It's not different for me. Is it for you?
- Rick Ferri
- Posts: 9707
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am
- Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
- Contact:
It's not different for me. Is it for you?
I recall speaking with a woman at a bar after work in 1999. She had recently quite her job and was day-trading technology stocks from her living room. I asked what looked good to her and she told me the name of some internet company. I asked who the CEO was...she didn't know. I asked who the main competitors were...she didn't know. I asked what state the company was headquartered in...she didn't know. Then I asked what she did know about the stock. "It's going up. That's what I know."
Overconfidence is the biggest cognitive error that active investors make. "It's different for me" is an extremely expensive phrase. That's what this article is about:
Explaining The ‘It’s Different For Me’ Investor Mentality
Rick Ferri
.
Overconfidence is the biggest cognitive error that active investors make. "It's different for me" is an extremely expensive phrase. That's what this article is about:
Explaining The ‘It’s Different For Me’ Investor Mentality
Rick Ferri
.
Last edited by Rick Ferri on Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Education of an Index Investor: born in darkness, finds indexing enlightenment, overcomplicates everything, embraces simplicity.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Wonder how that worked out for her, when the market is flying up everyone "makes" money and thinks they are geniuses.
I was lucky to get burned by that pretty early so I did it with a very small sum and didn't lose to much, but definitely learned my lesson..
I was lucky to get burned by that pretty early so I did it with a very small sum and didn't lose to much, but definitely learned my lesson..
-
- Posts: 3611
- Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:02 pm
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
I have another sort of similar story from the same timeframe. A friend who got a ton of free stock in a .com told me that they didn't want to make a profit any time soon, because then they would have a P/E ratio.
No, I'm not making that up... unfortunately for my friend.
No, I'm not making that up... unfortunately for my friend.
In theory, theory and practice are identical. In practice, they often differ.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52211
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
"It's Different for Me"--brilliant.
There are some specific forms of "It's Different For Me."
"It's Different For Me Because I Am One Of The Initiated." As in, "Alternative investments may play an important risk-management role in a strategically diversified pension plan portfolio; however, this sophisticated investment arena can prove risky for the uninitiated," but not for me.
"It's Different For Me Because I Am Tough." As in, "100% stocks is be too high for most people, but it's different for me because I never panic, so I do not need to factor in the possibility that that I might sell during a crash."
"It's Different For Me Because I Can See the Future." As in "I think bonds are riskier than stocks right now, because even though bonds fluctuate less I know which way their fluctuations are about to go. Bonds are going to fluctuate down and stocks are going to fluctuate up, and because I know they are going up, they are not risky for me."
There are some specific forms of "It's Different For Me."
"It's Different For Me Because I Am One Of The Initiated." As in, "Alternative investments may play an important risk-management role in a strategically diversified pension plan portfolio; however, this sophisticated investment arena can prove risky for the uninitiated," but not for me.
"It's Different For Me Because I Am Tough." As in, "100% stocks is be too high for most people, but it's different for me because I never panic, so I do not need to factor in the possibility that that I might sell during a crash."
"It's Different For Me Because I Can See the Future." As in "I think bonds are riskier than stocks right now, because even though bonds fluctuate less I know which way their fluctuations are about to go. Bonds are going to fluctuate down and stocks are going to fluctuate up, and because I know they are going up, they are not risky for me."
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
One Of My Favorite Quotes:
"Everyone is a genius In A Bull Market"
http://thefirstmillionisthehardest.net/ ... ll-market/
"Everyone is a genius In A Bull Market"
http://thefirstmillionisthehardest.net/ ... ll-market/
"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
It's different for me because I've never once talked to anyone in a bar about investing.
One the bright side, this story does break down the stereotype that only men can invest in an overconfident manner.
Brad
One the bright side, this story does break down the stereotype that only men can invest in an overconfident manner.
Brad
Most of my posts assume no behavioral errors.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
The day-trader's replies are nearly identical to those I've heard at various social and work gatherings over the years: someone invariably recommends a stock and then at least one person asks for more details and the answers are like your day trader's. But the best response I've ever heard was from a guy who was asked the name of the stock he was pushing: "I'm not sure, but I know its ticker name because I watch it all the time." I've also seen videos from the '90s interviewing investors jumping into the hot stock and tech markets and their responses are similar, such as one who said his stock was now down a little, but "I don't worry because it'll just go back up."Rick Ferri wrote:I recall speaking with a woman at a bar after work in 1999. She had recently quite her job and was day-trading technology stocks from her living room. I asked what looked good to her and she told me the name of some internet company. I asked who the CEO was...she didn't know. I asked who the main competitors were...she didn't know. I asked what state the company was headquartered in...she didn't know. Then I asked what she did know about the stock. "It's going up. That's what I know."
