Indexing or Active approach?

After 25 years of goofing around with individual stocks

One thing that doesn't always come through on these forums is how long, and how intently, we indexers spent "investing" in individual stocks before we were converted.

Be careful of this. Investing isn't a hobby.

Yes. IMO the more exhilarating it is, the worse you'll do.
 
JoeWras said:
Let's see. After 25 years of goofing around with individual stocks, active managed funds, and indexes, I've decided to focus on index funds from here on out. Most of my stock picks have been terrible, although a few good picks got me near even. I'm done with stocks.

I still have a few sector type funds that I'll be drawing down to convert to more broad indexes, using the value averaging approach.

As a matter of fact, I learned about the value averaging here on this board from my first posts (I see it mentioned above twice), and it sounds like a really good approach. I'm going to try it, with plans to invest every 2 months for the next two years (12 purchases) to a broad equity index. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

Sorry, but you are going to have to accept another member into the "terrible stock picker club". Outside of the idiot proof investments of oil companies and utilities, I had to accept the fact that I was a chronic market under performer. Needless to say, when I read on Bogleheads over a 15 year period 85% of all active managed funds underperformed the index, and the 15% that did wasn't the same funds, I knew I had to surrender.
My viewpoint of stocks however, are probably different than most. Since I live on my pension comfortably, I stash most of my savings from the left over amount of my pension and part time earnings in I Bonds and CDs. My stock purchase allotment goes to my yearly Roth contribution and a small monthly purchase into my vanguard total stock index. My stock portfolio is just a dead money bucket that I will never access and just let it grow. If my daughter is lucky, I will live a long life out of the nursing home and perish during a nice bull market run. :)
 
I did fine with my stock picking. But when I decided I wanted to diversify internationally, there was no way I was going to be able to handle the workload. I transitioned into mutual funds and gave up most of the stocks except for a couple of fun ones. Absolutely, buy and hold is for funds, not individual stocks. None of my funds were going to go to $0 in 2009.
 
I use both index and managed funds. The index funds consist of about 2/3 of my portfolio - TSM TISM, TBM in addition to Inst Index and EXT Mkt Index. All are low cost VG funds either in institutional or admiral share classes. However, my DW and I also hold Wellington and Wellesley with a dose of Hi Yield Bonds in our Roth's. I confess that I also hold a good sized chunk of Pimco total return Inst class in my 401k.
My overall plan is to hold low cost index funds with an allocation of 45 equity/ 40 bond / 15 cash. I'll hang on to the actively managed funds as long as they perform well, however that probably won't be forever.
 
Just read the latest Rick Ferri post about another analysis showing index funds beat actively managed ones by a wide margin. I am mainly an indexer and relate to the many posts here about the evolution to get to that point. I was just wondering though if anyone has ever seen a performance comparison between index funds and say only the top quartile of low expense funds?
 
Just read the latest Rick Ferri post about another analysis showing index funds beat actively managed ones by a wide margin. I am mainly an indexer and relate to the many posts here about the evolution to get to that point. I was just wondering though if anyone has ever seen a performance comparison between index funds and say only the top quartile of low expense funds?

Can't say that I have, but the argument is that the "top" funds usually don't stay there for long.
 
FWIW I also find myself in the dual group with 80% or more in index funds and 20% to play with in mostly dividend stocks. Started out as an active fund guy and then "saw the light" all it took was a few years of not beating the indexes to convert me. Enjoy the picking aspect but limit my exposure. Also stick with my AA for good measure.

T-bird
 
Just read the latest Rick Ferri post about another analysis showing index funds beat actively managed ones by a wide margin. I am mainly an indexer and relate to the many posts here about the evolution to get to that point. I was just wondering though if anyone has ever seen a performance comparison between index funds and say only the top quartile of low expense funds?

NoLoad Fundx has some

How Many Funds Outperform the Market?

http://blog.fundx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/306_Study_WhitePaper2012.pdf
 
I usually don't make the same mistake twice. Definitely not in this case...

