Location: South Carolina
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #145 on: December 17, 2016, 06:02:15 PM »
I'm in banking and twice this year the entire sector sold off hard, once due to the scare in January about Oil and rapidly rising problem loans and secondly when Brexit happened.  The proliferation of ETFs cause people to sell the whole market or whole sector.

Both times I bought a lot of stock in banks that had no exposure to either (like Bank of Hawaii and SunTrust).

Unfortunately I sold too soon based on the surprise election win, I'd be more tempted to short the bank's now.

doneby35

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 290
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #146 on: December 18, 2016, 12:05:51 PM »
Bought AMD shares when it was $2 per share in March this year, after a few months, sold at $8 because I didn't think it would go higher...now it's up to $10 but still nice little profit.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2873
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #147 on: December 19, 2016, 12:30:50 PM »
I've been struggling with ways to find stocks to buy apart from the news cycle. I'm worried that if a company is in the news, the hype is already contaminating the price, often to the upside.

But, gosh, it seems like whatever I look at (and don't buy) is going up 20% at the drop of a hat.

mtn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1322
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #148 on: December 19, 2016, 12:40:21 PM »
I've been struggling with ways to find stocks to buy apart from the news cycle. I'm worried that if a company is in the news, the hype is already contaminating the price, often to the upside.

But, gosh, it seems like whatever I look at (and don't buy) is going up 20% at the drop of a hat.

Play with it for a while. Give yourself $50k of monopoly money, but be serious about it. Do whatever you do and "Buy" and "Sell" when you think it has dropped and when you think it will rebound and sell when its there. See how you do.

Then compare that to if you had left it in an index fund. I've done it before and found that I can generally do a bit better than the index--but it isn't better enough to actually do it for real, especially since I'm not batting 100 with it--I could have one bad one and it would be a much bigger deal; whereas the index funds I don't notice. Not to mention the tax implications, which I never even bothered to figure out.

erutio

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 416
Re: Market timing wins
« Reply #149 on: December 19, 2016, 01:21:54 PM »
My own example of market timing win has just been lucky timing due my career cycles. 
Graduated in June 2008, then got my first job.  My employer had a 1.5% match on your first 2% contribution.  A couple of smart friends of mine told me to at least contribute to get the match, but due to the being busy with all the new responsibilities of the new job, I didnt get around to setting up my 401k contribution until early 2009.  Of course I had heard of the huge crash that had been going on at that time, but I had really no idea I was buying in at the bottom.  Made steady contributions all the way up.
In mid 2012, got a new job with 3x (!) the pay.  By this time I started reading more bogleheads, and immediately set my contributions to max my 403b and 457 (18k each).  Had not found MMM then but I knew this was the right thing to do.  I was able to enjoy the huge run ups in 2012, 2013, and 2014 with my new max contributions. 

Not really "market timing" the way most people think about it.  Just lucky that the times I have had huge income increases have coincided right before huge market run ups.  Of course, anyone with steady employment these last 8 years could claim the same.