Current market carnage - anyone selling or buying?

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

BrockStoker wrote: »

+1

I do like these type of threads, mostly because it's interesting to see how people react (or not as the case may be) during times like these. Who said investing was boring?

PS. Just for a little (extra) speculative fun, anyone care to say what their expectation is for the next week? I'm definitely not sure, but suspect indexes will continue to fall when the week starts, although I have a feeling they will recover (at least a little - possibly DCB though) by the end of the week.

The reason I find these threads amusing is because they frequently contain posters who trot the mantra regarding "it's all in the long term" and "you don't need to watch the markets because it's all for the long term".

Markets tumble like falling boulders and the same people are posting in an unnerved tone at the volatility.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

BRWM has a nice dividend of over 12%

afly

No mass selling here I'm trying to buy in fact but I'm starting to get very annoyed with charles stanley. I have monthly DD paid on 1st that they buy into an investment fund for me each month on "the 10th".

The problem is the 10th seems to be a very loose date. I havent had a single month go by when the stock hasn't risen before purchase. Just checking today, yesterday (11th), after 5 straight days of downward trend and surprise... no CSD purchase :mad:

TheTracker

nb73 wrote: »

re: "don't try to make it back the way you lost it"

I take this to mean don't buy more of a falling share, because individual companies can go bust.

I don't take this to mean change asset allocation after a losing streak - quite the opposite

This is key and often poorly understood.

Rebalancing individual stocks is a recipe for wealth destruction. Companies go out of business. You'd chase value to the bottom. Most major indices are under great flux with few of this decades companies in the same index a generation later, although M&A explains some.

Where you draw the line is debated. I've seen textbooks say rebalancing at the geographic level is also folly. If you decide to go with 30% USA instead of the 60% they warrant by capitalisation because you expect the USA to return poorly in future, then if your prediction holds out and it declines from 60 to 40, should you still hold 30%? Such argument says no. You need to come to a personal decision and write it down and commit to it and stick to it.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

There's another resources investment trust but I can't remember the epic it has oil in it. Anyone know it? Just curious of the dividend at the moment.

TheTracker

I enjoy aFoS's postings, they are thoroughly entertaining.

I see no less validity in a poster who feels they are extemely risk averse to one who feels they are extremely risk hungry, and we certainly have many of the latter here. In both cases their risk perceptions are likely out of step with their actual appetite and almost certainly counter productive.

Entertaining.

Sam_J12

TheTracker wrote: »

This is key and often poorly understood.

Rebalancing individual stocks is a recipe for wealth destruction. Companies go out of business. You'd chase value to the bottom. Most major indices are under great flux with few of this decades companies in the same index a generation later, although M&A explains some.

Where you draw the line is debated. I've seen textbooks say rebalancing at the geographic level is also folly. If you decide to go with 30% USA instead of the 60% they warrant by capitalisation because you expect the USA to return poorly in future, then if your prediction holds out and it declines from 60 to 40, should you still hold 30%? Such argument says no. You need to come to a personal decision and write it down and commit to it and stick to it.

I also struggle with the rebalancing idea. It effectively means selling the sectors/regions that are doing well in order to buy the regions that are not doing well. For example, rebalancing by geography over the last 25 years would have meant repeatedly selling the outperforming US stocks in order to buy stagnating Japanese stocks. Or selling FTSE250 stocks to buy FTSE100 stocks, because of prolonged poor performance in the FTSE100 compared to FTSE250.

I think rebalancing done well is a more complex process than simply having a "target" portfolio makeup and sticking to - as you allude to in your example. The target portfolio needs to change to adapt to new scenarios over time.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

TheTracker wrote: »

I enjoy aFoS's postings, they are thoroughly entertaining.

I see no less validity in a poster who feels they are extemely risk averse to one who feels they are extremely risk hungry, and we certainly have many of the latter here. In both cases their risk perceptions are likely out of step with their actual appetite and almost certainly counter productive.

Entertaining.

That's why I find it amusing. The people who appear on these threads are likely investing beyond their risk profile yet when the boat is rising are very risk averse. Lol

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

BRWM has taken a boulderous tumble of 78% in five years. Not much more scope for falling. Another 20% will take it to near 100%. And with a nice income of over 12% currently I am a little tempted with this one.

Linton

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

The reason I find these threads amusing is because they frequently contain posters who trot the mantra regarding "it's all in the long term" and "you don't need to watch the markets because it's all for the long term".

Markets tumble like falling boulders and the same people are posting in an unnerved tone at the volatility.

Over the past 15 years the average annual investment return in my self-managed portfolios is over 6% despite (or possibly partly because of) two collapses of greater than 40% in the FTSE100. One learns to be unnerved and one benefits from a calm long term view.

The current fall of less than 20% isnt unusual - falls of a similar size happened in 2010 and 2011. It is highly concentrated in a small number of sectors. My portfolio which isnt highly concentrated in a small number of sectors is slightly up over the past year.

Elsewhere in this thread you see the results of panic when the markets twitch.