...
How times and people have not changed.
Edit to add the definition of Overconfidence from the wiki:
"Being overconfident in your investing abilities can lead to big investing losses. A main reason is that, in the short run, the ups and downs of the stock market are random happenings. Such unpredictable variations mean that intelligence, skill, and knowledge give you no edge, and thinking they do can be “hazardous to your wealth.” [5] “The only way to achieve everything you’re capable of is to accept what you are not capable of,” says Jason Zweig."
Last edited by Fallible on Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Yes, investing is simple. But it is not easy, for it requires discipline, patience, steadfastness, and that most uncommon of all gifts, common sense." ~Jack Bogle
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
"Overconfidence is the biggest cognitive error that active investors make"
Surely, you don't mean to imply that passive investors are immune from overconfidence, or do you?
Lev
Surely, you don't mean to imply that passive investors are immune from overconfidence, or do you?
Lev
- Rick Ferri
- Posts: 9707
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am
- Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
- Contact:
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
I've never been accused of being overconfident myself , but if I were to become overconfident, one thing passive indexing does is it stops me from doing anything about it.
Rick Ferri
Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: born in darkness, finds indexing enlightenment, overcomplicates everything, embraces simplicity.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Yes, in the dot-com boom everyone who was new to investing (and many who were experienced) were convinced they knew everything. And after that I remember assisting at a company open house for recruiting... there was one gentleman who came to apply for an accounting job. His previous position was EVP of Finance for a pretty large company in town but it had ended two years earlier. Since my function at the open house was to steer applicants to the right manager for a quick assessment, I asked the man what sparked his interest in our accounting job (curious, since it would be a huge step down from an EVP).
He was straightforward - told me he quit his EVP job to day trade tech stocks, but after the bust it just wasn't working out, so he was getting back into the workforce.
Never forgot that.
He was straightforward - told me he quit his EVP job to day trade tech stocks, but after the bust it just wasn't working out, so he was getting back into the workforce.
Never forgot that.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Right! In fact, the entire Bogleheads' philosophy can help us control overconfidence and other behavioral pitfalls.Rick Ferri wrote:I've never been accused of being overconfident myself , but if I were to become overconfident, one thing passive indexing does is it stops me from doing anything about it.
Rick Ferri
"Yes, investing is simple. But it is not easy, for it requires discipline, patience, steadfastness, and that most uncommon of all gifts, common sense." ~Jack Bogle
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
I partly disagree with that... Someone who holds a lower (but non 0) percentage of stocks also has potential to panic and sell during a market crash. I would think the more risk-averse people who hold a lower percentage might even be more susceptible to that kind of reaction compared to someone who's had a large long-standing commitment to stocks and has some familiarity with the risks.nisiprius wrote:"It's Different for Me"--brilliant.
There are some specific forms of "It's Different For Me."
"It's Different For Me Because I Am One Of The Initiated." As in, "Alternative investments may play an important risk-management role in a strategically diversified pension plan portfolio; however, this sophisticated investment arena can prove risky for the uninitiated," but not for me.
"It's Different For Me Because I Am Tough." As in, "100% stocks is be too high for most people, but it's different for me because I never panic, so I do not need to factor in the possibility that that I might sell during a crash."
"It's Different For Me Because I Can See the Future." As in "I think bonds are riskier than stocks right now, because even though bonds fluctuate less I know which way their fluctuations are about to go. Bonds are going to fluctuate down and stocks are going to fluctuate up, and because I know they are going up, they are not risky for me."
Someone who is willing to accept the risks just has a different preference, and that IS different for different people... it's not that it's not risky, they've just weighed the risks and picked the percentage that suits there preference.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Man, what a lousy line. You should have asked what her sign was.I recall speaking with a woman at a bar after work in 1999. I asked what looked good to her
Paul
When times are good, investors tend to forget about risk and focus on opportunity. When times are bad, investors tend to forget about opportunity and focus on risk.
