Houses or Apartments

The Pros and Cons of some Basic Investments

Houses or Apartments

Buying a house or an apartment is the most profitable purchase most people ever made. 

A house has 2 big advantages over other types of investments:

• You can live in it while you wait for the price to go up, and
• You buy it on borrowed money.

Houses have a habit of increasing in value at the same rate as inflation.  On that score, you're breaking even.

But you don't pay for the house all at once.  Typically, you pay 20% up front (the down payment), and a bank lends you the other 80% (the mortgage).  You pay interest on this mortgage for as long as it takes you to pay back the loan.  That could be as long as 15 or 30 years, depending on the deal you make with the bank.

Meanwhile, you're living in a house, and you won't get scared out of it by a bad housing market, the way you might get scared out of stocks when the stock market has a crash or a correction. 

As long as you stay there, the house increses in value, but you aren't paying any taxes on the gains.  And once in your lifetime, the government gives you a tax break when you do sell the house.

Some mathematics

If you buy a $100,000 house that increases in value by 3% a year, after the first year it will be worth $3,000 more than what you paid for it.

At first glance, you'd say that's a 3% return, the same as you might get from a savings account. 

But here is the secret, that makes the house such a great investment.  Of the $100,000 it takes to buy the house, only $20,000 comes out of your pocket.  So, at the end of year one, you've got a $3,000 profit on an investment of $20,000.  Instead, of a 3% return, the house is giving you a 15% return.

Along the way, of course, you have to pay the interest on the mortgage, but you get a tax break for that, and as you pay off the mortgage, you're increasing your investment in the house.  This is a form of savings that people often don't think about.

Fifteen years up the road, if you've got a fifteen-year mortgage and you stay in the house that long, the mortgage is paid off, and the house you bought for $100,000 is worth $155,797, thanks to the annual 3% increase in price.

Short-term investments: Savings Accounts, Money-Market Funds, Treasury Bills and Certificate of Deposits

The Pros and Cons of some Basic Investments

Savings Accounts, Money-Market Funds, Treasury Bills and Certificate of Deposits

All of the above are known as short-term investments.

They pay you interest.  You get your money back in a relatively short time.

In savings accounts, Treasury bills, and CDs, your money is insured against losses, so you're guaranteed to get it back.

Money markets lack the guarantee, bu the chances of losing money in a money market are remote.

One big disadvantage:  They pay you a low rate of interest.

Sometimes, the interest rate you get in a money-market account or a savings account can't even keep up with inflation.  Looking at it that way, a savings account may be a losing proposition.

Inflation is a fancy way of saying that prices of things are going up.  Another way to look at inflation is that the buying power of the dollar is going down.

The first goal of saving and investing is to keep ahead of inflation.  Your money's on a threadmill that's constantly going backward.  In recent years, you had to make 3 % on your investments just to stay even.

That's the problem with leaving money in a bank or a savings and loan.  The money is safe in the short run, because it's insured against loss, but in the long run, it is likely to lose ground against taxes and inflation. 

Here's a tip - when the inflation rate is higher than the interest rate you're getting from a CD, Treasury bill, money-market account, or savings account, you're investing in a lost cause.

• Savings accounts are great places to park money so you can get at it quickly, whenever you need to pay bills. 
• They are great places to store cash until you've got a big enough pile to invest elsewhere. 
• But over long periods of time, they won't do you much good.

Invest Now! What are you waiting for?

Many people wait until they are in their thirties, fourties, and fifties to start saving money.

The trouble is, by the time they realize they ought to be investing, they've lost valuable years when stocks could have been working in their favour.

One of the best way to avoid this fate is to begin saving money as early as possible, while you're living at home.  When else are your expenses going to be this low?  You have no children to feed - your parents are probably feeding you.

Money is a great friend, once you send it off to work.  It puts extra cash in your pocket without your having to lift a finger.

If you invest $500 a year in stocks instead of putting it in the bank, the money gets a chance to do you an even bigger favour, while you're off someplace living your life.  On average, you will double your money every 7 or 8 years if you leave it in stocks. 

A lot of smart investors have learned to take advantage of this.  They realise that capital (money) is as important to their future as their own jobs (labour).

Warren Buffett, America's second richest man, got there by saving money and later putting it into stocks.  To him, a $400 TV set he saw in the store wasn't really a $400 purchase.  He always thought about how much that $400 would be worth twenty years later, if he invested it instead of spending it.  This sort of thinking kept him from wasting his money on items he didn't need.

If you start saving and investing early enough, you'll get to the point where your money is supporting you.  This is what most people hope for, a chance to have financial independence where they're free to go places and do what they want, while their money stays home and goes to work.  But it will never happen unless you get in the habit of saving and investing and putting aside a certain amount every month, at a young age.

In the past people felt great pride when they worked hard and made certain sacrifices in order to pay for something all at once.  It made them nervous to owe money to the banks, and when they paid off their home mortgages, they had parties and invited all the neighbours to help them celebrate.

It wasn't until the 1960s that Americans got into the habit of using credit cards, and it wasn't until the 1980s that average families were hocked to the limit on mortgages, car loans, home equity loans, and the unpaid balances on their cards.

It is OK to pay interest on a house or an apartment, which will increase in value, but not on cars, appliances, clothes, or TV sets, which are worth less and less as you use them.

Debt is saving  in reverse.  The more it builds up, the worse off you are.  We see this in households across America, people struggling to make the payments, and in the government itself, which at the moment is hopelessly in debt.

America was once a nation of savers.

People of all income levels put aside as much money as they could, mostly in savings accounts at the local bank.  They made money on this money as it grew with interest, so eventually they could use it for a down payment on a house, or  to buy things, or to draw on in family emergencies.  In the meantime, the bank could take people's savings and lend them out to home buyers, or home builders, or businesses of all kinds.

Save as much as you can!  YOU'll be helping yourself and helping the country.

The Typical Shareholder of US stockmarket (historical data)

Since the 1950s, there has been a gradual increase in the number of people buying shares.  This is a positive trend, because the more shoreholders there are, the more the wealth gets spread around.

Twenty years after the Great Depression, the vast majority of Americans were afraid of stocks and kept their money in the bank, where they thought it was safe.  You've heard the expression, "I'd rather be safe than sorry"? 

• In this case, the money was safe and the people were sorry, because they missed the fabulous bull market in stocks during the 1950s. 
• There were only 6.5 million shareholders in 1952, only 4.2% of the population, and 80% of those shares were in the hands of 1.6% of the population. 
• All the gains went to a small group of people who weren't afraid of stocks and understood the benefits far outweighed the risks.

1962
17 million Americans owned stocks. 10% of US population.
The more stock prices rose, the more people jumped on the bandwagon.


1970
By 1970, there were 30 million shareholders in America, 15% of the population.
The eager buyers had pushed prices to dangerously high levels.
Most stocks were fatally overpriced.
Market corrected. 
So many brutal sellers during the brutal stock-market correction of the early 1970s.
5 million former shareholders, 3% of the US population exited the market en masse.

