||Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
|(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix|
Following hot, rising funds is a very popular strategy. It is often called momentum investing strategy. Wikipedia defined it in the following way:
Momentum investing is a system of buying stocks or other securities that have had high returns over the past three to twelve months, and selling those that have had poor returns over the same period. It has been reported that this strategy yields average returns of 1% per month for the following 3-12 months as shown by Narasimhan Jegadeesh and Sheridan Titman.
While no consensus exists about the validity of this claim, economists have trouble reconciling this phenomenon using efficient market theory. Two main hypotheses have been submitted to explain the effect in terms of an efficient market. In the first, it is assumed that momentum investors bear significant risk for assuming this strategy, and thus the high returns are compensation for the risk. The second theory assumes that momentum investors are exploiting behavioral shortcomings in other investors, such as investor herding, investor over and underreaction, and confirmation bias. Seasonal effects may help to explain some of the reason for success in the momentum investing strategy. If a stock has performed poorly for months leading up to the end of the year, investors may decide to sell their holdings for tax purposes. Increased supply of shares in the market drive its price down, causing others to sell. Once the reason for tax selling is eliminated, the stock's price tends to recover.
Some investors may react to the inefficient pricing of a stock caused by momentum investing by using the tool of arbitrage.
It is believed that George Soros (1987) used a variation of momentum investing by bidding the price up of already overvalued equities in the market for conglomorates in the 1960's and Real Estate Investment Trusts in the 1970's. This strategy is termed positive feedback investing.
Richard Driehaus, the founder of Driehaus Capital Management, Inc., is widely considered the father of momentum investing. This Chicago money manager takes exception with the old stock market adage of buying low and selling high. According to him, "far more money is made buying high and selling at even higher prices."
And with some caution and objective "stop signals" it can produce good results. As note USA Today columnist John Waggoner (I highly recommend his columns) noted in his Jan 3, 2008 column Investors who play follow the leader often do well:
Paradoxically this can be the variant of fashionable mix strategy and fashionable algorithm strategy. In his June 4 2007 column Playing with 401(k) fire Walter Updegrave, Money Magazine senior editor analyzed this strategy the less positive way:
John Maynard Keynes, the famed economist, once noted that the stock market is a bit like a beauty contest. Rather than try to pick the most beautiful person, the judges in a Keynesian beauty contest try to figure out which contestant everyone else will pick. A stock may be genuinely attractive, after all, but it rises in value only if everyone else thinks it's attractive, too.
Just what makes all other investors start to love a particular stock or sector is hard to say. But once a stock starts to rise in price, other investors will often jump on board. On Wall Street, as in space, objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and price momentum can last a surprisingly long time.
For example, let's suppose you had resolved to buy the previous year's top-performing fund at the start of each year. So on Jan. 1, 1999, you invested in 1998's top-performing fund, Kinetics Internet (WWWFX), which gained 196% in 1998. You hit pay dirt: The fund leaped 216% in 1999.
Unfortunately, Kinetics Internet plunged 51% in 2000. Had you continued your system of buying the previous year's hottest fund, you would have sold Kinetics Internet at the start of 2001 and bought Van Wagoner Emerging Growth (VWEGX), which tumbled 20.9% that year. Yet despite the losses, the system would have turned $10,000 invested at the start of 1999 into $93,000 by the end of 2007.
As you might suspect, this is a very selective example. If you had started by investing $10,000 with Van Wagoner in 2000, for example, your account would have produced $29,500 by now. Others, though, have studied similar "hot hands" strategies and come up with highly impressive results.
The No-Load Fund Investor, a newsletter, has followed its Persistency of Performance system since 1976. The system simply buys the previous year's top-performing diversified U.S. no-load stock fund. But it tosses out some of the new ultra-bull funds, which use futures and options to amplify returns. The newsletter's system has averaged a 21.5% average annual gain since inception, compared with 14% for the average diversified fund.
Last year's pick, FBR Focus (FBRVX), though, gained just 2.3% for 2007, vs. 6.3% for the average U.S. diversified fund and 5.5% for the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index with dividends reinvested.
This year's pick is CGM Focus (CGMFX), run by superstar manager Kenneth Heebner. The fund soared 80% last year. Mark Salzinger, editor of The No-Load Fund Investor, says that despite that fund's relatively few holdings — 24 — the portfolio is spread among enough different issues to qualify as diversified.
Following hot sectors has generated good results, too. Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist for Standard & Poor's, tracked a portfolio that invested in the three best stock sectors of the previous year. The portfolio has gained an average 10.8% a year since 1990, compared with 9.2% for the S&P 500. The best sectors of 2007 were energy, utilities and materials.
Stock sectors cover broad swaths of the market, such as utilities or health care. Another portfolio proposed by Stovall would invest in the previous year's 10 top-performing sub-sectors, which range from autos to shoe manufacturers. The sub-sector portfolio has gained an average 13.7% since 1970, vs. 7.6% for the S&P 500.
The danger with any momentum system, of course, is the sudden jolt when momentum ends. In a worst-case scenario, you could start investing in a hot fund just before a big plunge. Case in point: The top-performing fund of 1997 was the American Heritage (AHERX) fund, which plunged 61% in 1998.
This isn't a strategy to follow with money you can't afford to lose. It's also not a strategy to follow in a taxable account, or in one with high brokerage fees. Your profits — if any — would be swallowed by taxes and expenses. Nevertheless, following the herd on the Street isn't always such a bad idea.
John Waggoner is a personal finance columnist for USA TODAY. His Investing column appears Fridays. Click herefor an index of Investing columns. His e-mail is [email protected].