-
- Posts: 6993
- Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:40 am
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Good one!!pkcrafter wrote:Man, what a lousy line. You should have asked what her sign was.I recall speaking with a woman at a bar after work in 1999. I asked what looked good to her
Paul
I was getting excited to read the rest ofthe post by Mr. Ferri after reading that scintillating starter!!
Good luck.
"The stock market [fluctuation], therefore, is noise. A giant distraction from the business of investing.” |
-Jack Bogle
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Is it possible some investors actually realize their weakness at being able to hold on to anything less than 100% stocks?nisiprius wrote:
There are some specific forms of "It's Different For Me."
"It's Different For Me Because I Am Tough." As in, "100% stocks is be too high for most people, but it's different for me because I never panic, so I do not need to factor in the possibility that that I might sell during a crash."
I respectfully disagree with you on this one. The investor who has been at a high equity percentage for a long time is a much different animal than someone who has recently changed to a 100% equity allocation.
My name is grap and I don't like bonds. There, I said it.
Cue Staythecourse to say, "the best allocation is the one that allows the investor to stay the course."
There are no guarantees, only probabilities.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52211
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
You're right, of course. However, the forthright admission by Dan Solin that "In the midst of the Great Recession of 2008, stocks were dropping like a stone. I did the opposite of what I advise my clients to do: I panicked and reduced my asset allocation to stocks," shows that it is easy for people to gauge their risk tolerance inaccurately. Charles Jaffe made an unsourced throwaway statement that "studies show that average investors bail out when losses move beyond 20%." I'd really like to know the source for that. My working assumption is always that I'm an average investor.JoMoney wrote:I partly disagree with that... Someone who holds a lower (but non 0) percentage of stocks also has potential to panic and sell during a market crash. I would think the more risk-averse people who hold a lower percentage might even be more susceptible to that kind of reaction compared to someone who's had a large long-standing commitment to stocks and has some familiarity with the risks.nisiprius wrote:..."It's Different For Me Because I Am Tough." As in, "100% stocks is be too high for most people, but it's different for me because I never panic, so I do not need to factor in the possibility that that I might sell during a crash."
Someone who is willing to accept the risks just has a different preference, and that IS different for different people... it's not that it's not risky, they've just weighed the risks and picked the percentage that suits there preference.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
-
- Posts: 3611
- Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:02 pm
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Agreed. My AA is very unusual but I don't have any trouble staying with it.grap0013 wrote:Is it possible some investors actually realize their weakness at being able to hold on to anything less than 100% stocks?nisiprius wrote:
There are some specific forms of "It's Different For Me."
"It's Different For Me Because I Am Tough." As in, "100% stocks is be too high for most people, but it's different for me because I never panic, so I do not need to factor in the possibility that that I might sell during a crash."
I respectfully disagree with you on this one. The investor who has been at a high equity percentage for a long time is a much different animal than someone who has recently changed to a 100% equity allocation.
My name is grap and I don't like bonds. There, I said it.
Cue Staythecourse to say, "the best allocation is the one that allows the investor to stay the course."
In theory, theory and practice are identical. In practice, they often differ.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
"Financial genius is a short memory and a rising market."lisaac wrote:Wonder how that worked out for her, when the market is flying up everyone "makes" money and thinks they are geniuses.
I was lucky to get burned by that pretty early so I did it with a very small sum and didn't lose to much, but definitely learned my lesson..
--John Kenneth Galbraith
Harry at Bradenton
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Like many things in life, everyone is special and unique... just like everyone else.Rick Ferri wrote:I recall speaking with a woman at a bar after work in 1999. She had recently quite her job and was day-trading technology stocks from her living room. I asked what looked good to her and she told me the name of some internet company. I asked who the CEO was...she didn't know. I asked who the main competitors were...she didn't know. I asked what state the company was headquartered in...she didn't know. Then I asked what she did know about the stock. "It's going up. That's what I know."
