what if you’re wrong?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
User avatar
Topic Author
jeff mc
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: minnesota
Contact:

what if you’re wrong?

Post by jeff mc »

diehards think we’ve found the secrets of investing for financial success, worry-free retirement funding, and the exact ‘correct’ way to invest, save, tax plan, spreadsheet, and think we’re making all of the correct assumptions and decisions. well tonight, like every night, there’s hundreds of thousands of non-diehard investors out there that are thinking the exact same thing while they are frequenting other forums, discussing stock picking, active mutual funds, gold, RE, hedge funds, ponzi/amway type schemes, time shares, fido, american funds, penny stocks, on yahoo finance boards, fool.com, newsletter boards, etc.

many would scoff at our costs matter, just be happy w/ market returns, rebalance/trade very infrequently, passively sit around during downturns, tune out the noise, develop and maintain a consistent AA, DCA new money in, etc. much the same way we scoff at all of the opposite things.

just like there’s 5 major religions (christianity, islam, hinduism, buddhism, chinese univerists) and many minor (judaism, animists, etc) but they can’t all be correct. some are mutually exclusive. but 99+% of believers in each different religion naturally think they’ve found the exact right one, and therefore everyone else is wrong (in their minds).

oh, don’t get me wrong: i do believe the boglehead way is the surest, most proven, statistically correct way to invest. i wouldn’t keep reading this forum if i thought otherwise... but my confidence gives me pause. just like the 200,000 in-the-minority zoroastrianism followers (here), believe they have found ‘The Answer’, we bogleheads do, too, and are certainly in the minority. but are we ‘right’? what if we’re not? does the boglehead story end w/ a whimper, w/ a bang, or is it one that never ends? will we get a wikipedia entry as some long-lost ‘cult-like’ following of indexers? will we morph? be reformed (who’s going to nail a new list of index rules on the gates of vanguard?) or maybe the success of this philosophy will doom us all, as everyone adopts it and markets (and EMT) collapse/stagnate due to inefficiencies of stock pricing due to everyone indexing.

how does this story end?
livesoft
Posts: 75173
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Post by livesoft »

I have found there is a big difference between the other folks and folks here. There are many folks here who have succeeded and reached their Number. They have won the game. Do you find winners at the other places you wrote about?
User avatar
rob
Posts: 3504
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:49 pm
Location: Here

Post by rob »

I have no doubt I am wrong... I will not pick the best return when I look back but chances are that I will not pick the worst either. If I am wrong then I will at least have paid the minimum.... unlike a stack of others that were wrong and also paid thru the nose for the pleasure. Don't think I am but... :lol:
| Rob | Its a dangerous business going out your front door. - J.R.R.Tolkien
User avatar
United
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:45 pm

Post by United »

Good thought. I think people, over time, tend to stop seeking the truth and begin to dogmatically support their version of the truth. It's a psychological fallacy that we should all endeavor to avoid.
michaelc55
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 8:24 pm

Post by michaelc55 »

I think that a more accurate representation of "success" would be the ratio of those hitting their target in relation to their investment strategy. For example - out of all Bogelheads out there X% are successful, and out of all real estate investors, X% are successful, etc... I imagine that calculating these numbers would be next to impossible due to the myriad of investment options available. Anyone want to take a guess?
User avatar
fundtalker123
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:18 am

Post by fundtalker123 »

You're right, when I drop an apple it could fly upwards into the sky instead of falling to the ground.

If anything, I think that stock pickers are more cult like. There's a heck of a lot more people forcefully gas-bagging about what stocks you should pick than people recommending index funds.

In fact, I really don't care if anyone else buys index funds. I'm certainly not going to waste much time trying to convince anyone. You want to buy stock in Exxon? Fine with me.
User avatar
craigr
Posts: 2696
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:54 pm

religion and investing...

