Has the stock market peaked?

bigadaj

racing_blue wrote: »

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting thought. I don't know any economists but I know rather too many dentists, and I bet I could surprise you on the dentistry angle. Economists don't even need a mirror.

I agree that it would be wrong to assume that a successful economist will be a successful investor, or that a successful investor is somehow an economist. Nor to assume that an optician has perfect eyesight.

Economists do generally have 20 20 hindsight though.

chucknorris

kittie wrote: »

ukx has to go to hold 6370 through eod. Next target 6400 seems a long way off. I decided to sell my whole portfolio of stocks late this afternoon, now I will sit on my hands and buy lower. Really nice to wrap up at a profit and to hold that profit.

I'm investing for future dividend income for my retirement, and later eventual capital gain to be released and spent in my later retirement years, rather than short term gains now. So rather than selling, I've recently invested another £40k at various prices from 6,000 to 6,300 (not all in the ftse, also some in other markets, like the Vanguard VHYL etf).

Malthusian

kittie wrote:

I have always worked like this and it works extremely well for me, having doubled portfolio value since I took it over in 2006.

That's a very poor return given the risk you are taking. Simply investing in the FTSE would nearly have doubled your portfolio value since 2006. A higher-risk portfolio with some emerging markets and smaller companies would likely have done better. You've had almost no compensation for the risk that you've taken (i.e. the risk that you cash out at the wrong time and miss out on substantial growth) and the time you spend poring over charts.

ChesterDog

Kittie, I have to agree with Malthusian.

It's of little value just considering the performance of your portfolio and technique without comparing that performance to a 'control' based upon an alternative approach.

On the face of it, I'm afraid I would also say that its performance is nothing to write home about (my own 'leave it alone' portfolio achieved the same growth as yours in half the time, for example) and you are doing so much work to achieve it.

coastline

Malthusian wrote: »

That's a very poor return given the risk you are taking. Simply investing in the FTSE would nearly have doubled your portfolio value since 2006. A higher-risk portfolio with some emerging markets and smaller companies would likely have done better. You've had almost no compensation for the risk that you've taken (i.e. the risk that you cash out at the wrong time and miss out on substantial growth) and the time you spend poring over charts.

FTSE looks flat to me from 2006 if you load up a 10 year chart here..maybe up 20-30% including dividends minus charges.

http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=INDEXFTSE%3AUKX

http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=INDEXFTSE%3AASX

World Index..

https://www.msci.com/resources/factsheets/index_fact_sheet/msci-world-index.pdf

_CC_

coastline wrote: »

FTSE looks flat to me from 2006 if you load up a 10 year chart here..maybe up 20-30% including dividends minus charges.

http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=INDEXFTSE%3AUKX

http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=INDEXFTSE%3AASX

World Index..

https://www.msci.com/resources/factsheets/index_fact_sheet/msci-world-index.pdf

HSBC FTSE 250 accumulative tracker: 94.6% 5 year return

coastline

_CC_ wrote: »

HSBC FTSE 250 accumulative tracker: 94.6% 5 year return

Since 2006 as posted earlier ....FTSE 250 is up around 60% without dividends and charges..
Last 5 years has been a very good run for most investors..

http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=INDEXFTSE%3AMCX

jimjames

coastline wrote: »

Since 2006 as posted earlier ....FTSE 250 is up around 60% without dividends and charges..
Last 5 years has been a very good run for most investors..

http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=INDEXFTSE%3AMCX

So nearly 35% of return is due to dividends, worth including them don't you think?

I don't think it's really that true to say the last 5 years have been a good run for investors, certainly not based on the FTSE100 which has barely moved in that time. Obviously the FTSE250 has done a lot better which is why you have a diversified portfolio but if you'd read forum posts back in 2010/2011 saying the FTSE was overvalued you'd have stayed out of the markets for these 5 years and missed the dividend yield. (FTSE100 5900 in 2010, 6300 now)

coastline

jimjames wrote: »

So nearly 35% of return is due to dividends, worth including them don't you think?

I don't think it's really that true to say the last 5 years have been a good run for investors, certainly not based on the FTSE100 which has barely moved in that time. Obviously the FTSE250 has done a lot better which is why you have a diversified portfolio but if you'd read forum posts back in 2010/2011 saying the FTSE was overvalued you'd have stayed out of the markets for these 5 years and missed the dividend yield. (FTSE100 5900 in 2010, 6300 now)

From post 44 onwards in the thread my replies refer to the poster achieving a 100% return since 2006...no mention of dividends.
The FTSE 100 hasn't achieved this neither has the more diversified FTSE All Share although its done better.
Yes I agree the FTSE 250 has done well including dividends but the reference point used was 2010 and not 2006.
Looks like the FTSE 250 has grown 74% and not 94% in 5 years as posted..

http://www.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=CPFTI&univ=O&pagetype=performance

Thrugelmir

jimjames wrote: »

So nearly 35% of return is due to dividends, worth including them don't you think?

If you run with the longstanding quoted figures for return on equities. 60% of the return comes from reinvesting dividends. Expecting both capital appreciation while taking an increasing income is overly optimistic.