Overconfidence is the biggest cognitive error that active investors make. "It's different for me" is an extremely expensive phrase. That's what this article is about:
Explaining The ‘It’s Different For Me’ Investor Mentality
Rick Ferri
.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
I once worked with a woman who was smart, had a Ph.D., and who had a "system" for day trading. She came in to my office regularly mentioning how much money she was making, which was a lot. She was aware she was being risky but had a very significant health issue that she said made her willing to take risk since she was "investing for the short term." Over a period of a month or so she gradually quit mentioning her "winnings." You know the rest, though she was smart enough to move on to other short term things that had a feeling of excitement attached. It was not different for her.
Tim
Tim
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Ph.D notwithstanding, day trading seems most about emotions. Here's a NYT article I remember reading on the subject and also a comment on being "in charge" that I'm not quite sure I agree with: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/busin ... wanted=allNowizard wrote:I once worked with a woman who was smart, had a Ph.D., and who had a "system" for day trading. She came in to my office regularly mentioning how much money she was making, which was a lot. She was aware she was being risky but had a very significant health issue that she said made her willing to take risk since she was "investing for the short term." Over a period of a month or so she gradually quit mentioning her "winnings." You know the rest, though she was smart enough to move on to other short term things that had a feeling of excitement attached. It was not different for her.
Tim
From the article:
"So why do people persist in this line of work?
“The technical term is thrill-seeking,” says Hersh Shefrin, a professor of behavioral finance at Santa Clara University in California and author of “Beyond Greed and Fear,” an exploration of investors’ mindscapes. “There’s an adrenaline rush. And the thing about day trading is that it gives you pretty quick feedback. If you buy and hold, a lot of things need to happen before you see a result, and much of what happens relates to external factors that are beyond your control. With day trading, you’re in charge.”
Also, he says, “people enjoy trading.”
"Yes, investing is simple. But it is not easy, for it requires discipline, patience, steadfastness, and that most uncommon of all gifts, common sense." ~Jack Bogle
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
You know, I hadn't thought about this. Suppose we are primarily concerned about helping an investor find an asset allocation that will allow her to stay the course. We usually end up focusing on protecting the investor from irrational fear. Bear markets are ugly, and we want to make sure that the investor doesn't suffer losses that will cause her to panic and sell when stocks are cheap.grap0013 wrote: Is it possible some investors actually realize their weakness at being able to hold on to anything less than 100% stocks?
But markets are characterized not only by irrational fear, but by irrational greed. Suppose we are we are nearing the end of a mature bull-market. An investor with an overly conservative portfolio may feel she has missed out, not making as much as her neighbors and friends who have had a more aggressive portfolio from the get-go. In a fit of irrational greed, she decides to "make up for lost time" by doubling-down on super-duper sector X. We all know how this sort of story ends.
What makes irrational greed less dangerous than irrational fear? One possibility is that where greed usually sneaks up on you, fear hits you in the face. It's sudden, paralyzing, unavoidable. Greed creeps in over months or years. On the other hand, emotions that build slowly over time can be dangerous in their own way. When I'm afraid, I usually know that I'm afraid. It's much easier to be greedy and not realize that you are.
-
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:29 pm
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
I considered increasing equity to 75% from 65% in response to the current economic climate and forecast for higher yields. I rebalanced in 2008/9 and otherwise have made few changes to my allocation over the previous 6-7 years. The challenge is sticking to the plan in the face of new evidence, perceived or otherwise.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool" --Feynman.
- Taylor Larimore
- Posts: 32842
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
- Location: Miami FL
A timely quote.
lisaac:lisaac wrote: "Financial genius is a short memory and a rising market."--John Kenneth Galbraith
Thank you for this timely quote from a great economist.
Best wishes
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
-
- Posts: 7189
- Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:25 am
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Who was the Boglehead who "backed up the truck" and went to 100% equities in late 2008? I sort of recall it was Adrian Nemu but could easily be wrong and he is gone from here. The searches don't go back beyond 2011 threads now. I wonder if he is still at 100%.
JW
JW
Retired at Last
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
I will take a contrary viewpoint. So the lady clearly did not know any fundamentals. Well,, whoever was on the other side of the trade knows more fundamentals that any of us. She was trading on momentum. Probably just as good for short term speculation.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
This, of course, makes you an above-average investor.nisiprius wrote:My working assumption is always that I'm an average investor.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
If I had been in Rick's situation, I would have had the urge to sell everything immediately. It's the same as the old story that it's time to sell when you are getting stock tips from the shoe shiner or the cab driver.