1975
It took 5 years for enough people to come back to stocks so that once again, the US had 30 million shareholders.

mid 1980s
47 million shareholders in US
1 out of 5 Americans owned stocks
33% of these invested through mutual funds.
Market value of all stocks on NYSE > $1 trillion

1990
51.4 million shareholders
A larger number of people invested through mutual funds. 
The average investor was no longer interested in picking his or her own stocks. 
The job was turned over to the professional fund managers at the nearly 4000 funds in existence at the time.
3.7 million shareholders or 7% of total, under the age of 21.

1995
Market value of all the stocks of NYSE > $5 trillion mark (In 1980, these same stocks were worth $1.2 trillion)
The money invested away in stocks had made the investors at least $4 trillion richer in a decade and a half.
That is letting your money do the work!


The typical shareholder in 1900
45 year old man
Annual income:  $46,400
Owned:  $13,500 worth of stocks

44 year old woman
Annual income:  $39,000
Owned:  $7,200 worth of stocks

Neither Buying at High Price nor Selling at Low Price.

The eager buyers of shares pushed prices to dangerously high levels, so by 1970, most stocks were fatally overpriced.  By almost any measure, people were paying far too much for the companies they were buying. 

This sort of craziness happens a few times in a century, and whenever it does, the market "correct," the prices drop to more sensible levels, and the people who bought at the top are stunned and depressed.  They can't believe they've lost so much money so quickly.

Of course, they haven't really lost anything unless they sell their shares, but many investors do just that.  They dump their entire portfolio in a panic.  A stock they acquired for $100 when it was overpriced, they unload a few weeks later for $70 or $60, at a bargain price.

Their loss is the new buyers' gain, because the new buyers will make the money the sellers woulod have made if they'd held on to their investments and waited out the correction.

The Importance of Saving, Investing and Acquiring Financial Education Early

A Beginner's Guide to the Basics fo Investing and Business. Why save and invest early?

The junior high schools and high schools of America have forgotten to teach one of the most important course of all.  Investing.

What's often left out is

• how saving money from an early age is the key to future prosperity,
• how investing that money in stocks is the best move a person can make, next to owning a house, and
• how the earlier you start saving and investing in stocks, the better you'll do in the long run.

We are taught little about the millions of businesses, large and small, that are the key to our prosperity and our strength as a nation.  Without investors to provide the money to start new companies that hire new workers, or to help older companies grow bigger, become more efficient, and pay higher wages, the world as we  know it would collapse and there'd be no jobs for anybody, and the United States would be out of luck.

In our own schools, we don't teach the basics of how this economic system works, and what's good about it, and how you can take advantage of it by becoming an investor.

Investing is fun.  It's interesting. 

• Learning about it can be an enriching experience, in more ways than one. 
• It can put you on the road to prosperity for the rest of your life, yet most people don't begin to get the hang of investing until they reach middle age, when their eyes start to go bad and their waistlines expand. 
• Then they discover the advantages of owning stocks, and they wish they'd known about them earlier.

There is nothing about investing that a woman can't do as well as a man.  Also, when you hear somebody say, "He is a natural-born investor,' don't believe it.  The natural-born investor is a myth.

The principles of finance are simple and easily grasped.  Principle number one is that savings equal investment. 

• Money that you keep in a piggy bank or a cookie jar doesn't count as an investment, but any time you put money in the bank, or buy a savings bond, or buy stock in a company, you're investing. 
• Somebody else will take that money and use it to build new stores, new houses, or new factories, which creates jobs. 
• More jobs means more paychecks for more workers. 
• If those workers can manage to set aside some fo their earnings to save and invest, the whole process begins all over again.

It's the same story for every family, every company, every country. 

• Whether it's Belgium or Botswana, China or Chile, Mozambique or Mexico, General Motors or General Electric, your family or mine, those who save and invest for the future will be more prosperous in the future than those who run out and spend all the money they get their hands on. 
• Why is the United States such a rich country?  At one point, we had one of the highest saving rates in the world.

A lot of people must have told you by now that it is important to get a good education, so you can find a promising career that pays you a decent wage.  But they may not have told you that in the long run, it's not just how much money you make that will determine your future prosperity.  It is how much of that money you put to work by saving it and investing it.

The best time to get started investing is when you're young. 

• The more time you have to let your investments grow, the bigger the fortune you'll end up with.  But this introduction to finance is not only for the young people.  It's for beginning investors of all ages who find stocks confusing and who haven't yet had the chance to learn the basics.

People are living much longer than they used to, which means they'll be paying bills for a lot longer than they used to.

•  If a couple makes it to 65, there's a good chance they'll make it to 85, and
• if they make it to 85, there's a decent chance one of them will reach 95. 

In order to cover their living expenses, they'll need extra money, and the surest way to get it is by investing.

It is not too late to start investing at age 65.  Today's 65 year olds might be looking at 25 more years during which their money can continue to grow, to give them the wherewithal to pay the 25 years' worth of extra bills.

When you're 15 or 20, it's hard to imagine the day will come when you'll turn 65, but if you get in the habit of saving and investing, by then your money will have been working in your favour for 50 years.  50 years of putting money away will produce astonishing results, even if you only put away a small amount at a time. 

The more you invest the better off you'll be, and the nation will be better off as well, because your money will help create new businesses and more jobs.


Ref:

Preface
Learn ot Earn
by Peter Lynch and John Rothchild
A Beginner's Guide to the Basics of Investing and Business

Basics of investing should be taught in school.

Many investors, including some with substantial portfolios, have only the sketchiest idea of how the stock market works.  The reason, is that the basics of investing - the fundamentals of our economic systema dn what they have to do with the stock market - aren't taught in school.  At a time when individuals have to make important decisions about saving for college and retirement funds, this failure to provide a basic education in investing can have tragic consequences.

For those who know what to look for, investment opportunities are everywhere.  The average high school student is familiar with Nike, Reebok, McDonald's, the Gap, and the Body Shop.  Nearly every teenager in America drinks Coke or Pepsi, but only a very few own shares in either company or even understand how to buy them.  Every student studies American history, but few realize that the US was settled by European colonists financed by public companies in England and Holland - and the basic principles behind public companies haven't changed in more than three hundred years.


Ref: 
Learn to Earn
by Lynch and Rothchild

In this book, the authors explain in a style accessible to anyone who is high school age or older how to read a stock table in the daily newspaper, how to understand a company's annual report, and why everyone should pay attention ot the stock market.  They explain not only how to invest but also how to think like an investor.

Will Your Stock Hit Rock Bottom?

Will Your Stock Hit Rock Bottom?

By Jordan DiPietro
January 22, 2010

Figuring out what you believe to be the intrinsic value of a stock is one of the most significant things you can do. If you bought shares of Sprint Nextel (NYSE: S) for more than $10 a pop, you better know at what price you'd be willing to sell, or you may find your stock hitting rock bottom.

How you define the floor
When investors try to determine a sales price, it seems as though we all too often let our emotions get the best of us. To illustrate this point, consider an experiment documented by behavioral economist and professor Dan Ariely.

Duke students are fanatical about their basketball program, and they illustrate their passion when it comes to buying tickets. There is a strict procedure where students have to camp out intermittently for an entire semester, responding to arbitrary bull horns and missing classes and exams. These are die-hard fans. For big games, students at the front of the line aren't even guaranteed a ticket -- only a spot in a lottery system. A list is posted later with the winners of the lottery, and often those who have sacrificed the most find themselves without a ticket to the game.

