The Death of Buy and Hold

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
neveragain
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 3:01 pm

The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by neveragain » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:22 pm

Has anyone read the Death of Buy and Hold by Chris Minnucci? It's about how to avoid the risk of going broke in retirement. I'm finding it a lot more informative than the Bogle book.

User avatar
simplesimon
Posts: 3426
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:53 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by simplesimon » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:25 pm

What principles of a buy and hold strategy does he have issues with?

User avatar
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by stemikger » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:36 pm

simplesimon wrote:What principles of a buy and hold strategy does he have issues with?
+1

Don't know anything about this book, but the title sounds like financial porn.
Choose Simplicity ~ Stay the Course!! ~ Press on Regardless!!!

Topic Author
neveragain
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by neveragain » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:44 pm

The book promotes index investing. Low fees, low expense ratios, no-load funds. Also delves into using gold, metals in an investment portfolio.

I was reading it last night and decided to use their advice of putting a mixed bond fund in my IRA. I had previously been interested in a US government bond fund only.

It's a 5 star book on amazon.

User avatar
dwickenh
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:45 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by dwickenh » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:47 pm

Did William Devane appear on the cover? :)
The market is the most efficient mechanism anywhere in the world for transferring wealth from impatient people to patient people.” | — Warren Buffett

indexonlyplease
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:30 pm
Location: Florida

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by indexonlyplease » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:53 pm

I hear the same every Sunday on the radio. They are pushing annuities.
Last edited by indexonlyplease on Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

gwrvmd
Posts: 817
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:34 pm
Location: Calabash NC

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by gwrvmd » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:54 pm

What does a 5 star book on Amazon mean?..........Gordon
Disciple of John Neff

User avatar
zaboomafoozarg
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by zaboomafoozarg » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:04 pm

gwrvmd wrote:What does a 5 star book on Amazon mean?..........Gordon
It could either mean it's a really good book, or a bunch of people who are wrong think it's a really good book

or that somebody bought a lot of fake reviews.

User avatar
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by stemikger » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:12 pm

neveragain wrote:The book promotes index investing. Low fees, low expense ratios, no-load funds. Also delves into using gold, metals in an investment portfolio.

I was reading it last night and decided to use their advice of putting a mixed bond fund in my IRA. I had previously been interested in a US government bond fund only.

It's a 5 star book on amazon.
Other than the gold, precious metals part, it sounds a lot like what Jack Bogle suggests. Where is the part that shows that buy and hold is dead?

My BS meter is up on this book.
Choose Simplicity ~ Stay the Course!! ~ Press on Regardless!!!

User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 18982
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by VictoriaF » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:13 pm

stemikger wrote:
simplesimon wrote:What principles of a buy and hold strategy does he have issues with?
+1

Don't know anything about this book, but the title sounds like financial porn.
Since this is a book about death, shouldn't it be necrophilic financial porn?

Victoria
WINNER of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)

User avatar
saltycaper
Posts: 2650
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:47 pm
Location: The Tower

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by saltycaper » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:15 pm

It's very unfortunate to see heard herd mentality so strong here that people quickly criticize things they know absolutely nothing about.
Last edited by saltycaper on Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quod vitae sectabor iter?

User avatar
Hawaiishrimp
Posts: 456
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:13 am

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by Hawaiishrimp » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:16 pm

neveragain wrote:
Other than the gold, precious metals part, it sounds a lot like what Jack Bogle suggests. Where is the part that shows that buy and hold is dead?

My BS meter is up on this book.
+1
I save and invest my money, so money can make money for me, so I don't have to make money eventually.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 13609
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by willthrill81 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:21 pm

saltycaper wrote:It's very unfortunate to see heard herd mentality so strong here that people quickly criticize things they know absolutely nothing about.
That's true, but it's largely due to the fact that most of us have heard this kind of thing so much that we think we've 'been to that rodeo' before.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
bligh
Posts: 1108
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by bligh » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:22 pm

OP, Did you, a client or a friend of yours write the book?

I am always skeptical when anyone I don't know strongly recommends something that is for sale like this. I guess I have become wary after having too many people pushing Amway on me. ;)

User avatar
zaboomafoozarg
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by zaboomafoozarg » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:24 pm

bligh wrote:OP, Did you, a client or a friend of yours write the book?
Definitely not the author, since he died 6 months ago :(

Avo
Posts: 1099
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:21 am
Location: California

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by Avo » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:27 pm

I found some pirated excerpts on the interwebs.

Appears to be standard boglehead advice, except he likes a big slug of "precious metals equity".

"Death of Buy and Hold" seems to mean that you should rebalance.