But, I've only been to a bar less than ten times in my life, I've never struck up a conversation with anyone I didn't already know while in a bar, and if I were to, I don't imagine I would pick investing as a conversation topic.
Brad
But, I've only been to a bar less than ten times in my life, I've never struck up a conversation with anyone I didn't already know while in a bar, and if I were to, I don't imagine I would pick investing as a conversation topic.
Brad
Most of my posts assume no behavioral errors.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
I was almost convinced to buy some bonds when I first joined this forum despite being 100% equities since 2007. I'm glad I didn't. I think it's the maximizer in me that likes 100% rather than greed. Plus it's just money, you can't take it with you. Optimizers like 80/20 because it has a much higher Sharpe Ratio. Then you have you're agnostic girl who's 50:50. Finally, conservative Joe who is 25:75. Different strokes for different folks.berntson wrote:
You know, I hadn't thought about this. Suppose we are primarily concerned about helping an investor find an asset allocation that will allow her to stay the course. We usually end up focusing on protecting the investor from irrational fear. Bear markets are ugly, and we want to make sure that the investor doesn't suffer losses that will cause her to panic and sell when stocks are cheap.
But markets are characterized not only by irrational fear, but by irrational greed. Suppose we are we are nearing the end of a mature bull-market. An investor with an overly conservative portfolio may feel she has missed out, not making as much as her neighbors and friends who have had a more aggressive portfolio from the get-go. In a fit of irrational greed, she decides to "make up for lost time" by doubling-down on super-duper sector X. We all know how this sort of story ends.
What makes irrational greed less dangerous than irrational fear? One possibility is that where greed usually sneaks up on you, fear hits you in the face. It's sudden, paralyzing, unavoidable. Greed creeps in over months or years. On the other hand, emotions that build slowly over time can be dangerous in their own way. When I'm afraid, I usually know that I'm afraid. It's much easier to be greedy and not realize that you are.
There are no guarantees, only probabilities.
- noyopacific
- Posts: 359
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:06 pm
- Location: Mendocino
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
My favorite comment in Rick's excellent article was: . . . "These confident people say they have a more sophisticated, savvier approach than the common Joe, thus they have a better chance of beating the markets with active management."
After a lackluster experience with professional management, my wife and I stared managing our own investments 20 years ago. I had first become interested in index funds because I had heard of too many top performing managers losing their "touch" and didn't know of any way to identify managers that were likely to "beat the market" going forward. I wasn't willing to risk the disappointment of picking a big stinker. After the experience we'd had with professional management, we decided that we would be content to get average performance. As I read and learned more, I was pleased to discover that while passive investing can be quite simple, the justifications behind it are hardly unsophisticated.
After a lackluster experience with professional management, my wife and I stared managing our own investments 20 years ago. I had first become interested in index funds because I had heard of too many top performing managers losing their "touch" and didn't know of any way to identify managers that were likely to "beat the market" going forward. I wasn't willing to risk the disappointment of picking a big stinker. After the experience we'd had with professional management, we decided that we would be content to get average performance. As I read and learned more, I was pleased to discover that while passive investing can be quite simple, the justifications behind it are hardly unsophisticated.
BTW: Under the circumstances, I thought that Rick's line to the woman in a bar was excellent! It showed that he was listening and being attentive to her interests. I guess that as a gentleman, he isn't going to disclose how the encounter turned out.Rick Ferri wrote:I recall speaking with a woman at a bar after work in 1999. She had recently quite her job and was day-trading technology stocks from her living room. I asked what looked good to her ? . . .
Rick Ferri.
The information contained herein, while not guaranteed by us, has been obtained from from sources which have not in the past proved particularly reliable.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Weren't you married in 1999. LOLRick Ferri wrote:I recall speaking with a woman at a bar after work in 1999.
Landy |
Be yourself, everyone else is already taken -- Oscar Wilde
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
I would say the above assertion applies more to passive investors. Investing in broad based market index funds is no less a speculative venture simply because we close our eyes and take our hands off the wheel. "Stay the course" includes an element of blind faith that can seduce one into believing that markets will always produce positive results in the long run. Removing ourselves from the mix helps, but it's still a highly speculative venture.Rick Ferri wrote: Overconfidence is the biggest cognitive error that active investors make.
Rick Ferri
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Everytime I congratulate myself on my brilliance as an investor, the markets have a way of humbling me. Markets are like that you know.