Duke professors wanted to conduct an experiment, so they found students who received lottery tickets and those who did not, and tried to find an equilibrium price where a ticket could be bought and sold. Remember -- both sets of students missed classes, spent evenings in tents, and went through the same rigorous process to obtain these cherished tickets. When the lottery losers were asked how much they would pay for a ticket, the average price was $175. The lottery recipients, on the other hand, would not sell their tickets for anything less than an average of $2,400! How could there be such a price discrepancy when both sets of students were willing to go through the same ordeal?

We all love what we have ...
The reason is that the lottery winners were victims of ownership bias; that is, they overvalued what they owned, simply because they owned it!

• This helps explain why people may have held on to shares of Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO) or Yahoo! (Nasdaq: YHOO), even when the dot.com bubble was bursting at the seams.
• Or why people were still holding onto financials like Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) in 2007, when the subprime crisis was all but written on the wall.

When investors make a purchase, what Ariely calls an emotional chasm is formed between the "old you" who didn't own the stock and the "new you" who now owns some very precious shares. In the case of Duke basketball, it was an "empirical chasm as well -- the average selling price (about $2,400) was separated by a factor of about 14 from the average buyer's offer (about $175)," Ariely wrote in his book Predictably Irrational.

I fall prey to this bias every time I buy a stock.

• In August of last year, I purchased shares of General Electric (NYSE: GE) when it was trading for about $11 and change.
• Because there is constant controversy surrounding a conglomerate like GE, I find myself ignoring criticisms of the company or critiques about GE's capital division -- just because I own the stock.
• I constantly have to remind myself to step back, impartially evaluate the company, and reassess my prospects for the industry.
• The stock eventually fell as low as $6 (though it has since recovered to $16).

And we never want to let it go ...
Say you were bullish on the solar industry and owned shares of First Solar (Nasdaq: FSLR) and Suntech Power (NYSE: STP), and analysts were coming out with negative industry reports. Instead of listening to the scrutiny and reading the reports, many investors would simply ignore the contrary opinion and convince themselves that their original analysis was correct. Because if in fact the analysts were correct -- and the solar industry was doomed -- then you'd have to sell your shares, and we've already established how we feel about things we already own. We simply don't like to let things go, whether it's a basketball ticket or a share of stock.

Do you know when to hold or sell that stock, because -- let's face it -- conditions change?

Remember, there's no greater way to avoid having your stock hit rock bottom than having received objective analysis and reasonable advice.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/01/22/will-your-stock-hit-rock-bottom.aspx

Tendency towards Volatility - Always Think about the Crowd!

Both fundamental and technical analysis can be helpful to investors in deciding when it is a good idea to buy or sell. 

Fundamentals generally change fairly slowly - over a period of quarters or years. 

Technical analysis are used by some as guide to profitable action in the nearer term. 

Prices tend to overshoot both too high and then too low in their attempts to reflect proper reality.

This tendency towards volatility, which seems to have increased in the age of trading at the speed of the internet, can either hurt you or help you.

How it affects us is driven by how well or badly we understand and handle price volatility.

This is a simple realization: that crowd behaviour frequently drives unsustainable and extreme price behaviour at tops and bottoms.

It follows from that observation that extra net returns can be earned by those who constantly watch for the crowd and who think of the market not from their own viewpoints alone but rather in terms of what the crowd is thinking.

Crowd size can be readily observed in trading volume and , with some lag, in net money flows to/from equity mutual funds.

Standing back and discerning where the crowd's often collectively muddled head is will always help you make a better decision.

What drives prices to change?

In the long run, yes, definitely the fundamentals or value.

But between now and that distant tomorrow, the answer is supply and demand. 

And the balance of those forces is not always rationally based.

It is at market-negotiated prices, not values, where we sell (and buy) stocks. 

And markets reflect people, not fundamentals alone!

It is not the news itself that moves prices, but instead the response of investors and traders to that news. 

To the degree that news constitutes a surprise, price will move dramatically.

The extent of changes in opinion can be measured in trading volume.  That tells us the degree of surprise hitting the market and the urgency with which the affected traderss and investors feel they need to take action. 

What studying volume does, in effect , is to reveal

• what the crowd is thinking and
• how big that crowd is. 

Understanding the crowd's collective mind set is crucial to being on the right side of the price action. 

Watching the crowd and the trading volume it creates will add a new dimension to your market and stock analysis.

Why Selling feels Uncomfortable?

Selling requires of us a significant change in our thinking - indeed a complete reversal! 

When we bought that stock, its prospects were wonderful, and it represented value and opportunity.  Now, whether our investment has since done well or not, to sell requires closing down hope and perhaps admitting defeat.  And it is possible that our defeat may have been created by faulty initial thinking, meaning we can place no blame externally since we were actually wrong all along.  Not a realiszation we savour.

Buying involves the opening o f possibilities of great things.  Buying represents open-endedness; continued holding maintains such hope for gain and pleasure (or, when we have a paper loss, hope for recovery and the righting of a temporary wrong).  Selling carries a finality with it because, by definition, it closes the book or ends the game and establishes a final score.  We prefer to have our options open rather than foreclosed, to retain chances for improvement and betterment rather than to know that the verdict is sealed and no chance for change exists.  We have great difficulty coming to closure since it cuts off further possibiiities; it ends hope for any better outcome.  Closure includes such experiences as

• cleaning out great grandmother's attic;
• graduating and leaving school and friends;
• acknowledging a failed marriage by concluding a divorce;
• burying a dear friend or loved one;
• seeing winter come;
• leaving an employer and valued colleagues;
• retiring and therefore wrapping up business. 

Those are heavy and sad passages, so we are predisposed to resist voluntarily creating any closure expereinces that we have power to avoid.  Holding does exactly that.

Holding keeps our options open, while selling clearly brings closure and finality.  (With surprising myopia, we ignore the fact that once we sell a stock we can just as easily repurchase it.  Viewing repurchase as a very real antidote to our revulsion against closure, however, raise visions of again going through that agonising process of reversing our opinion by 180 degrees, which is painful for all the reasons noted above.) 

• So we hold rather than sell because, at the very least, holding postpones coming to closure. 
• Many a bad stock is held (into an uncertain yet not hopeless future) with palpable likelihood of further financial loss because the (presently avoidable) emotional cost of coming to closure is perceived as so heavy. 
• Investors pay in dollar losses to avoid emotional pain from a closure process; often, as losses get worse, they will later need to pay a higher price in both lost dollars and eventual pain by imposing self-punishement over major mistakes. 

The closure aspect of selling is a powerful deterrent, one requiring both strong will and courage to overcome.

Why Holding Feels Right - Understanding the Psychology underlying this

Understanding the subtle but strong psychological impediments against selling

At a most obvious level, making profit represents pleasure, while suffering a loss equates to feeling pain.

Let us attempt to understand the deeper layer of forces that dispose us to certain attitudes and behaviours springing from our subconscious pain-avoidance and comfort-seeking tendencies.