I once saw a homemade bumper sticker that said: "Marriage is a legal way for a woman to kill a man without facing the death penalty" It was on a beatup old car so I am assuming he didn't fare to well with the splitting up of assets........:LOL:
 
Just read the latest Rick Ferri post about another analysis showing index funds beat actively managed ones by a wide margin. I am mainly an indexer and relate to the many posts here about the evolution to get to that point. I was just wondering though if anyone has ever seen a performance comparison between index funds and say only the top quartile of low expense funds?

Morningstar had an article that was almost complementary to actively managed funds.
 
I once saw a homemade bumper sticker that said: "Marriage is a legal way for a woman to kill a man without facing the death penalty" It was on a beatup old car so I am assuming he didn't fare to well with the splitting up of assets........:LOL:

Mine sure tried. Doesn't that go with "Why do husbands usually die before their wives? Because we want to!"?

Off topic (what the?) but the beat up old car reminds me. Have a friend of a friend, got married, got divorced, wife got the house. Got married again to a woman with a house, she talked him into upsizing at the peak of the market, house lost half its value and is deeply underwater, she divorced him and left him with the underwater house. He had to take a second contracting job to try and make ends meet, just fell off a house yesterday and broke everything from the waist down. No insurance. Will probably never walk again.

He probably should have used index funds.
 
I believe this has been attributed to Rod Stewert: "The next time I want to get married, I 'll find a woman I don't like, and buy her a house..."

Or as an old friend says when he sees a sweet young thing walk by: "she could be my next ex-wife..."

One more: On the Eagles Farewell I dvd, Glenn Frey dedicates one song to his first wife, "Plaintiff"...
 
your not really paying them for sex. your really paying them to go home after the sex ha ha ha..

thats what i told my wife when she asked me why our former governor elliot spitzer paid for sex .
 
Last edited:
There's a saying "If it flies, floats, or f***s, it's cheaper to rent than to own".
 
your not really paying them for sex. your really paying them to go home after the sex ha ha ha..

thats what i told my wife when she asked me why our former governor elliot spitzer paid for sex .

Not sure how the topic ended up moving to talking about governor spitzer.

Anyhow...here's a story in the news...

Looks like the client list is varied:

Zumba Prostitution Ring Case: Officials Might Release Names - Yahoo!

I bet a lot of her johns are sweating it out (and not in a Yoga way) at the moment :LOL:.
 
lets see whats more interesting , index funds or sex... let me think....


to bad food wasnt a choice ,that would be a no brainer.
 
I read, quickly, all the responses.
1) When I was your age until late 40's I used a fairly simply allocation model between different equity sectors, with a small allocation to bonds and rebalanced either once or twice a year. The early re-balancing occurred if a sector had really ran up or seemed over-under valued.
This saved my bacon in the 1998-2001 run-up in the S&P and tech, by the way; I shifted gains in Fidelity Contra to Fidelity Low-Price, although the wisdom wasn't apparent until 2003-4, since I first significantly lagged, then very significantly lost less than the market, then significantly out-gained the market (i.e. S&P). I was both lucky and good, the latter because I stuck to my discipline despite an underperformance in the boom of 15% if I remember correctly.
The question is whether you can stick to your allocations.
2) I allowed myself to cheat on sector allocations of up to 5%, if I thought one sector was significantly over or under valued (see above and S&P in the 1998-2001). I used PEs, which the S&P was 4 times mid/small value. Again, in hindsight that was brilliant. Will the HFTs allow this to persist now--I don't know.
3) ETFs were not available to me, but if you're using a portfolio sector allocation, because of low fees, they are ideal. My suggestion is if you want to play with active or other (individual stock), set aside anywhere from 10-20% of funds and use those as your crazy money. I did this in a small roll-over for my wife, made mistakes, got better, and now I've tracked the market overall.
4) Increase your dividend-income allocation as you get older. In my late 40's in the mid 2000's I got increasingly worried about my low bond allocation, then got worried about the housing market in late 2005/2006, so started to dollar cost average into bonds from a 95-5 or 90-10 portfolio to the point that I was 55-25-20 before the crash.
Better to be lucky than good or timing is all. That's the point of sticking, within limits, to your allocation discipline and limit your play money to a percentage allocation if you want to play with beating the market.
I've out performed the S&P the last 10 years significantly but underperformed the previous 5 years, luckily when I had very little assets.
 
Back
Top Bottom