Comment by WalterBright
3 days ago
> I've ironically lost more money the more closely I've paid attention to my investments
Money Magazine a few years ago compared various investment strategies in stocks. The #2 best performing one was investing in the S&P 500. The #1 best performing strategy was the "dead man strategy".
The dead man strategy comes into play when the investor dies, and his estate gets frozen until it winds its way through the courts. It turns out that doing nothing with your stock investments is (statistically) the best strategy.
I know for a fact that when I do nothing with my stocks, they also perform better.
A few years ago cost structures for managing one's investment portfolios were also significantly higher than today!
There's an even better alternative for someone willing to put in the leg work:
(1) Figure out your investment horizon. For many people, this is way shorter than suggested by generic advice, which makes some diversification beyond "stonks go up" meaningful.
(2) Figure out what costs you'll incur by rebalancing etc.
(3) Write a short script that optimises the amount of activity in portfolio management that improves performance over your investment horizon, given your costs.
Unsurprisingly, the result can vary a lot between people. The result is most likely going to involve a very low level of activity, but the process of finding it out is very informative.
What I've found out (and this is replicated also by more authoritative people like Carver) is that for almost everyone, mixing in some 10--20 % of a safer asset like 10 year bonds and rebalancing yearly outperforms a pure equity portfolio over most realistic investment horizons.
Agree with you 100%, I did the same simulations and found the same result.
I would suggest a step beyond though, because rebalancing your portfolio is fun year 1-5, but not so fun year 5-20: have a look at e.g. Vanguard retirement target funds.
Essentially, it's an ETF with a rebalancing rule included for a specific target date. For instance if you buy the target 2050 (your hypothetical retirement age), the ETF rebalances itself between bonds/monetary fund/stocks until it reaches that date, u til it's pretty much all cash in 2050.
Lowest hassle diversified retirement scheme I found.
Nope not all cash, it goes down to around 50% stocks at the target date (and actually continues to get slightly more conservative after). Just look at the current portfolio of the Vanguard 2025 fund: https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-fun...
You still need to be invested in equities at retirement otherwise inflation just eats away at the value of the cash
3 replies →
My target date 2050 funds have performed 50% less than my S&P 500 and like 30/40% less than my total stock market fund.
3 replies →
This is one of those things where again, one will have to weigh the costs of both alternatives. A rebalancing ETF usually has higher costs (management fees, but possibly also internal trading costs that show up as performance beneath benchmark index), but of course, manually rebalancing also has a cost – the cost of one's time and effort!
1 reply →
There are scenarios where these target date funds are not good.
Rebalancing into bonds and mmmfs is a form of insurance against catastrophic losses equities. But if you have a sufficiently large account then catastrophic losses that affect your life are extremely rare, if they do occur they will likely affect your bond portfolio as well, and the expected loss vs 100% equities over 15-20 years is significant, something like 10x the value of the insurance you are buying.
If you want insurance for a large account then long-dated put options 20% of the money are much cheaper.
I want to learn more about how to rebalance my portfolio. I started with ETFs and MFs and then bought some good stocks when they were low. But I have never rebalanced it. Would you be able to share some resources about it? Also, if possible, some pointers about your script.
Rebalancing is just selling the high performers and buying the low performers. In his example, you'd keep your "safe asset" allocation at say 15% - if your other stocks did well one year, you'd sell some and buy more "safe assets" so they again constitute 15% of your total value. If stocks tanked, you'd instead sell some "safe assets" and buy more stocks, again until your "safe assets" are back at 15% of total value.
4 replies →
I'd be interested in reading more literature (e.g. from Carver) if you have any links!
I have only read half of Carver's Smart Portfolios yet but I find myself agreeing with much of it. I have started writing up a review of it sometime soon, although I might not publish it for free in a while!
Doing nothing saves trading costs which are a major drag.
The standard advice for equities investors (at least in the UK) has been to invest in tracker funds for a very long time.
it is possible to beat the market. Many years ago I double my money in approx an year - but I invested heavily in I had been covering as a analyst (one of my previous careers) until immediately before. I am more cautious now.
Trading fees are at or near zero in the US now unless you mean capital gains.