When we own a particular stock, inaction (holding) keeps us in or certainly closer to a place of comfort than does taking action to change our circumstances (selling).  Holding onto a friend keeps us close to our past, to memories and feelings we cherish.  Many continue to hold stock in companies whose fortunes peaked years or even decades ago.  Logic alone cannot seem to explain why they resist selling despite obviously dim prospects for recovery or gain. 

• Maybe grandfather worked for the company, or we reside in a town where it supported many families or sponsored the softball team. 
• Perhaps ages ago we made a profit, or at least had a good paper profit for a while in this stock. 
• Or our parents always spoke well of the company or
• confided they had made a decent sum in its shares at one time. 

Thus, nostalgic positive feelings surround it and we find it very difficult to end our association.

Our positive associations with a particular stock create a bonded feeling. 

• We have made a good profit on an overall basis and while the annualised return may be unspectacular, a gain is surely better than a loss and the total dollar or point profit feels pleasant.  So this stock is our friend. 
• Held for a number of years now, it has been virtually adopted as a family member.  Thus, our primary inclination is to not severe such ties by terminating this comfortable relationship. 

Why end this thing, we think at an unconscious and perhaps also at a conscious level.  Living with, rather than without, that stock represents staying in a comfort zone.

Even though the company's fortunes may now have faltered, choosing to sell its stock represents adopting a 180-degree opposite stance.  Issuing that order to liquidate means that we once thought was correct now is no longer so in our minds. 

• This company is no longer under priced, or its prospects or management quality are not what we earlier imagined or expected. 
• Or perhaps we have given up on its price/earnings ratio growing as we had earlier envisioned.

To say sell means that either

• what we once thought was right is no longer so and/or
• that maybe we have already been on the wrong side of the market for some time and are now admitting a change in opinion is warranted. 

Either way, selling represents admitting we now believe what we earlier thought is no longer true.  Most of us have great difficulty acknowledging that we were wrong. 

If you place a very strong value on reputation or esteem in life, the reversal of position inherent in selling is likely to be an especially difficult battle zone for your ego and your comfort.  This can be a special problem for professionals such as doctors, attorneys, and others looked up to.  Reversing a position is made even more difficult if we have publicly or strongly espoused it.  This is a very important reason for keeping our investment holdings secret:  reversing ourselves and selling then at least involves no loss of face with others who knew our prior opinion.

Breakdown of Risk

Actions/risk
that affect only
------One firm-----Few firms---------Many firms---All investments--
                                
Firm-specific=1====2===3==========4=======5===Marketwide


1.  Projects may do better or worse than expected.
2.  Competition may be stronger or weaker than anticipated.
3.  Entire sector may be affected by action.
4.  Exchange rates and political risks affect many stocks.
5.  Interest rates, inflation, and news about economy affect all stocks.

The most prudent practice is never waiting to hear sell advice

A recommendation by an analyst to buy can be presented to every client interested in income.

A sale advice by an analyst applies only to those clients who already own the stock (and to that tiny minority oriented to short selling). 

A sale recommendation has a much smaller business-generating potential.  Reseach analysts are employed and compensated on the basis of the accuracy of judgement and on the amount of business their reports generate.  So analysts have a buy bias too.

Individual brokers face yet another dilemma when making a sale recommendation.  The investor tends to blame poor results more on a sale than on a buy.  That tendency can get brokers into trouble with their clients (and analysts into trouble with a firm's brokers).  Another way for a broker to get into even more trouble is to suggest redeploying the funds in another stock that goes down.

In summary, there are five ways a sale advice can backfire on a broker:

1.  It can offend the client who is emotionally attached to this stock.

2.  Selling can close out a painful transaction (a loss).
3.  The sale can be followed by a price rally, which would have provided greater profit or a reduced loss if the stock had been held.
4.  Funds liberated by the sale might be reinvested unprofitably, making the sale a double troublemaker.
5.  Unless the sale price proves nearly perfect, the broker is resented for generating a commission by suggesting the action.

It is also worth noting that penny-stock houses never recommend a sell unless it is to generate funds to buy something else.  The major reason is that they themselves must buy what investors sell because they, virtually alone, make the market in the stock. 

The most prudent practice is never waiting to hear sell advice.  Assume it will not be heard, and plan to make your personal selling-versus-holding decisions based on your own rules.

Euphemisms

Other words for sell, however, commonly do appear.  Brokerage firms have devised a variety of ways to describte a corporate situation that indicates a sale is the best option. 

• One of them is to write a report covering a corporate finance client, which is labelled a follow-up to the underwriting and carries no opinion or recommendation.  Follow-ups need to be read closely. 
• Even if the official policy is to give no recommendation, the tone of the report needs to be evaluated carefully.  If it is less glowing, suspect that the research analyst is not impressed with this stock and, while constrained from saying so, really thinks it should be sold. 
• Another way, short of uttering the Sell-word, is for the firm to drop analyst coverage of a company altogether.  Such silence is not golden.
• Another diplomatic approach is to give a recommendation other than buy that is kinder and gentler than the Sell-word itself.  The best euphemism for sell, ironically, is its operative opposite: hold.  When an analyst does not want to say buy and is not allowed to say sell, the only option remaining is hold.  Consider hold almost always as a danger sign.  In fact, hold really should generally be interpreted as meaning, do not hold.

Common brokerage euphemisms for sell:

• hold
• accumulate
• long-term buy
• market performer
• market weight
• perform in line
• under perform
• underweight

Another coded way of saying sell is a carefully worded message such as:  The stock is probably a worthwhile long-term holding despite some near-term uncertainties.  That is translated by teh cynic as:  If you hold for quite a while, maybe you will not lose.  All such euphemisms should be taken as signals to cash in.

On the other hand, don't place too much hope on an analyst's postings titled: "Why I like stock XXX a lot?"  Remember the analyst's buy bias and always to do your own homework.

Investors buy stocks in order to sell them at a profit in the future

Investors buy stocks for a number of reasons, many of which are ill-advised. 

From purely an investment perspective, there are only 2 reasons to buy common stocks.

1.  True equities investing consist of identifying those companies with stocks undervalued in terms of future earning power and buying them now because the projected earnings per share (EPS) stream is expected to produce dividends.  So the first objective is dividend income. 

2.  The second objective is capital appreciation.  Growth in price tends to occur over time

• if the fortunes (fundamentals) of the underlying company improve,
• if interest rates do not move sharply higher (squeezing price/earnings ratio [P/Es], and
• if market psychology moves from negative to neutral or positive.

To be successful a transaction requires both buying and selling, since both are required before a transaction's final result is established. 

Many published books dealing with stock market investing in any form focus overwhelmingly on the buying transaction only and neglect the sell side of the equation almost completely. 

Selling may not be exciting, and assuredly it is a narrower topic, but it is absolutely necessary and has its own very interesting twists and curiosities.

Actual reversal to upside price action requires intervention by interested buyers.

Big and persistent buyers must overpower sellers to push stock's price higher

In any speculative market, a snowball that starts going downhill tends to keep going.

Prices swing emotionally from overvaluation to undervaluation. The extent of overshooting on each side is impossible to predict because it is driven by volatile emotions.

So an investor's first job is to become smart enough to realise that the market gyrates and then to get out of the way before the pendulum swings adversely.