User avatar
bligh
Posts: 1108
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by bligh » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:32 pm

zaboomafoozarg wrote:
bligh wrote:OP, Did you, a client or a friend of yours write the book?
Definitely not the author, since he died 6 months ago :(
Yikes, sorry to hear that.. 59.. that's young.. :(

Topic Author
neveragain
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by neveragain » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:53 pm

bligh wrote:OP, Did you, a client or a friend of yours write the book?

I am always skeptical when anyone I don't know strongly recommends something that is for sale like this. I guess I have become wary after having too many people pushing Amway on me. ;)
Oh no. I just check out a lot of these types of books from the library.

MarkRoulo
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 10:25 am

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by MarkRoulo » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:24 pm

From the introduction to the book:
So maybe buy and hold is dead, at least in the sense that most average investors are not using it, regardless of its advantages or disadvantages. But still, there was one question someone should have put to that gentleman on CNBC: when you say buy and hold is dead, exactly what investments are you talking about buying and holding? Yes, the S&P 500 had negative returns over the past decade. But none of the books I’ve read on buy and hold recommend putting all of your money into the S&P 500. Diversification is the cornerstone of the buy-and-hold approach to investing. A portfolio invested 100 percent in the S&P 500 is not diversified. Would you believe a well-diversified buy-and-hold portfolio, split 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds, purchased on January 1, 2000, and rebalanced back to 60/40 each year since then, would have more than doubled in value by December 31, 2009? It’s true. Such a portfolio, based on the principle underpinning modern portfolio theory (MPT) and including high-volatility hedges, return boosters, and low-volatility hedges, would have yielded annualized returns of 8.1 percent between 2000 and 2009. A $10,000 investment in this portfolio made on January 1, 2000, would have been worth $21,848 by December 31, 2009. And this is after taking into account average mutual fund fees and trading costs. This portfolio would have generated modest positive, not negative, returns during the 2000–2002 bear market. True, this same portfolio would have lost about 21 percent of its value in 2008. However, the loss would have been made up, in its entirety, by December 31, 2009 — just ten months after the great bear market of 2007–9 ended. We study this portfolio — the advanced moderate portfolio — and other similar portfolios in detail in Part III.

As Mark Twain might have said, reports of the death of buy and hold are greatly exaggerated. As for the so-called Lost Decade, it is a myth to those investors who maintained a well-diversified buy-and-hold portfolio throughout the 2000s. A difficult decade? Yes, for sure. But by no means was it a lost decade — despite what the financial gurus on CNBC might say.

Thesaints
Posts: 2919
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:25 am

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by Thesaints » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:35 pm

The author confuses diversification, which strictly speaking is a process for removing risk by holding non-perfectly correlated vehicles across the same asset class. This risk removal is the only free lunch one can get in the world of finance, although some would object that risk is not always undesirable and, in some cases, investors actually pay to add risk.

Mixing stocks and bonds, which is "asset allocation" and not "diversification" also reduces risk, but at the cost of lower expected return.

Furthermore, it must be noted that in the first case we can define a maximum diversification, corresponding to only systematic risk being left in the portfolio, while in the second case one can never say that a certain distribution of stocks and bonds is maximally diversified. All possible distributions are equally good. Good for different investors, it goes without saying.

As for the book being a best seller, the Kardashians make good audience ratings. So what ?

Fallible
Posts: 7018
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by Fallible » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:50 pm

neveragain wrote:The book promotes index investing. Low fees, low expense ratios, no-load funds. Also delves into using gold, metals in an investment portfolio.

I was reading it last night and decided to use their advice of putting a mixed bond fund in my IRA. I had previously been interested in a US government bond fund only.

It's a 5 star book on amazon.
But we still don't know what buy-and-hold's got to do with it. :confused
John Bogle on his early road to low-cost indexing: "When a door closes, if you look long enough and hard enough, if you're strong enough, you'll find a window that opens."

Topic Author
neveragain
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 3:01 pm

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by neveragain » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:34 pm

I'll read up some more and let you know. Overall it's very Bogle-esque in it's approach to investing.

User avatar
Nate79
Posts: 5113
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Delaware

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by Nate79 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:22 am