A fool and his money are good for business.
- Rick Ferri
- Posts: 9707
- Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:40 am
- Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
- Contact:
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
No passive investor ever closes their eyes and takes their hands off the wheel. There is always work to be done - rebalancing, investment of new capital, withdrawals.Bustoff wrote:I would say the above assertion applies more to passive investors. Investing in broad based market index funds is no less a speculative venture simply because we close our eyes and take our hands off the wheel. "Stay the course" includes an element of blind faith that can seduce one into believing that markets will always produce positive results in the long run. Removing ourselves from the mix helps, but it's still a highly speculative venture.Rick Ferri wrote: Overconfidence is the biggest cognitive error that active investors make.
Rick Ferri
"Stay the course" is by default a belief that the markets will always produce positive results in the long run, but that's what every investor believes. If we don't expect positive returns, why invest? And in a capital economy, if the markets don't produce positive returns in the long run, the country will have a lot more to worry about than whether we earn a return on our investment.
Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: born in darkness, finds indexing enlightenment, overcomplicates everything, embraces simplicity.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
pkcrafter wrote:Man, what a lousy line. You should have asked what her sign was.I recall speaking with a woman at a bar after work in 1999. I asked what looked good to her
Paul
Oh come now. If he wanted to go that direction, all he'd need say what "Hi, I'm Rick, I'm a Marine Fighter Pilot". Then shows over..... Who hasn't seen Top Gun?
- BackInTheBlack
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:37 pm
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
The OP is giving me a serious case of deja vu.
"Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say." |
|
-William W. Watt
-
- Posts: 1584
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:52 pm
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Obviously you, because you missed the rest of the scene:azanon wrote:pkcrafter wrote:Man, what a lousy line. You should have asked what her sign was.I recall speaking with a woman at a bar after work in 1999. I asked what looked good to her
Paul
Oh come now. If he wanted to go that direction, all he'd need say what "Hi, I'm Rick, I'm a Marine Fighter Pilot". Then shows over..... Who hasn't seen Top Gun?
Charlie: Sit down! I love that song! How long have you two been doing this act?
Maverick: Oh, since uh...
Charlie: Puberty?
Maverick: Right, puberty.
Charlie: what's your name?
Maverick: "Maverick"
Charlie: "didn't your mother like you?"
Charlie: Listen, can I ask you a personal question?
Maverick: That depends.
Charlie: Are you a good pilot?
Maverick: I can hold my own.
Charlie: Great, then I won't have to worry about you making your living as a singer.
Maverick: I'm going to need a beer to put these flames out. Yo! Great Mav, real slick.
You must have slept through the movie more than once.
Last edited by manwithnoname on Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Adrian Nenu, bogleheads.org, Dec 2008: Anyone thinking of 100% equity in the next 6-12 months?JW Nearly Retired wrote:Who was the Boglehead who "backed up the truck" and went to 100% equities in late 2008? I sort of recall it was Adrian Nemu but could easily be wrong and he is gone from here. The searches don't go back beyond 2011 threads now. I wonder if he is still at 100%.
JW
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
That was an interesting thread, I enjoyed look at the outcome of some of the proposed strategiesdodonnell wrote: Adrian Nenu, bogleheads.org, Dec 2008: Anyone thinking of 100% equity in the next 6-12 months?
e.g.
This would have gotten out in August 2009, hasn't gone back to those lows, and missed quite a bit of gains since then:
This would have been squeezed pretty tightly, maybe even closed out the following March:fundtalk wrote:...
How about this for an idea. If you're 60/40 now, how about increasing you equity allocation at certain levels of the S&P 500.
S&P 500 at 800 go to 70%, 700 to 80%, 600 to 90% and 500 to 100%. Of course, you would need a sell range as well. When the S&P hits 1000 go back to your normal allocation? ...
Tramper Al wrote:...I have decided I can tolerate total loss, so I'm thinking about going to 200% equity.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
- abuss368
- Posts: 27850
- Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
- Contact:
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
I read this last night and really enjoyed the post.
Thanks Rick!
Thanks Rick!
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Hi Brad,baw703916 wrote:It's different for me because I've never once talked to anyone in a bar about investing.
One the bright side, this story does break down the stereotype that only men can invest in an overconfident manner.