While stocks do not always accelerate in decline as an easy telltale signal of having bnttomed, it is universally true that an actual reversal to upside price action requires intervention by interested buyers.

Such buyers must be big and persistent enough first to stop the price decline and then to stabilize the price against any trickle of further selling that results from boredom.

Finally, they must overpower sellers on an ongoing basis to push the stock's price higher.

With literally thousands of stocks available to buy, once a company becomes troubled in the collective opinion of the market, it will take considerable time and probably some notable events for improved prices to hold.

RHB Research upgrades KNM to outperform

RHB Research upgrades KNM to outperform

Written by RHB Research Institute
Thursday, 21 January 2010 09:19


KUALA LUMPUR: RHB Research Institute has upgraded KNM to outperform from underperform on potential stronger orderbook in FY10-11.

“We have raised our fair value to 91 sen a share (from 65 sen a share previously) which is now based on 13 times FY10 PER (vs 11x FY10 PER previously).

“Given potential upside of 17% to our new fair value, we have upgraded the stock to Outperform (from Underperform previously),” it said on Thursday, Jan 21.

RHB Research said KNM management expects FY10-11 orderbook to rise from RM2.8 billion given stronger demand for process equipment arising from new oil sands investments as well as increase in petrochemical plants and refineries.

Stockwatch

In today's The Edge Financial Daily


RHB Research upgrades KNM to outperform
Thursday, 21 January 2010 RHB Research Institute

RHB Research maintains overweight on motor
Thursday, 21 January 2010 RHB Research Institute

Maybank Research maintain Buy on Tenaga, TP 12.10
Thursday, 21 January 2010 Maybank Investment Research

Maybank Research maintains Hold on Public Bank
Thursday, 21 January 2010 Maybank Investment Research

OSK Research: Tenaga fair value RM9.38
Thursday, 21 January 2010 OSK Investment Research

Selling is often a harder decision than buying

"If you have bought a good quality stock at bargain or reasonable price, you can often hold forever." 

Investing is fun.  For every rule, there is always an exception. 

The main reasons for selling a stock are:

 1.  When the fundamental has deteriorated permanently,  (Sell urgently)

2.  When it is overpriced, whereby the upside gain will be unlikely or very small and the downside loss will be big or certain.

 We shall examine reason No. 2 through the property market.  The property market is also cyclical.  There were periods of booms and dooms. 

If you have a good piece of property that is always 100% tenanted and which gives you good consistent return (let's say 2x or 3x risk free FD rates), would you not hold this property forever?  The answer is probably yes.

Then, when would you sell this property?

 Note that the valuation of property, as with stocks, is both objective and subjective.

Would you sell when someone offered to buy at 500% above your perceived market price?  Probably yes, as this is obviously overpriced.  You could cash out and probably easily re-employ the money to earn better returns in another property (or properties) or other assets. 

Would you sell when someone offered to buy at 50% above your perceived market price? Maybe yes or maybe no.  You can offer your many reasons.  However, all these will be based on the perceived future returns you can hope to get from this property in the future.  This is both objective based on past returns obtained and subjective and speculative on future returns.

However, unlike reason No.1 when you would need to sell urgently to another buyer to prevent sustaining a permanent loss, you need not sell just because someone offered to buy the property at high price. (However, there are also those who "flip properties" for their earnings; they will sell quickly for a quick profit.)  You will not suffer a loss but only a diminished return at worse.  You can take your time to work out the mathematics.  You maybe surprised that you may still achieve a return higher at a time in the near future by rejecting the present immediate gain based on the present high price offered.  Also, you would need to price in the lost opportunity cost when the property is sold at this price, even though it is 50% above the perceived normal market price.  Could you buy a similar quality property with the same sustainable increasing income or return by offering the same price?

Similarly, the same line of thinking can be applied to your selling of shares.  When should you sell your shares?  Yes, definitely when the fundamentals have deteoriorated permanently.  The business has suffered for various reasons and going forward, the earnings will be permanently impaired and deteriorating.  Yes, when the price is very very overpriced.  However, you need not sell your shares in good quality companies that you bought at fair or bargain price.  As long as the fundamentals are strong and the business is adding value, selling now at a higher price may mean losing the return that you could have obtained in the future years from owning this stock and the opportunity cost of reinvesting the cash into another stock of similar quality and returns.  Once again, the importance of sound reasoning and doing the mathematics in making a decision whether to sell or not.

Additional notes: Other reasons for selling a stock (or property) are:

• To raise cash to reinvest into another asset with better return.
• A certain stock (or property sector) may be over-represented in your portfolio due to recent rapid price rises and you need to reduce its weightage to reduce your risk of over-exposure in this single stock (or property sector).

Footnote: This is a true story. A rich man was approached by a buyer to sell his property. A few neighbouring lots were sold for $1.6 m the last 2 years. What offer will ensure that you sell your property to me?  Please let me know. The unwilling owner replied, "$5 million". There is a lesson here too.

Buying when the price is right.

When you have a good idea, make sure you bet big.  At other times, don't bother.  Enjoy the things you like, stay inactive if you must.

Just thinking of an analogous situation.  You have been eyeing the house in a neighbourhood.  The house is up for sale, priced at $800,000.  It has been in the market for some time.  The other houses in the neighbourhood had previously been transacted for any price between $600,000 and $800,000.

You have inspected the house and you estimated the fair price for the house based on your assessment to be  $650,000.

Suddenly the economy turned bad.  More houses were up for sale in the neighbourhood.  The prices started to fall.  A house was priced $700,000.  Two months later, another house was in the market for  $730,000.  Then another for $750,000.   The sellers were not keen to lower the prices by much from the quoted price. 

More hardships hit the economy and the community.  No new houses were up for sale, but the buyers literally were not visible.  The prices quoted previously came down, but not by much, except one.  This one house was priced at $600,000 for a quick sale.  The seller was making an urgent sale to obtain cash for various reasons. 

And what did you do?  You waited hoping that the price would drop further.  Perhaps, the seller might sell at $570,000.  You waited for the seller to agree.  You waited. 

Then the news came, the house was sold to another for $600,000.  And how did you feel?  You felt you have missed out on a good deal.  For the next 5 years, the houses in the region never reached this price.  All the houses were priced or transacted around $700,000.

It is difficult, perhaps, close to impossible to buy at the bottom.  There are bargains when the market is on the way down and also on the way up.  The ability to value an asset is important.  As long as the price is below the "intrinsic value" and given an appropriate margin of safety for the risks appropriate for the particular asset, you can buy with conviction. 

Isn't this scenario applicable to buying shares? 

Don't wait for the best price on the way down (Will you ever know when or what will be the lowest price, other than retrospectively?)  or  only pick buy stocks after the prices have swung up from an obvious bottom (Can you predict the short-term volatilties?  The possibilities of the prices swinging up and down over a short period cannot be predicted?  Did you buy when the market swung up from the bottom of March 09, or did you wait thinking that the rally may not be sustainable and the market might go down further?)

Often the shrewd investors wish to buy good quality stocks cheap?  When the prices dropped, some waited hoping for a bigger bargain.  Then the price swung upwards, and that momentary opportunity was lost.  Of course, the consolation is that there will always be another bargain the next time around.