Post by craigr »

Religion and investing is probably not a good comparison. Investing results can be measured and quantified to derive a probable rate of success. For religion nobody knows what the rate of success is because nobody has issued results from the after-life. :)

I think with indexing most people will recognize that they aren't going to be 100% right. But history is on our side so far and looking more certain each year. Indexers are going to be about 80% right every year compared to active investors. When you take that out a couple decades that will put you in the 95th+ percentile of all investors! That's right enough for me.
grumel
Posts: 1629
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:38 am
Location: Germany

Post by grumel »

United wrote:Good thought. I think people, over time, tend to stop seeking the truth and begin to dogmatically support their version of the truth. It's a psychological fallacy that we should all endeavor to avoid.
Well why should we avoid it ? I dont plan to do so, the more dogmatic i get, the safer i am against useless hektik changes or pointlessly makeing up my mind for 0,3% extra return for a tiny part of my portfolio. Would say it makes sense to become dogmatic about some issues sometimes in such a complex world. Theres just no way to keep learning and learningfor all the different aspects you are confronted with.
User avatar
Zander
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:49 pm

Post by Zander »

I don't care if I am right or wrong. I just like to sleep at night. Investing the Diehard way lets me do that. :)
User avatar
whitemiata
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:44 pm

Re: what if you’re wrong?

Post by whitemiata »

chuck D wrote:how does this story end?
There's really no alternate ending for the story.

You REALLY have found the answer.

The problem is that THE ANSWER is NOT the answer that most people are looking for.

Most people are looking to become filthy rich by finding the next Microsoft, Amazon, etc. In the process they become Lucent, Enron and Sirius stockholders, and pay thru the nose (relatively speaking anyway) for the priviledge.

By so doing they build the bell curve that indexing takes advantage of... and then they shift the bell curve more and more towards lower performance with the inexorable drag of costs.

Don't forget that every time that a brilliant (or lucky) investor makes a killer stock purchase by buying a stock that is about to outperform everything we're investing in... someone else is selling a stock that would have allowed them to outperform everything we're investing in.

Alessandro
User avatar
tetractys
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: Along the Salish Sea

Post by tetractys »

I think its a simple tenant that every "Diehard" has been wrong in the past, is wrong now, and will be wrong in the future. That is, about the returns of any certain asset class. And so they diversify.

And further, with the understanding that anything is possible--even society's, and the market's, total breakdown--they invest with a grain of salt, allowing room for enjoyment today.

Tend your garden with love and joy, but be ready to leave it behind at the wink of an eye. Such is life.

Be happy, Tet
User avatar
asset_chaos
Posts: 1938
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:13 pm
Location: Melbourne

Arithmetic is not a faith

Post by asset_chaos »

We're not a faith. Essentially 'diehards' are a subset of the numerate, the subset that has a smidge of interest in investing. So as long as arithmetic holds, low-cost index style investing will be objectively and demonstratively right.

Although, since active investors pay to keep the markets efficient for us, proselytzing can only be an act of charity. And you might get credit with your faith for charity.
Regards, | | Guy
User avatar
baw703916
Posts: 6681
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:10 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by baw703916 »

I think that any *good plan* towards any objective, must necessarily include a consideration of the cost of the plan being wrong. i.e. What's the downside if my assumptions are completely wrong?

But I think that a lot of diehard principles don't really have a downside:

-Avoiding high expenses
-Diversification
-Understanding some of the basic conclusions of MPT (whether or not they're completely accurate) and the concept of the efficient frontier.
-Understanding the level of risk of one's current portfolio, and being able to make a reasonable assessment of one's need to take risk.

I can't for the life of me see how any of these things are liable to hurt one's financial well-being.

Now, admittedly, some of the details *could* be completely wrong:

-Maybe we're just deluding ourselves that there is a small premium or a value premium.
-Maybe market cap weighting isn't that good a strategy.
-Maybe REITs were a flash in the pan, and will be a terrible investment from here on out.
-Maybe Emerging markets carry a huge amount of uncompensated risk, that we just aren't aware of.

I don't think any of these things are very likely...but even if one or more turns out to be true, I don't think this will be ruinous to someone who saves adequately, is diversified (and therefore, doesn't bet the farm on REITs, small value, or emerging markets), avoids unnecessary expenses, and takes on an amount of risk appropriate for their situation.