MarkRoulo wrote:From the introduction to the book:
So maybe buy and hold is dead, at least in the sense that most average investors are not using it, regardless of its advantages or disadvantages. But still, there was one question someone should have put to that gentleman on CNBC: when you say buy and hold is dead, exactly what investments are you talking about buying and holding? Yes, the S&P 500 had negative returns over the past decade. But none of the books I’ve read on buy and hold recommend putting all of your money into the S&P 500. Diversification is the cornerstone of the buy-and-hold approach to investing. A portfolio invested 100 percent in the S&P 500 is not diversified. Would you believe a well-diversified buy-and-hold portfolio, split 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds, purchased on January 1, 2000, and rebalanced back to 60/40 each year since then, would have more than doubled in value by December 31, 2009? It’s true. Such a portfolio, based on the principle underpinning modern portfolio theory (MPT) and including high-volatility hedges, return boosters, and low-volatility hedges, would have yielded annualized returns of 8.1 percent between 2000 and 2009. A $10,000 investment in this portfolio made on January 1, 2000, would have been worth $21,848 by December 31, 2009. And this is after taking into account average mutual fund fees and trading costs. This portfolio would have generated modest positive, not negative, returns during the 2000–2002 bear market. True, this same portfolio would have lost about 21 percent of its value in 2008. However, the loss would have been made up, in its entirety, by December 31, 2009 — just ten months after the great bear market of 2007–9 ended. We study this portfolio — the advanced moderate portfolio — and other similar portfolios in detail in Part III.

As Mark Twain might have said, reports of the death of buy and hold are greatly exaggerated. As for the so-called Lost Decade, it is a myth to those investors who maintained a well-diversified buy-and-hold portfolio throughout the 2000s. A difficult decade? Yes, for sure. But by no means was it a lost decade — despite what the financial gurus on CNBC might say.
The S&P500 did not have a negative return over the last decade......

MotoTrojan
Posts: 6577
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:39 pm

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by MotoTrojan » Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:32 am

Nate79 wrote:
MarkRoulo wrote:From the introduction to the book:
So maybe buy and hold is dead, at least in the sense that most average investors are not using it, regardless of its advantages or disadvantages. But still, there was one question someone should have put to that gentleman on CNBC: when you say buy and hold is dead, exactly what investments are you talking about buying and holding? Yes, the S&P 500 had negative returns over the past decade. But none of the books I’ve read on buy and hold recommend putting all of your money into the S&P 500. Diversification is the cornerstone of the buy-and-hold approach to investing. A portfolio invested 100 percent in the S&P 500 is not diversified. Would you believe a well-diversified buy-and-hold portfolio, split 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds, purchased on January 1, 2000, and rebalanced back to 60/40 each year since then, would have more than doubled in value by December 31, 2009? It’s true. Such a portfolio, based on the principle underpinning modern portfolio theory (MPT) and including high-volatility hedges, return boosters, and low-volatility hedges, would have yielded annualized returns of 8.1 percent between 2000 and 2009. A $10,000 investment in this portfolio made on January 1, 2000, would have been worth $21,848 by December 31, 2009. And this is after taking into account average mutual fund fees and trading costs. This portfolio would have generated modest positive, not negative, returns during the 2000–2002 bear market. True, this same portfolio would have lost about 21 percent of its value in 2008. However, the loss would have been made up, in its entirety, by December 31, 2009 — just ten months after the great bear market of 2007–9 ended. We study this portfolio — the advanced moderate portfolio — and other similar portfolios in detail in Part III.

As Mark Twain might have said, reports of the death of buy and hold are greatly exaggerated. As for the so-called Lost Decade, it is a myth to those investors who maintained a well-diversified buy-and-hold portfolio throughout the 2000s. A difficult decade? Yes, for sure. But by no means was it a lost decade — despite what the financial gurus on CNBC might say.
The S&P500 did not have a negative return over the last decade......
2000-2010 it did.

User avatar
stemikger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:02 am

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by stemikger » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am

zaboomafoozarg wrote:
bligh wrote:OP, Did you, a client or a friend of yours write the book?
Definitely not the author, since he died 6 months ago :(
This took a tragic turn. My condolences to his family
Choose Simplicity ~ Stay the Course!! ~ Press on Regardless!!!

rgs92
Posts: 2440
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:00 pm

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by rgs92 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:40 am

Is Buy and Hold the same as Stay the Course?
Or is it related to Jack Bogle's statement that The Best Holding Period is Forever [for the S&P, of course]?

lemonPepper
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:43 pm

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by lemonPepper » Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:19 am

I read the book. I doubt the long timers here would learn anything from that book.

That doesn't mean the book is bad. He recommends a slice and dice portfolio. He does discuss emerging market bonds and precious metal equities in more detail than most other books. The explanations of why you should hold bonds, stock and diversify across geographies are good and would be useful to someone who has not been reading bogleheads for a while.

User avatar
Tamarind
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 2:38 pm

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by Tamarind » Sun Sep 03, 2017 7:03 am

Sounds like the title is merely a hook, while the content would be not too dissimilar from the tilted portfolios we love to discuss here. Not my cup of tea but might help grab hold of some folks.

lostdog
Posts: 2007
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:15 pm

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by lostdog » Sun Sep 03, 2017 9:00 am

The title of the book could be compared to click bait internet article titles.
VTWAX and chill.