Keeping a proportion of your wealth in cash is always a good thing.  When the opportunities to buy bargains present (and this is always a certainty in the stock market, though perhaps, only about less than 5 times a year), you can then take a big bet.  And here is the point:  Buy when the price is already at a significant bargain to your "fair or intrinsic value".  Once that price is there, buy and buy and buy.  You have all the reasons to buy as you are already buying with a margin of safety to the "intrinsic value."   Of course, if the price dropped further, you can buy more. 

However, be prepared to see the price going further downwards - market prices often overshoot on the way down (and up).  Have conviction in your valuation (assuming you have done the homeworks).  Be patient.  Be very patient.  Be prepared to hold the stock for 2, 3 or 5 years  to realise this objective.  Short term price changes can be volatile and unpredictable.  Provided that you bought only good quality stocks at reasonable or bargain prices, you should, given time and patience, eventually realise a prospective gain.

The importance of only buying good quality stocks cannot be overemphasized.  These are the stocks with good businesses that will over time build value.  These values will eventually be reflected in their share prices.  Even if the prices were to drop below your buying price, given time, the business will generate value pushing the price back to your buying price.

As Benjamin Graham taught, it is not easy to profit consistently by timing the buying. However, one can have high probability of profiting by buying good quality stocks based on price - always buying below the intrinsic value with a margin of safety.

Footnote:

Warren Buffett called the bottom of the market only a few occasions in his long investing career.

• On one occasion, the market continued to go down further for 3 years after his call.
• In the recent severe bear market, he called to buy in October 2008. The market continued its downtrend to bottom in March 2009. Those who bought in October 2008 would have to hold on to losses soon after they bought. However, when the market rebounded from the lows of March 2009, and assuming they have held onto their investments to now, they would have made substantial gains to-date.

The 3 key variables in any investing plan

Why You Shouldn't Give Up on Stocks
By Dan Caplinger
January 20, 2010

You'd think that with all the good news investors have gotten lately, all the doomsayers would be laying low. Yet even after the stock market's big rally from last year's lows, some pundits still question whether investing is a hopeless cause.

Keeping your head above water
An article in The Wall Street Journal earlier this week took a close look at the unrealistic expectations that many investors have about the returns they can generate from their portfolios. After a decade during which the broad stock market has laid a big fat goose egg in the return column, a survey showed that investors expect average annual returns of nearly 14% over the next 10 years.

Yet that isn't the most sobering fact about the misconceptions people have about the financial markets. When asked how much they could expect to keep in terms of purchasing power, after accounting for the impact of taxes, investing costs, and inflation, a group of financial advisers estimated a return of between 6% and 9% annually.

Should you hope for returns that are that good? You bet. But should you count on earning them? No way. Fortunately, if you're smart about how you structure your investment plan, you don't have to earn that high a return from your portfolio.

Keep it real
It's easy to understand how people mislead themselves about how much they can earn from investing in stocks. The secret comes down to success stories: We hear the most about winning stocks, while the much larger group of mediocre performers tends to get lost in the shuffle. Take this group of stellar stocks, for instance:

Stock
20-Year Average Annual Return

Dell (Nasdaq: DELL)
32.9%

Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL)
21.7%

Altria Group (NYSE: MO)
15.4%

United Technologies (NYSE: UTX)
15.2%

Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ)
14.5%

Source: Yahoo! Finance. As of Jan. 19.

Combine the bull market of the 1990s with the lost decade since 2000, and you'll see that these stocks have greatly outperformed the overall market. Yet when you take away a few percentage points for inflation, a few more for taxes, and another point or so for trading costs, you'll notice that only the best performers manage to stay in double-digit territory.

More importantly, recall that these are the big winners. For every stock like this, there are several like Dow Chemical (NYSE: DOW) and Citigroup (NYSE: C) that have languished with much smaller gains -- and others, such as General Motors, that have contributed substantial losses to the overall picture.

Stay on target
But don't let the sobering reality of the investing world convince you that it's impossible to reach your financial goals. There are three key variables in any investing plan:

• how much you can save,
• how much you earn on your investments, and
• how much you need to spend.

Investors tend to focus almost solely on their portfolios' earning potential and think a lot less about the other keys to financial success.

If you're not making the most of your financial situation to save as much as you can, then you're making a huge mistake with your money. By saving less than you could afford to save, you'll take bigger risks than you need to. Sometimes, those risks will go sour, costing you what would have been an easily attainable financial goal. Just as millions of investors learned too late that their portfolios included more high-risk investments than they really needed, you could be making big bets that you don't need to make in order to have a safe, secure retirement.

You'll get there
What you do need to do, though, is have realistic expectations. If you're more conservative about the return assumptions you make, you'll have to find more savings to reach a certain target value for your portfolio. But you'll also have more options to help you get there, rather than relying on finding tomorrow's top performers at all cost.

If you can do that, then you won't be fooling yourself about your investing. As hard as it is to rein in expectations during a roaring rally, doing so will leave you in a better condition to make rational decisions about your portfolio -- decisions that are likely to lead to exactly the returns you need to reach your goals.

Many people are nervous about 2010's prospects.

http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2010/01/20/why-you-shouldnt-give-up-on-stocks.aspx

We Are Due for a Pullback!

Stocks have made an epic run but it won't last. "The economy isn't strong enough" to support a new bull market reports The Wall Street Journal. We are overdue for a big pullback.

You have a choice: Stay the course and suffer big losses or go on the offense!

The Four Essentials of Successful Investing

In brief, here are the four rules:

Start early in life to invest.


Invest in common stocks.


Be thrifty.


Pick the right investment.

The Best Reason for Buying Low

"Buying low makes it a lot easier to sell high."

Some rights issues are good, others can be very bad

Some rights issues are good, others can be very bad

Like most things in investment, rights issues are not simple matters.

Rights are not automatically "good things" from the shareholders' point of view. Some of the rights are good, others can be very bad.

Investors have to be careful and they should not rush in every time there is an annoucement of rights. They should classify the rights issue they are considering in accordance with the three categories indicated below:

 (1) The case of the improperly managed companies

(2) The case of moving into new business area
(3) The case of the very fast growing company

 They should purchase only those of the last category.

Many will protest that they have neither the time nor the knowledge to carry out a detailed analysis of the company which announces the rights.

It is not possible for each and every one to carry out a careful analysis but there is an easier way out for the small timers. The dividend yield approach to stock valuation can be readily used to value a rights issue.

Why Companies Have to Make Rights Issue?

To put it bluntly, a company only needs to make a rights issue when it is short of money.

A business, any business, requires investment in various forms of assets in order to carry out its operations. A company is usually required to continually buy new assets in order to carry on its business either because its old assets have to be replaced or its expanding business requires more assets. To buy new assets, it will need new capital.

A company can obtain necessary money to purchase its assets from any one of three sources or a combination of all three.

• It can borrow the money,
• retain part or all of its profit or
• it can sell new shares.

 Under the normal circumstances, a company should be able to finance its additional purchase of assets from either retained earnings or new borrowing or a combination of the two. There are many examples of very fast growing businesses in Malaysia that have prospered without recourse to issuing rights (for examples: Nestle and BAT )

 But, companies may have to raise new capital by making rights issues under three types of abnormal circumstances. These three cases are:

(1) The company is improperly managed such that it is either not very profitable (or even losing a lot of money) such that the incoming cash is not adequate to support the need to purchase more assets. Or owing to poor management of its assets, it now requires a lot more assets to support its operations.