Money) -- Question: In December, 2005 I spread the $200,000 in my 401(k) account across funds that had gained 20 percent or more a year over the previous three years. Those funds gained about 30 percent in 2006. I'm following the same strategy this year and so far I'm up about 30 percent. I should add, though, that following this strategy has put about 65 percent of my money in foreign stock funds, and I've also ended up with several sector funds. I've got another 10 to 15 years before I retire. Am I being brilliant or blissfully ignorant of risk? - Forrest, Madison, Alabama
Answer: You could be both for all I know, and just plain old lucky too for that matter. The real question is whether it makes sense for you to continue following your "invest in the stars of yesteryears" strategy or whether you should take a more conventional approach and build a truly diversified portfolio.
At the risk of sounding like a narrow-minded fuddy-duddy unwilling to think outside the box, I have to say that, despite the tantalizing returns you say you've earned so far, I can't recommend that you stick to this strategy or that anyone else adopt it.
I know that I wouldn't (and don't) invest my own retirement money this way. And I can't in good conscience suggest that you do. Here's why. Mechanistic investing systems have been around a long time. The variation you're using is basically a form of momentum investing, the basic principal of which is that an investment that's done well recently will continue to do well at least for some time in the future.
The idea is similar to Newton's first law of motion, which says that a body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force (in the case of investing, that outside force would be a shift in the markets). There are a variety of ways to employ a momentum strategy - you're going with three-year performance, but others have gone with one-year performance or other time periods.
Other people take the opposite tack - that is, buying investments others shun (or funds whose investment strategies are out of favor) on the theory that these investments and funds will bounce back.
Basically, this is a form of value investing and the Dogs of the Dow strategy - buying the lowest yielding Dow stocks each year - is one of the better known ways of pulling it off. And there are countless other systems out there floating around.
Indeed, I get inundated on a regular basis with emails and snail-mail from investors, marketing organizations and others touting all sorts of algorithms, processes, systems and schemes that purport to beat the market, identify the best stocks or mutual funds, guarantee high returns at low risk or do all of these things combined.
Do they work? That's hard to say. I'm sure that most systems can point to some periods where they've had success. In fact, most of these systems are created by trying a variety of strategies and "backtesting" them - that is, see how they performed in the past.
But the fact is, determining whether a system that's done well in the past is likely to go on doing so because it tapped into some fundamental market "truth" or whether it worked well because market forces just happened to be aligned in a particular way that may not be repeated in the future would require tons of time and effort.
Indeed, you could spend your life trying to validate (or invalidate, as the case may be) the seemingly endless stream of foolproof investing systems. So while I can't tell you that your system or anyone else's is flat-out wrong or doomed to fail, I can say that just because a stock or fund turns up at the top of a list or screen doesn't mean its presence there is meaningful.
Would it matter to you if the fund you were about to buy because it passed your three-year performance screen was being run by a new manager who arrived within the last year or so and thus had nothing to do with the fund bubbling to the top of the performance charts? Or how about if the fund had changed its investing focus over those three years? Or had zoomed from $100 million in assets to $1 billion? Do you think such factors might affect future performance?
Suffice it to say that, just as I'm wary of fad diets and dietary supplements that promise huge weight loss, I'm also leery of any mechanical system that suggests you can get results well beyond the raw returns the financial markets offer. We'd all like to find some secret formula that leads to blowout returns. But in my experience the world doesn't work that way. And in my opinion, people who believe there are such magic-bullet solutions are deluding themselves.
That's not to say that you may not continue to rack up decent or even impressive gains for a while. On the other hand, it's also possible that a major turn in the market will wreak havoc with your portfolio, much the way the bottom fell out of tech and other aggressive growth stocks after the 1990's boom. This may be a particular danger for you in that your system has led you to a concentration in foreign stock and sector funds.
Foreign stock fund returns have been particularly strong lately in part because of the weak U.S. dollar. A rebound in the greenback combined with a natural downturn in foreign markets after a nice run-up could inflict a big hit on a 401(k) that's invested so heavily in foreign shares.
As for loading up on sector funds, well, they're inherently volatile because they home in on just one area of the market. If you want to see how much their returns can jump around, just go to the Category Returns section of the Funds section of Morningstar and check out the performance of some of the funds in specialty areas like technology and precious metals.
All of which is to say that I think you're much more likely to accumulate the nest egg you'll need for retirement by taking a more traditional approach. Start by creating a mix of stocks and bonds that makes sense for someone your age and with your tolerance for risk. For more guidance on how to do that, click here and here. Then, choose funds that have low annual costs and that have a solid record of delivering consistent gains. Note that I said "consistent," not funds that have the highest gains in any given year.
You can find such reliable performers in the Money 70, our list of recommended funds. If your 401(k) doesn't offer any of these choices, you can at least choose from among your 401(k)'s lineup using the same fund-picking philosophy we used to come up with the Money 70.
And if you want to tilt the odds even more in your favor, you should consider putting the bulk of your retirement money in index funds, assuming your 401(k) plan offers them, as most plans do nowadays. The combination of index funds' low operating costs and their consistent investing style makes it likely they'll outperform most other funds over the long term.
I'm not going to claim that my approach will generate the highest returns. Indeed, by spreading your money among a variety of asset classes you virtually assure that your portfolio overall won't do as well as whatever funds are topping the performance charts in any given year. But if you follow my advice, you will be investing in a way that allows you to earn competitive returns while also protecting yourself somewhat against market setbacks.
I don't think you can say the same with what you're doing, particularly as regards risk since you end up with such a concentrated portfolio. Ultimately, it's your decision whether to continue investing on the basis of your system. But if I were you I'd thank fate, the investing gods or whatever and get out now while I'm ahead - or at the very least greatly reduce the amount of money I invested using this strategy. I'm all for experimentation. But not at the expense of my retirement.
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site|
Last modified: March 12, 2019