Best wishes,
Brad
User avatar
Clutch Cargo
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:21 pm
Location: Illinois

Post by Clutch Cargo »

But I think that a lot of diehard principles don't really have a downside:

-Avoiding high expenses
-Diversification
-Understanding some of the basic conclusions of MPT (whether or not they're completely accurate) and the concept of the efficient frontier.
-Understanding the level of risk of one's current portfolio, and being able to make a reasonable assessment of one's need to take risk.

I can't for the life of me see how any of these things are liable to hurt one's financial well-being.
I agree with Brad that all of the principles mentioned above have no downside whatsoever, and are reasonable, rational, logical and convincing reasons for index investing.

Since participating on this forum and reading, reading and doing even more reading of authors like Bogle, Larimore, Lindauer, LeBoeuf, Ferri, Malkiel and Bernstein, the arguments have been "intellectually" convincing, and I've been shifting my actively managed funds to index funds. Yet my "emotional" side still won't let me part with a few of those actively managed funds, most of which have performed very well and some that are now closed to new investors. Why is that? Is it because of the thrill one feels when a personal pick beats the market, even knowing that the tortoise (index investing) always beats the hare (active fund investing) in the long haul? This is a very interesting thread.

Clutch Cargo
Levett
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:10 pm
Location: upper Midwest

Post by Levett »

How does this story end, you ask? Easy. Not with a bang but a whimper, in the words of T. S. Eliot. :lol: Bob U.
User avatar
alec
Posts: 3101
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:15 pm

Post by alec »

Well chuck, like it or not, a ton of people have been able to retire by using [probably unknowingly] Boglehead principles.

My dad, for example, just divided his money into 50% CREF Stock and 50% TIAA fixed, and didn't look at it from 1973ish - 2005. It was simple and low cost. He'll be able to retire perfectly fine, though 2001-2003 took some hand holding. Was it quick? No. Was it boring? Certainly.

- Alec
User avatar
Judsen
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:29 am
Location: Birmingham, Al.

what if you’re wrong?

Post by Judsen »

What a great thread Chuck! Somewhat thought provoking.
Well I was wrong when I waited until age 50 before investing in equities.
I was wrong when I initially invested too conservatively. 50%$ in Money Mkt, the other 50% in a Ginnie mae fund with scudder. Then I retired and read some books (a lot) most of which are recommended in our board library. (thanks librarians!) Being a logical, practical, INTJ, frugal person,
I adopted a diehard (somewhat concensus) philosophy. After about 3 yrs of tweaking into my unique comfort zone I am more than happy. Not rich by any stretch but financially secure and prepared to endure a major market downturn if that happens. The key for me is "Want what you have"
User avatar
Topic Author
jeff mc
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: minnesota
Contact:

Re: what if you’re wrong?

Post by jeff mc »

Judsen wrote:Somewhat thought provoking.
good to see some similar philosophical minded folks around here... i was 1 class (3 credits) short of minoring in philosophy. but the major engineer in me didn't want to burn the extra effort my sr year in college. oh, well. i can't say that not having a minor in philosophy has really weighed me down in my career path. "well, we'd like to promote you to corporate scientist, but if only you had a minor in some liberal art like philosophy... maybe next year"

i just find it interesting that most of us are pretty well convinced that the other 99% of investors out there have it mostly (or all) wrong, and we have it mostly (or all) right. are 99% of investors wrong? yes, i think so. but is there a similar thread or poll on a gold bug forum or bolivian junk bonds forum at this very instant, somewhat smugly stating the exact same thing we're saying? probably. but i'd say most of us have a quiet assurance about our investing principles, and yet realize there's many roads to dublin (and many roads to grinding destitution/poverty and financial oblivion, too)

speaking of which, i'm off to check on my bolivian junk bond thread on another forum...
johndcraig

Good Question

Post by johndcraig »

Good Question

It’s a good idea to consider this even if there are no answers. Most people’s investment experience is based upon the last 25 years which witnessed the greatest bull market in history. As such it’s easy to look at that data and become smug that the diehard way is the only way. I don’t disagree with the passive approach of this forum, but I think everyone should test themselves with a reality check.