 (2) The company is moving into another line of business which is large relative to its current size and it requires a great deal of additional capital to start up the new venture.

(3) The company is in a very fast growing business. In fact, it is so fast growing that retained earnings and new borrowing alone are insufficient to sustain the growth.

 In order to be a prudent investor, we must analyse the situation of the company which has announced a rights issue carefully to see which category it falls into in the first place.

 Depending on which category of rights it is issuing, we can then carry out a further analysis to decide whether the rights issue is a good or a bad one.

Through examining each type of rights issue, an intelligent investor can tell the wolves from the sheep.

Pricing the rights also requires proper evaluation.

 http://myinvestingnotes.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-companies-have-to-make-rights-issue.html

Also read:
So Many Cash Calls In OuR Market!
http://whereiszemoola.blogspot.com/2010/01/so-many-cash-calls-in-our-market.html

How Buffett avoided mistakes by staying within his circle of competence

Understanding Your Circle of Competence

If Buffett cannot understand a company's business, then it lies beyond his circle of competence, and he won't attempt to value it.

Although it might seem obvious that investors should stick to what they know, the temptation to step outside one's circle of competence can be strong.

Buffett has written that he isn't bothered when he misses out on big returns in areas he doesn't understand, because investors can do very well (as he has) by simply avoiding big mistakes.

Buffett is simply a better investor than just about any other in the world. Brilliant, consistently rational, and blessed with a superb mind for business, he has managed to avoid the mistakes that have crushed so many portfolios. Let's look at two examples.

• In early 2000, Berkshire Hathaway's portfolio had underperformed funds that enjoyed spectacular returns by loading up on stocks of technology companies and Internet startups. Buffett avoided all tech stocks. He told his investors that he refused to invest in any company whose business he did not fully understand - and he didn't claim to understand the complicated, fast-changing technology business - or where he could not figure out how the business model would sustain a growing stream of earnings. Some said he was an old fuddy-duddy. Buffett had the last laugh when Internet-related stocks came crashing back to earth.
• In 2005 and 2006, Buffett largely avoided the mortgage-backed securities and derivatives that found their way into many investment portfolios. Again, his view was that they were too complex and opaque. He called them "financial weapons of mass destruction." When they brought down many a financial institution (and ravaged our entire financial system), Berkshire Hathaway avoided the worst of the meltdown.

http://bursabulltrader.blogspot.com/2010/01/6-biggest-investing-mistakes.html

Burton G. Malkiel, Princeton economics professor and author of 'A Random Walk Down Wall Street,' and Charles D. Ellis, author of 'Winning the Loser's Game,' have teamed up to write 'The Elements of Investing.' He commented: 

"We're both in our seventies. So is Warren Buffett. The main difference between his spectacular results at Berkshire Hathaway and our good results is not the economy and not the market, but the man from Omaha. "

Will this rally continue?

Will This Rally Continue?
By Rich Greifner
January 19, 2010

 

Will the recent rally continue? Or is the stock market overheated after a 65% surge?

 

I have no idea -- and frankly, I don't care.

 

Here's why you shouldn't care, either

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/01/19/will-this-rally-continue.aspx

 

 

Here's why you shouldn't care, either
Of course it would be wonderful to be able to forecast stock gyrations, deftly jumping in and out as the market ebbs and flows. But unfortunately, it simply isn't possible to accomplish such a feat on a consistent basis, and investors' attempts to anticipate the market's short-term movements only cost them money in the long run.

 

According to a study from Dalbar Inc., the S&P 500 produced an 8.35% annual return from 1988 through 2008. However, the average equity investor realized an annual return of just 1.87% over the same period thanks to the adverse effects of market timing.

• That means an investment of $10,000 in 1988 would have grown to $49,725 over the past two decades if left untouched.
• But investors who panicked at market bottoms and chased returns as the market rose would have only $14,485 today.

 

This problem has become so widespread that in 2006, Morningstar introduced an "investor return" measure to illustrate the impact of investors' timing their purchases and sales.

• Not surprisingly, a recent Morningstar study found that investor returns trailed fund returns over the past five years in each of the 14 mutual fund categories that Morningstar tracks.

 

Still not convinced that trying to time the market is a bad idea? One final example should drive the point home.

• Thanks to big bets on Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Mosaic (NYSE: MOS), and PotashCorp (NYSE: POT), Ken Heebner's CGM Focus Fund was the best-performing equity mutual fund of the past decade.
• But while CGM Focus posted an 18% annual gain over the past 10 years, the average investor in the fund lost 11% a year!

 

So rather than obsess over which way the stock market is headed next, heed these wise words from investing legend Peter Lynch: "Market timing is speculating and it rarely, if ever, pays off."

 

What does pay off?
"I don't believe in predicting markets," Lynch wrote in his classic One Up On Wall Street. "I believe in buying great companies -- especially companies that are undervalued and/or underappreciated. … Pick the right stocks and the market will take care of itself."

 

That strategy worked pretty well for Lynch, who posted 29% annual returns during his 13 years at the helm of Fidelity's Magellan Fund (sadly, most Magellan investors realized much lower returns during Lynch's tenure due to their attempts to time the market).

 

But Lynch famously focused on consumer-facing companies whose products he enjoyed, like Taco Bell (now owned by Yum! Brands (NYSE: YUM), Hanes (NYSE: HBI), and Chrysler (now owned by the U.S. government). With unemployment at a 26-year high and the U.S. consumer on the ropes, where should investors look to find the right stocks today?

 

The right stocks
That's the question I posed to Jeff Fischer, lead advisor for Motley Fool Pro. Like Lynch, Jeff and his team don't get swept up in trying to forecast short-term market movements. Instead, they seek out companies with

• sustainable competitive advantages,
• significant recurring revenue,
• diverse customer bases,
• strong free cash flow, and
• healthy balance sheets.

Here are two picks that Jeff believes will serve investors well whether the stock market heads up, down, or sideways:

 

 

 

 

5 Dumb Investing Mistakes to Avoid

5 Dumb Investing Mistakes to Avoid
by Gary Belsky | Jan 19, 2010

In his newly revised book, Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes and How to Correct Them, co-author Gary Belsky says irrational behavior often leads us to make dumb and costly financial decisions. In this excerpt, Belsky reveals the investing secrets that will help you avoid such goofs.

We all commit financial follies that cost us hundreds or thousands of dollars each year. Worse, we’re often blissfully ignorant of the causes of our monetary missteps and clueless about how to correct them. But by knowing these five big investing mistakes, you can change your behavior to put more money in your pocket.

1. Letting Losses Hurt More Than Gains Please You
People generally are “loss averse.” The pain felt from losing $100 is much greater than the pleasure from gaining the same amount. That’s why people behave inconsistently when it comes to taking investment risks. You might act conservatively to protect gains (by selling your winners to guarantee the profits) but act recklessly to avoid losses (by holding onto losers, hoping they’ll bounce back). Loss aversion causes some investors to sell all their holdings during periods of market turmoil, but trying to time the market doesn’t work in the long run.