Not what I meant, but capital gains are another issue, but I am not in the US. In the UK we pay a 0.5% tax on ever transaction and often around £10 per transaction, so its quite substantial. I should probably have said costs, not fees.
How much are total costs in the US?
If you trade frequently even low costs add up. If its 0.1% and you trade monthly it ends up being 1.2% over the course of an year.
22 replies →
You also pay a spread every time you trade, especially if you're using a retail brokerage like robin hood that sells order flow to market makers.
It doesn't show up anywhere in your statement, but it's a real trading fee nonetheless, so it's still better not to trade too much
1 reply →
The explicit fees are near zero, but if you watch your trade you always get an adverse price.
1 reply →
You pay the spread and you also have impact in the market.
1 reply →
Just yesterday it was announced that Bitfinex will be returned the 95,000 bitcoin that were lost in a 2016 hack. These coins will be returned to the account holders which were affected by the hack.
At the time the bitcoins were lost, they were worth ~$575 each.
Today those returned tokens are worth close to $100,0000 each.
I doubt anyone who was affected by that hack realized they just got involuntarily forced into the best investment of their lives.
> These coins will be returned to the account holders which were affected by the hack.
I haven't seen any reporting on that. Bitfinex, the corporate entity, is receiving the coins recovered from the feds. It's up to Bitfinex how they device to dole out those funds, if at all.
When these things happen, often times exchanges will make their customers whole by giving back the monetary value of the coins at time of loss. It's very rare they repay them 1:1 in bitcoin.
IANAL but it seems like whoever is running Bitfinex should endeavour to make all the creditors whole in whatever medium their debt was denominated, according to seniority. So if they owe users X BTC and other creditors Y USD, and the BTC debts are senior, they should hand out the BTC to users regardless of its dollar value and, if there is any left, auction it off for the benefit of the (junior, in this scenario) USD creditors.
1 reply →
https://support.bitfinex.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003282929-...
Apparently they created a token that entitles you to the lost bitcoin should they be recovered.
Interesting part of the story is the hacker who stole them is a YC alumni, he founded mixrank. Kid only got 5 years in prison for stealing $1B.
This doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
Most of my investing is just in passive S&P index funds, but I do occasionally buy individual shares.
Sometimes I make decent money, sometimes I lose money…turns out I consistently do worse than the S&P long term.
I treat buying individual shares as yuppie gambling at this point. It can be fun, but it’s usually a bad strategy.
> I treat buying individual shares as yuppie gambling at this point. It can be fun, but it’s usually a bad strategy.
I would actually recommend the opposite - buy shares of a few companies that you know exceptionally well. That is, not just the companies, but also the market, the industry trends, etc. Charlie Munger recommends holding 5 stocks at max, while Peter Lynch suggests industries that are tangential to your work and daily life. Both solid advice. Revisit the list every year, and you'll already do better than most of the blind duds investing in the S&P500 (which arguably contains a lot of duds).
The problem with most ETFs is that you'll still be investing in a bunch of dud companies, whose only reason for staying in the market is by virtue of being big (think HPs and IBMs, for example).
The problem with ETFs is that many of them have crazy management fees.
Don't just blindly buy an ETF that fits your investment goals. Many of those bespoke ETFs have 1%+ management fees.
You can look up how even a 1% fee can gobble up piles of money over years.
3 replies →
> I treat buying individual shares as yuppie gambling at this point. It can be fun, but it’s usually a bad strategy.
Naw, that's boomer gambling.
Options are yuppie gambling.
I thought that was shorting biotech stock days before clinical trial results get announced?
1 reply →
The conventional wisdom is to sell your profitable stocks, to "lock in your gains", and sell your losers to "cut your losses."
I call that "minimizing your gains" and "locking in your losses", and just hold instead. If I "locked in the gains" I would have missed out on 10x returns.
Of course, I did ride Enron all the way to zero (!), but it didn't matter. Think of it this way - buy 10 stocks. 3 go to zero. 6 have modest returns. 1 is a 10x winner, that more than makes up for the failures, and becomes the tentpole for your assets.
I have a friend who retired, and decided to go into day trading. He spent hours each day glued to the trading portal, making trades. After a year, he ruefully admitted that he'd have made significantly more money if he'd simply done nothing.