I’d suggest that everyone picture a scenario that is as bad as or worse than we have seen historically. Although unlikely, most everyone would agree that a drop of 50% in equities is not impossible, and also that recovery might take 20-30 years (yes this is possible). Now imagine this happening, picture what it would do to you financially, and ask yourself if you would still believe that the diehard way was the correct way.

If this were to happen, all of a sudden the heroes would be Shiller, Grantham, Hussman, etc. and the villains would be those who preached staying the course. In hindsight they would seem right and the diehard philosophy would seem wrong. How would you react in such a case?

What purpose is served by considering this? Even though I believe in passive investing, I also recognize that Shiller et al are smart people with something important to say. I think it is important to keep an open mind to what they are saying and never lock into absolute thinking of any kind. The diehard approach makes sense, but absolute belief is not a good idea IMO.

John
rockH
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:17 pm

need to define "wrong"

Post by rockH »

wrong because hi fee funds outperform low cost funds for 25 years? unlikely

wrong because all stock pickers have fantastic results while the averages lag? mathematically impossible

wrong because all of wall streets brokers and financial advisors really have our best interests at heart and aren't trying to get rich on commisssions and fees paid by us? get real!

wrong because bonds or stocks or some other investment category significantly outperform or underperform for the long term? thats what asset allocation and rebalancing are for

wrong because we wasted our lives surfing the internet and trolling on this forum? maybe you have a point here, we should all get a life!

:)
User avatar
Judsen
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:29 am
Location: Birmingham, Al.

¿Philosophy?

Post by Judsen »

Chuck, My sis has her PHD in Philosophy so by osmosis I got a little exposure LOL.
With respect to investing I explored an approach named AIM introduced some time back by Mr. Robert Lichello. I used the method on 1 stock and two funds and made money (a good bit) but would have made more if I had held on for the long haul. The logic is reasonable but there are pitfalls such as errors in selection and then there are the deep divers like worldcom and enron to dissuade the faint of heart. The basic premise is to capture the volatility (buy from the rabbits and sell to the pigs) based on where the stock or fund is, not on where you think it is going. So, now being a risk averse but risk taking investor I just use AIM for entertainment investing. For now I'm 74% Vanguard indexed and letting RMD rebalance for me.
I do however know some AIM investors who have done very well over a long period of time.
User avatar
fundtalker123
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:18 am

Re: what if you’re wrong?

Post by fundtalker123 »

chuck D wrote:i just find it interesting that most of us are pretty well convinced that the other 99% of investors out there have it mostly (or all) wrong, and we have it mostly (or all) right. are 99% of investors wrong?
In favoring index funds I'm not so arrogant as to think 99% of people have it wrong. I think its more like 75%. A person that buys and holds individual stocks and perhaps some individual municipal bonds could well do better than me over the long term. It depends which stocks they buy. I'm accepting the average, they're not. They might beat me. Another big advantage of the index funds for me is simplicity and lazyness.
User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Advisory Board
Posts: 30317
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

What if we're wrong?

Post by Taylor Larimore »

What if we're wrong?
Of course, this is a possibility with any endeaver. Nevertheless, investors must make a decision to do something.

Bogleheads follow the recommendations of academic researchers which have proven successful. Jack Bogle has put their ideas into these "12 Pillars of Wisdom" (shortened):
1. Investing is not nearly as difficult as it sounds.

2. When all else fails, fall back on simplicity.

3. Time marches on. Time dramatically enhances capital accumulation as the magic of compounding accelerates.

4. Nothing vertured, nothing gained. It pays to take reasonable interim risks in the search for higher long-term rates of return.

5. Diversify, diversify, diversify.

6. The eternal triagle. Never forget that risk, return, and cost are the three sides of the eternal triangle of investing.

7. The powerful magnetism of the mean.

8. Do not overestimate your ability to pick superior equity mutual funs, nor underestimate your ability to pick superior bond and money market funds.

9. You may have a stable principal value or a stable income stream, but you cannot have both.

10. Beware of fighting the last war. You should not ignore the past, but neither should you assume that a particular cyclical trend will last forever.