2. Placing Too Much Emphasis on Unusual Events
Many people still recall the stock market crash of 2008 with anxiety, forgetting that stocks have offered the most consistent investment gains over time. As MoneyWatch blogger Nathan Hale has written, investors often pour money into mutual funds that performed well recently on the mistaken belief that the funds’ success is the result of something other than dumb luck.

3. Being Paralyzed by Investment Choices
You can’t let yourself get so overwhelmed by a surfeit of options that you penalize your finances through inaction. Some people won’t move money out of ultra-conservative, low-yielding retirement funds because they can’t bear having to select a better alternative. So limit your choices. Find “trusted screeners” whose judgment you admire to pare down your choices or even make them for you.


4. Ignoring the ‘Small’ Numbers
People have a tendency to ignore what they think are insignificant numbers, such as mutual fund expenses. But doing so can have a deleterious effect of surprising magnitude on your investment returns over time. On a $10,000 investment, an expense ratio of 0.5 percent might cost you about $180 over three years, but a 1.5 percent expense tab could nick you by $500 or so. Over 15 years, a low-expense fund might eat up less than 7 percent of your potential investment return, while a high-expense fund could devour almost 20 percent.

5. Failing to Understand the Odds against Beating the Market
Most investors will fare best by sticking primarily with index funds mirroring the averages. You won’t just keep up with the typical investor this way; you’ll likely do better than all those brave souls who think they can beat the law of averages. High transaction and management expenses, faulty psychology, and the law of averages often burden actively managed portfolios. Index funds take much of the emotion out of investing. And the most successful investors are the ones who don’t let emotions affect their decisions.

From Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes and How to Correct Them by Gary Belsky & Thomas Gilovich. Copyright 1999, 2009, by Gary Belsky and Thomas Gilovich. Reprinted by permission of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/article/investing-5-dumb-mistakes-to-avoid/384546/

The recipe for truly high growth

The recipe for truly high growth has a handful of necessary ingredients. They are:

• A small company
• A wide market opportunity
• Meaningful macroeconomic tailwinds.  

Think, for example, of Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN) when it launched in 1995. It was a tiny company, one of the first e-tailers, and it had the rising tide of the Internet -- merely the greatest development of the past 25 years -- helping it along. Now ask yourself: Do any of the companies or industry opportunities in your surveillance fit that profile at all?

This Mistake Could Cost You a Fortune

This Mistake Could Cost You a Fortune
By Austin Edwards
January 17, 2010

 

Granted, it's not like I made a big bet on DryShips (Nasdaq: DRYS) at the beginning of last year -- right before it dropped more than 75% (although I know people who did). And I certainly didn’t listen to any of the doom-and-gloom pundits who suggested you short “zombie banks” like JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) just before their epic rebounds.

 

But I did move back to Big 12 country just in time to see my beloved Oklahoma Sooners lose game after game after game -- not to mention lose their Heisman-winning quarterback, Sam Bradford, to a season-ending shoulder injury mere minutes into their opener.

 

You see, my grandfather played football for Oklahoma, and I've been rooting for them since I was old enough to walk, so 2009 was a pretty painful year for me. But don't worry, I'll always be a Sooners fan -- no matter how bad things get. In sports, that's a virtue.

 

Wall Street, though, is a different ball game
For proof, just ask any longtime "fan" of:

 

Stock
10-Year Return

 

Merck (NYSE: MRK)
(22%)

 

Corning (NYSE: GLW)
(46%)

 

Home Depot (NYSE: HD)
(47%)

 

Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: JAVA)
(94%)

 

 

Data provided by Yahoo! Finance.

 

 

Or ask my fellow Fools Rich Greifner or Adam Wiederman. Or even ask Jim Cramer. In his book Real Money, Cramer reminds investors, "This is not a sporting event; this is money. We have no room for rooting or hoping."

 

Yet it happens all the time -- and time after time, investors ride stocks right into the ground because they're emotionally attached to a company's story, products, or management.

 

I, for one, am sitting on a major loss in Clearwire. And if we're being honest, the only reason I bought shares in the first place was because I liked that it was backed by Google, Comcast, and a handful of other tech heavyweights.

 

Ditch that loser!
One of the "20 Rules for Investment Success" from Investor's Business Daily is to "cut every loss when it's 8% below your cost. Make no exceptions so you'll avoid any possible huge, damaging losses."

 

To a sports fan, that might seem cruel and unusual, but is it good investment advice?

 

To find out, I dug through David and Tom Gardner's Motley Fool Stock Advisor picks. You see, they often re-recommend a stock even after a big run-up -- or a sharp fall.

 

As it turns out, I found three examples when breaking IBD's rule actually paid off big-time:

 

Stock Advisor Pick
Decline After Recommendation
Gain After Re-Recommendation

 

Netflix
23%
294%

 

Quality Systems
14%
1,189%

 

Dolby Labs
10%
163%

 

 

These weren't flukes, either
In his re-recommendation write-up for Netflix, David Gardner admitted, "We're currently sitting on a 23% loss." But he went on to say, "I think this is one cheap stock at $11, backed by a great management team that's going to create value for us going forward."

 

And he had well-thought-out reasons for continuing to own the stock: "It remains first and best in a growing industry, creates convenience for millions of consumers, and is led by visionary management that markets aggressively." Netflix stock has risen 313% since then.

 

So when do you sell?
Many investors have hard-and-fast numerical rules. Others -- like the Gardners -- stick to a more analytical and intellectual approach to determine when to recommend that their Stock Advisor subscribers sell a stock. So when do David and Tom Gardner consider dumping a stock? Primarily when they encounter:

• Untrustworthy management.
•  Deteriorating financials.
•  Mergers, acquisitions, and spinoffs that could damage the business.

The debate rages on
Investors may never agree on when or why to sell a stock. But it is important to have an emotionless, well-thought-out strategy in place. If you don't, you may suffer major losses -- or miss out on massive gains.

 

For what it's worth, David and Tom Gardner rarely sell, and it works for them. In fact, Tom's average Stock Advisor pick is performing more than 35 percentage points better than a like amount invested in the S&P 500. Meanwhile, David's are performing 66 points better on average.

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/01/17/this-mistake-could-cost-you-a-fortune.aspx?source=irasitlnk0000001&lidx=3

Charlie Munger is negative about the economy, but positive about stocks

The strategy sounds simple enough, but Mr Munger says few investors practise it.

“You can’t believe the way that conventional wisdom invests money,” he explains. “They tend to rush into whatever fad has worked lately. In my opinion, a lot of them are going to get creamed.”


17th May 2009: Today he's negative about the economy, but positive about stocks -- a bullish sign. In the late 1990s, Munger complained that he didn't see much to buy. The market quickly proved him right. But, at current market prices, Munger sees many long-term investment opportunities.

"I am willing to buy common stocks with long-term money at these prices," Munger said. "Is Coca-Cola worth what it's selling for? Yes. Is Wells Fargo? Yes." He owns both.

"If you wait until the economy is working properly to buy stocks, it's almost certainly too late," he said. "I have no feeling that just because there's more agony ahead for the economy you should wait to invest."

But you need to be selective.