Bull! (Maggie Mahar) 1 comments

Courtesy of Moola from his blogsite "Where is Ze Moola?"
The myth of long term investing. The myth of buy and hold .

In the book Bull! by Maggie Mahar she explains how market players were taught to buy and hold their stocks for a longer term based on the then investing bible stocks for the long run by Jeremy Siegel, a professor from the famous Wharton School.

Folks were made to belief that if you bought a stock and held it long enough,the stock investment would have otperform all other investments.

Siegel used stocks such as Kodak, Polariod, Avon, Merk and Texas Instrument as the example. Dubbed the Nifty Fifty they were the equivalent of the Microsofts of today.

Siegel declared that if an investor bought these stocks and held it long long term (ze buy and hold) near the end of 1972 and held on to November 2001, the investors' return would average out some 11.76% a year. (see why the investing public were seduced so much by this theory?)

Now Steve Leuthold, a venered Minneapolis money manager, had a research which totally disagreed and contradicted Siegel's view point.

According to Leuthold, Seigel's hypothetical example ASS-U-MEd that an individual who invested in these Nifty Fifty stocks in 1972 had divided his portfolio evenly among the fifty stocks, putting 2 percent of their savings into each company and even if these group of stocks plunge, the investor would still rebalanced their portfolio each month for all these 19 years, cashing out on his profits and then adding money into the losers (fiyoh! Would you accept and follow such an investing strategy?) so that each stock position remained exactly at 2 percent.

Well, according to Leuthold (me too), such exercise is 'wholly unrealistic' to imagine that anyone would plow the gains from say Merck back into a loser such as Polariod, Burroughs or Xerox, year after year. (ahh.. u see Merck climbed a whopping 382%! .. and according to Leuthold, if this exercise did not include Merk, ie the investor failed to pick Merck into their portfolio, their portfolio in the long run would have sank by 12%. Err stock picking is important mah!)

Leuthold pointed out that from 1972 to 1982 the 10 worst performers in the group lost between 37% and 75%.

With losses that much, the commonsense question is that who would continue to send good money after bad money each month, each year? (make sense mah! tiok boh? Who on earth would put more money into a stock whose business is losing more and more money each year?)

And Leuthold argued that the investors who bought such stocks in 1972 would surely have been discouraged long before stocks started picking up again in 1993.

And according to Mahar, these investors would probably have dumped their fallen angels, probably at a much lower point than what Leuthold numbers had suggested.

(much of what's written is based on pages 41-42 of the book Bull )

How what's your opinion on this and long term investing?


ps:


Here is a good review of what Mahar wrote:

How did it happen that the very real risks of investing in stocks were forgotten? Mahar explodes the myth of "stocks for the long run," explaining how the market's promoters crunched the numbers to create the illusion that if an investor stays in the casino just a little longer, he is guaranteed to come out a winner. Casting Warren Buffett in a new light, she explains how a value investor is, in the end, a long-term market timer who understands that success depends on how much you pay when you get into the market -- and when you get out. By putting the bull market of 1982–1999 in a larger historical context, she shows how, over time, longtime bull markets beget longtime bear markets.

The future defies prediction, but the history of financial markets makes one thing clear: markets always revert to a mean. Taken as a single story, Bull! is both an illuminating history and a cautionary tale about investing. Analyzing the economic and psychological forces that drive financial cycles, Mahar shows how an extraordinary influx of cash and credit, combined with the obsessive attention of a new financial media, created a cult of equities. Challenging the notion that stocks always outperform all other investments, she reveals why many of Wall Street's most experienced investors believe that the 21st-century investor needs to throw out the old rule book and make a new beginning as he plans for his financial future.

No investor should keep his or her money in the stock market without first reading this book.


Afternote: I have extracted this from the blogsite of Moola (with his consent) because (1)I can't possibly read all the investment books in the world, nor is my opinion necessarily better than anyone else's; (2)It is a good quality blog; (3)I am a bit lazy to write a review of the book although I have read it heheh. Hope you like it. His site is located at the following URL.