User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 2642
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by CyclingDuo » Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:34 am

MotoTrojan wrote:
Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:32 am
Nate79 wrote:
MarkRoulo wrote:From the introduction to the book:
So maybe buy and hold is dead, at least in the sense that most average investors are not using it, regardless of its advantages or disadvantages. But still, there was one question someone should have put to that gentleman on CNBC: when you say buy and hold is dead, exactly what investments are you talking about buying and holding? Yes, the S&P 500 had negative returns over the past decade. But none of the books I’ve read on buy and hold recommend putting all of your money into the S&P 500. Diversification is the cornerstone of the buy-and-hold approach to investing. A portfolio invested 100 percent in the S&P 500 is not diversified. Would you believe a well-diversified buy-and-hold portfolio, split 60 percent stocks and 40 percent bonds, purchased on January 1, 2000, and rebalanced back to 60/40 each year since then, would have more than doubled in value by December 31, 2009? It’s true. Such a portfolio, based on the principle underpinning modern portfolio theory (MPT) and including high-volatility hedges, return boosters, and low-volatility hedges, would have yielded annualized returns of 8.1 percent between 2000 and 2009. A $10,000 investment in this portfolio made on January 1, 2000, would have been worth $21,848 by December 31, 2009. And this is after taking into account average mutual fund fees and trading costs. This portfolio would have generated modest positive, not negative, returns during the 2000–2002 bear market. True, this same portfolio would have lost about 21 percent of its value in 2008. However, the loss would have been made up, in its entirety, by December 31, 2009 — just ten months after the great bear market of 2007–9 ended. We study this portfolio — the advanced moderate portfolio — and other similar portfolios in detail in Part III.

As Mark Twain might have said, reports of the death of buy and hold are greatly exaggerated. As for the so-called Lost Decade, it is a myth to those investors who maintained a well-diversified buy-and-hold portfolio throughout the 2000s. A difficult decade? Yes, for sure. But by no means was it a lost decade — despite what the financial gurus on CNBC might say.
The S&P500 did not have a negative return over the last decade......
2000-2010 it did.
"For the period of December 31, 1999 through December 31, 2009, the S&P 500 index had an annualized simple price return of -2.72%. When dividends are factored in, the results do not get much better as annualized total return for the S&P 500 index (with dividends reinvested back into the index) over the same timeframe was -0.95%."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/20 ... ef51557cf8

However, if one was - like most people still working - investing every month like clockwork through the decade in question - you had gains.

The link below is a great dollar cost averaging calculator where you can run the scenario for the decade, include your monthly investments and see what the results were for the ten year period with your additional investments, reinvested dividends. We invested every single month during that decade, not only in our own retirement accounts, but also our children's UTMA accounts.

Using 1/1 2000 to 12/31 2009, the new money invested in retirement accounts (which got to avoid taxes) had a positive return, but so did the money invested in the UTMA's even when accounting for taxes. Contrast that with the amount that was already invested which had a slight negative return in both retirement and taxable.

https://dqydj.com/sp-500-periodic-reinv ... dividends/

That being said, that's just the S&P 500. A well managed portfolio that included REITs, alternative investments, bonds, real estate did just fine during that decade.
"Everywhere is within walking distance if you have the time." ~ Steven Wright

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 13609
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:45 pm

CyclingDuo wrote:
Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:34 am
"For the period of December 31, 1999 through December 31, 2009, the S&P 500 index had an annualized simple price return of -2.72%. When dividends are factored in, the results do not get much better as annualized total return for the S&P 500 index (with dividends reinvested back into the index) over the same timeframe was -0.95%."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/20 ... ef51557cf8

However, if one was - like most people still working - investing every month like clockwork through the decade in question - you had gains.
For those starting with nothing and investing the same amount monthly from Jan. 2000 through Dec. 2009, the rate of return in the TSM was 4.63%. Not a good decade for equities to be sure, but hardly the 'lost decade' that the media and naysayers put so much attention on.

The big difference here, one which is not adequately discussed, is between time-weighted returns and dollar-weighted returns. Investors rarely experience the former, even though that's what is heralded by mutual fund companies and the media.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

pkcrafter
Posts: 13615
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:19 pm
Location: CA
Contact:

Re: The Death of Buy and Hold

Post by pkcrafter » Sun Sep 03, 2017 8:56 pm

Thanks, neveragain. This might be a book worth reading, but it's very much mis-titled. It has 5 reviews, all good, but you have to take a low number of good initial reviews on Amazon with a grain of salt.

The book

http://chrisminnucci.com/our-book-the-d ... -buy-hold/

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Buy-Hold-M ... 0986225304


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.

Post Reply