11. You rarely, if ever, know something the market does not.

12. Think long term. Stay the course.
Best wishes.
Taylor
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 6207
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:18 am
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Re: what if you’re wrong?

Post by watchnerd »

chuck D wrote:diehards think we’ve found the secrets of investing for financial success, worry-free retirement funding, and the exact ‘correct’ way to invest, save, tax plan, spreadsheet, and think we’re making all of the correct assumptions and decisions.
I don't think I've found the 'exact correct way' to invest at all and think it's pure hubris to think one has.

I *am* wrong, as is everyone here, I guarantee it. Nobody has picked the optimal strategy - this will only be known in hindsight.

There is a big difference between making decisions based on factors I can know and control (such as costs), and thinking I've found 'secrets of investing'.
60% Global Market Weight Equities | 15% Long Treasuries 15% short TIPS 10% cash || RSU + ESPP
User avatar
orthros
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:56 pm
Contact:

Post by orthros »

The difference is between absolute truth (the religious example Chuck used) and relative truth (did I get "enough" money to reach my goals?).

The Diehard philosophy won't allow us to say that we will attain a 10.41852% rate of return. What it *does* do is allow the greatest potential for return at the lowest possible risk, given our own particular risk potential. This is not the same as no risk, but is certainly the best bet we can make.

Someone who uses Merrill Lynch might still hit their Number and/or their financial goals (thus the relativity), but the odds are much, much better as a Diehard, regardless of how much money you start with.

Likewise, I'm sure there are Diehards who are unlucky (think about the poor folks who retired in 1971) and had things end poorly.
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 6207
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:18 am
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Post by watchnerd »

orthros wrote:
The Diehard philosophy won't allow us to say that we will attain a 10.41852% rate of return. What it *does* do is allow the greatest potential for return at the lowest possible risk, given our own particular risk potential. This is not the same as no risk, but is certainly the best bet we can make.
That sounds like MPT (modern portfolio theory) to me and isn't specific to Diehards.

And let's get real here: no matter how much one backtests, uses Monte Carlo simulations, and otherwise juggles asset allication, one probably won't receive the absolute goldilocks balance of "just right" greatest return for lowest risk.

The optimal portfolio is not knowable until it is in the past.
60% Global Market Weight Equities | 15% Long Treasuries 15% short TIPS 10% cash || RSU + ESPP
User avatar
Ed Griffin
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:59 pm

We may very...

Post by Ed Griffin »

...well be wrong.

Nothing in life in certain (except perhaps Death and Taxes)...

All you can do is make a plan based on the best data you can find and hope for the best.

After all - things could change - in the economy - in the world.

While the improbable should not be dismissed as impossible - that also should not stop you from planning based on what is probable.
Good luck and happy investing, | -Ed (Griff) Griffin
User avatar
nick22
Posts: 859
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:00 am
Location: Ohio

That would be funny

Post by nick22 »

All you can do is design a prospective chance that optimizes your chances of reaching your goals. That is what we are doing with a low cost, diversified approach. There are scenerios where someone with an extreme approach will do better (a safe full of gold), and we will not reach our goals. But I like our chances running a Monte Carlo simulation.

The biggest mistake is trying to validate your approach based on results. You cannot forsee or control the results, only your strategy.
Nick22
Valuethinker
Posts: 42150
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Re: what if you’re wrong?

Post by Valuethinker »

chuck D wrote:
just like there’s 5 major religions (christianity, islam, hinduism, buddhism, chinese univerists) and many minor (judaism, animists, etc) but they can’t all be correct. some are mutually exclusive. but 99+% of believers in each different religion naturally think they’ve found the exact right one, and therefore everyone else is wrong (in their minds).

oh, don’t get me wrong: i do believe the boglehead way is the surest, most proven, statistically correct way to invest. i wouldn’t keep reading this forum if i thought otherwise... but my confidence gives me pause. just like the 200,000 in-the-minority zoroastrianism followers (here), believe they have found ‘The Answer’, we bogleheads do, too, and are certainly in the minority. but are we ‘right’? what if we’re not? does the boglehead story end w/ a whimper, w/ a bang, or is it one that never ends? will we get a wikipedia entry as some long-lost ‘cult-like’ following of indexers? will we morph? be reformed (who’s going to nail a new list of index rules on the gates of vanguard?) or maybe the success of this philosophy will doom us all, as everyone adopts it and markets (and EMT) collapse/stagnate due to inefficiencies of stock pricing due to everyone indexing.

how does this story end?
Chuck

There is a big difference between religion and the empirical universe.