Brad
The bar at the Boglehead conference hotel is filled with investing discussions. Check it out next time,
Victoria
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake |
Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. |
Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
-
- Posts: 7189
- Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:25 am
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Thanks for finding this. I thought it was an informative thread at the time and still do. Later in the thread Adrian said he was going to DCA into 80-100% stocks over 6-12 months but I can't tell if he ever got there. Maybe the "back up the truck" guy was someone else.dodonnell wrote:Adrian Nenu, bogleheads.org, Dec 2008: Anyone thinking of 100% equity in the next 6-12 months?JW Nearly Retired wrote:Who was the Boglehead who "backed up the truck" and went to 100% equities in late 2008? I sort of recall it was Adrian Nemu but could easily be wrong and he is gone from here. The searches don't go back beyond 2011 threads now. I wonder if he is still at 100%.
JW
I see that the search date limitation mentioned on the advanced search page no longer applies. Just had to spell Adrian's name right for it to work back to 2007.
JW
Retired at Last
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Hi Victoria,VictoriaF wrote:Hi Brad,baw703916 wrote:It's different for me because I've never once talked to anyone in a bar about investing.
One the bright side, this story does break down the stereotype that only men can invest in an overconfident manner.
Brad
The bar at the Boglehead conference hotel is filled with investing discussions. Check it out next time,
Victoria
Very good point. I imagine, though, that conversations at the Bogleheads conference bar wouldn't have given Rick much material for his blog!
Brad
Most of my posts assume no behavioral errors.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Right ... unlessbaw703916 wrote:Hi Victoria,VictoriaF wrote:Hi Brad,baw703916 wrote:It's different for me because I've never once talked to anyone in a bar about investing.
One the bright side, this story does break down the stereotype that only men can invest in an overconfident manner.
Brad
The bar at the Boglehead conference hotel is filled with investing discussions. Check it out next time,
Victoria
Very good point. I imagine, though, that conversations at the Bogleheads conference bar wouldn't have given Rick much material for his blog!
Brad
two Blogheads walk into the bar.
Victoria
Last edited by VictoriaF on Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake |
Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. |
Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
- BackInTheBlack
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:37 pm
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Oh thanks for the shout-out in your blog by the way Rick, lol. If what I said were false, then Vanguard's active fund results, on the whole, over the last 30 years wouldn't be possible. It's one thing to say active funds are losers on average, so the average winning fund is chosen by luck. But what about when an entire fund family, one of the biggest in existence, is an aggregate winner? There is something more to this story, no matter how badly one might want to simplify things to fit a popular narrative.
"Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say." |
|
-William W. Watt
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
One of my Navy buddies with whom I used to discuss investing always quoted his father: "Bears can make money; bulls can make money but pigs never make money."
Friar1610 |
50-ish/50-ish - a satisficer, not a maximizer
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
Neither do chicken.friar1610 wrote:One of my Navy buddies with whom I used to discuss investing always quoted his father: "Bears can make money; bulls can make money but pigs never make money."
Victoria
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake |
Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. |
Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
How about sloths? (don't just do something, stand there!--or hang onto your tree branch)VictoriaF wrote:Neither do chicken.friar1610 wrote:One of my Navy buddies with whom I used to discuss investing always quoted his father: "Bears can make money; bulls can make money but pigs never make money."
Victoria
Most of my posts assume no behavioral errors.
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
For as long as they balance while hanging.baw703916 wrote:How about sloths? (don't just do something, stand there!--or hang onto your tree branch)VictoriaF wrote:Neither do chicken.friar1610 wrote:One of my Navy buddies with whom I used to discuss investing always quoted his father: "Bears can make money; bulls can make money but pigs never make money."
Victoria
Victoria
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake |
Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. |
Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
- BackInTheBlack
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:37 pm
Re: It's not different for me. Is it for you?
True, although some pigs live high on the hog for a while, like Babe after winning best in show, with all of the attendant ego-boosts along the way. I'm sure most Amazon, Netflix, LinkedIn, Tesla, Netsuite, and Salesforce investors will be pretty shocked when they begin smelling the slaughterhouse just around the corner.friar1610 wrote:One of my Navy buddies with whom I used to discuss investing always quoted his father: "Bears can make money; bulls can make money but pigs never make money."
"Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say." |
|
-William W. Watt