Sometimes I ask GPT to run Bayesian analyses on varying hypotheses. I just did that for the several parent comments to see if we could get some reasons as to "why day trading doesn't work." Perhaps this will amuse you as well: https://chatgpt.com/share/67888cf4-1aa4-8011-b46b-77e5e9da12...
2 replies →
> 1 is a 10x winner
out of 10 stocks, 1 being a 10x winner is an absolutely rarity and the fact that you would manage to pick it is pure luck tbh.
Oh there's more luck required than that. You have to get lucky many times to win at a 10x stock.
- You have to be lucky enough to find it when it's cheap.
- You have to be lucky enough to hold on to it even if it loses money
- You have to be lucky enough to not sell it when it's at only 5x and hold off for the top
- you have to be lucky enough to have bought enough initially that the return is meaningful to you
These are the thoughts that made me clean up how I invest and stop thinking I'll get lucky at some point just rolling the dice. It's way more luck required than just buying in early.
1 reply →
QQQ is up 5x in 10 years. Being an ETF, that means many of its components must be 10x.
I suppose it's dependent on your time horizon. MSFT is up around 10x since Nadella took over. It's more common over 20 years, obviously.
8 replies →
I've done it repeatedly over the past ten years while DCA'ing. I basically made my own custom funds with 5-10 stocks, set daily purchases for a specific amount, and didn't think about it. Unfortunately I didn't invest enough each time for the amount to be significant, and I also stopped DCA'ing as soon as I couldn't resist checking, saw that I had reached or was approaching a 10% loss in my overall DCA portfolio, and stopped the auto-buys because I felt like I was starting to burn money, when this was actually the best time to continue investing. I haven't sold anything either though. Overall I'm up 80%, which is only $50k.
I think DCA is the most effective investment strategy. Unfortunately I don't have the discipline to keep it up during a downturn. Next time I try it again with picked stocks will be my 4th time, but for now, I'm doing it with index funds. I'm not going to feel as inclined to pause my purchases during an index fund downturn.
3 replies →
Exactly. I started buying NVDA in 2020 and I still hold almost all of it.
If you do rebalancing then you might as well hold an ETF that does it for you at the lowest cost. If you hold individual equities, keep your winners.
This reminds me of that Mythbusters episode in which they test what is the fastest strategy in a traffic jam or congestion - switching lanes or keeping your lane. IIRC the result was that it's the same, but zigzagging makes you feel it's faster
So invest in s&p 500 and do nothing, right? That's a good strategy for someone young, because it makes sense to be risk tolerant then. As you age you want more and more of your portfolio in bonds/cash, because you want the reduced fluctuation in purchasing power (i.e. comfort) that that brings you. These are the bare fundamentals of portfolio management.
Did they include the Monkeys?
"Most successful chimpanzee on Wall Street" - https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-succ...
How can I use the 'dead man strategy' if I've just started investing and don't own any stocks?
Because if I already need to have some stocks, than this being the #1 strategy feels like those advice that you get on the internet where if you want to be rich just get born into a wealthy family.
Statistically probably true, but not really doable. :/
I feel like you can only do the 'dead man strategy' when your already dead, since before that it's probably better to keep adding money into the portfolio.
This is the same for cryptocurrency. The people who lost accessa and subsequently regained it usually made more than those with ready access who sold earlier or played the market.
> turns out that doing nothing with your stock investments is (statistically) the best strategy
The only thing a small investor can control are fees. Minimising transactions minimises fees.
You also get heavily taxed for the short term gains.
P.S. I'm not a financial advisor. Make your own decisions.
I can think of at least one situation, like expiring options, that you wouldn't want to have happening during your "court frozen" period...
I assume that in-the-money options are automatically exercised at expiration in the dead-man situation?
Yes, they will automatically exercise if your dead, the same way they auto execute when you are alive. I have sold many options over the years, with many of them exercising. If they expire ITM, you don't have a choice (whether dead or alive) past expiration.
1 reply →
Do you have a link to that article?
I wish I had clipped and saved it. I can't even tell you what year it was. Sorry. But what I wrote is all one needs to know about it.
Here's a similar article:
https://www.businessinsider.com/forgetful-investors-performe...
Thanks anyway, this is still interesting.
That's worked for me, for well over 30 years.