As an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine put it to me:

'for you, God may be very happy if you are eating a ham sandwich. For me, it is damnation'

ie because religion is founded upon belief, not empirical fact, conflicting religious beliefs can exist. And they often do: some of the contradictions within Christianity for example.

Investing is different, in that there are empirical facts against which we can check our beliefs.

So Zoroastrianiasm is a perfectly valid way to see the world (and an absolutely lovely religion I might add, if you've ever seen any of the rituals).

But arguing for high cost load funds for individual investors is not.

We'd have to go into a discussion of post modernism (post modernists believe that everything is ideology, even science) to get beyond that, but what I have broadly stated is true.

A post modernist would say the theory of economics and stock markets which underlies 'efficient frontier' investing is simply a paradigm based on the economic and political power and gender structure of our society.
User avatar
Teetlebaum
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:27 pm

Re: what if you’re wrong?

Post by Teetlebaum »

chuck D wrote:how does this story end?
With a black swan. (cue spooky music...)
unclemick
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:18 am
Location: greater Kansas City

Post by unclemick »

I find threads like this highly amusing and great entertainment. Right or wrong is irrelavent handgrenade wise as long as you get the job done.

Since 1966 I have never ended a year where I didn't read about a stock or portfolio that didn't beat the pants off what I owned.

I followed a common form of er ah enlightenment - The Battle For Investment Survival (Loeb), The Intelligent Investor(Graham) and then Bogle on Mutual Funds(Bogle).

Like the man said: 'There are many roads to Dublin' although I prefer - different ways to skin a cat.

Theoretical purity? right/wrong? Numbers? - I don't need no stinking numbers - I'm retired!

Lifecyle fund plus a few good stocks. Party on Diehards.

heh heh heh heh - November 12, 1997 Mr Bogle gave a speech on Parallaxes and Taxes which offered some of his thoughts on a few good stocks toward the end of his speech - Indexes and stocks are ok - provided you avoid turnover.

Oh and I'll probably buy some fireworks this 4th (at age 63) - some of us never grow up.
YDNAL
Posts: 13774
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: Biscayne Bay

Post by YDNAL »

unclemick,
Can I nickname you 'the street philosopher'? Your threads are amusing!... sometimes confusing, I might add. :wink:
Regards,
YDNAL
unclemick
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:18 am
Location: greater Kansas City

Post by unclemick »

Since I seem to find myself much of the time in screaming agreement with many of wise sages who post here and having no academic or technical stuff to add much of the time - rather than just say 'Yeah you rite!' - I try to add some lefthandedness humorwise.

I'll let wiser souls than myself put numbers to the perfect plan versus good plan argument - you did recognize my plagerism - right?

Tongue in cheek - my personal experience was my 'imperfect plan' (but low cost, diversified, low turnover) never beat a single 'perfect plan' since 1966 but I did arrive at my destination.

heh heh heh - of course you gotta watch out for the experience of one.
User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 9268
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

You cannot be wrong about "100 > 95"

Post by tadamsmar »

I am not sure what you mean.

I cannot be wrong that my TSM investment dollar is going to beat the average invested dollar in the US market. That's based on the most elementary mathematical laws as Bogle has pointed out. It's not based on EMH or any other theory.

Do you think arithmetic is a religion?
User avatar
tc101
Posts: 3418
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:18 pm
Location: Atlanta - Retired in 2004 at age 54

Post by tc101 »

In response to the original post: Yes we could be wrong. I could be wrong.

Like everything else in life I take in as much information as I can and then make my best guess about the truth but I try to always stay open to the possibility that I may be wrong. If I don't stay open to the possibility that I may be wrong then I become close minded and stop taking in new information.

So I am glad you asked the question. My best guess at this time is that the investment philosophy expressed in this forum is correct, but I could be wrong. I keep reading the counter arguments posted here, but so far have not been persuaded.

For me there are probably deeper questions that deserve more attention than investments. How to be happy, make the world a better place, connect more deeply with other people, things like this probably need more of my attention than investment philosophy. I probably have more wrong ideas in these areas.
User avatar
MossySF
Posts: 2361
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:51 pm
Contact:

Post by MossySF »

If the strategy of low-cost passive investments turns out wrong, that means others following different strategies will have more money than me. I say good for them. Has no impact on my plans as I won't get jealous over the returns of others.
User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 15157
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Post by White Coat Investor »

If I'm wrong I'll simply work longer. Same thing that happens if I'm wrong that stocks will outperform bonds. Same thing that happens if I'm wrong about my overall investment returns. Same thing that happens if I live a more expensive lifestyle than I currently plan. No biggie.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course
hans37

Post by hans37 »

Being "RIGHT" is simply overrated. IMHO
User avatar
jim
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:57 pm

Never stop asking questions

Post by jim »

We are immersed in dogma (Bogleheads) and ritual (indexing). But as this and the other forum show, none of us has our head burried in the sand.

The key as it has always been, throughout human history is education. We know, we are what we are. But are not so stupid as to beleve we are right without question and stop seeking improvement.

Sorry about the sudden urge to wax philosophical.
tacitus7
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:54 pm
Location: Marinette, Wisconsin

Relativism vs. Absolutism

Post by tacitus7 »

Interesting original post, and responses.

On a practical level, we need to avoid extremes to continue to function. If we come to believe that we can not know the truth, we will all simply stop posting here, unless our goal is simply power, control, or the "thrill" of winning people over to our view. We would become cynics or have no motivation to invest, maybe even to live at all!

On the other hand, if we are so convinced of our views that we think they can not be wrong, we will stagnate, become self righteous, rude, "opinionated", and become more and more out of touch with reality.

The middle way, is to recognize that we can come to know the truth. That we should share it with others. But we also should recognize we can get things wrong so that we need to continue to dialogue and think and learn from one and other.

That being said, IMO the basic diehard approach is accurate and helpful. And out of the goodness of the hearts of so many of those who participate here, there is a strong motivation to share this truth with others. If some of what we share is not true, then if we take the middle way, we will all benefit as we help one and other get closer and closer to the truth. "And the truth will set us free."

Joe E.
User avatar
Topic Author
jeff mc
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: minnesota
Contact:

Re: Never stop asking questions

Post by jeff mc »

jim wrote:We are immersed in dogma (Bogleheads) and ritual (indexing). But as this and the other forum show, none of us has our head burried in the sand.

The key as it has always been, throughout human history is education. We know, we are what we are. But are not so stupid as to beleve we are right without question and stop seeking improvement.

Sorry about the sudden urge to wax philosophical.
2 kinds of people: those who don't know but think they do, and those that don't know but know they don't (or something like that)

waxing philosophical is exactly the point of this thread... so, onward descartes, and socrates, and kant. on hume and darwin and pascal (nobody unfort. rhymes w/ vixon except nixon, and i don't think he's generally considered a philosopher)

sorry to bump this thread after 4 days, but i've been offline all week. so, we drove home late evening, arriving home very early morning (gotta strategerize w/ 2 preschoolers), and after unloading the bare necessities, and bedding the kids, i went online to check 1) email, 2) work email, and 3) diehards.org the wife was incredulous... after hours on the road, a week at the beach, and in the middle of the night, how did i muster the strength/energy/interest to power up? behold the power of the bogleheads!

so, i left this thread mid-waxing, but i didn't want the diehards to crash and trash my house by announcing i was gone, like this poor brit >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 553763.stm just wanted to check in, and recognize the interesting thoughts put on plastic here. thanks. i enjoyed all the responses.
workingatit
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:16 pm

Post by workingatit »

way to go chuck, you're keeping it live
Post Reply