arrow57 Comments
  1. Doctor Stock
    Jan 12 - 2:17 am

    Thanks for the review. Of note for me was the comment regarding the individual investor’s responsibility to shape their own investment strategy. I’ll take a look for it tomorrow on the shelves of Amazon :).

  2. Michael James
    Jan 12 - 10:30 am

    Thanks for the mention. I think this book would be helpful to anyone willing to think about a rational approach to investing. For active investors, it might force them to come up with an explanation for why they think they can beat the market (rather than just go with a gut feel).

  3. Jess Valenzuela
    Jan 12 - 11:04 am

    I employ this strategy

    “but on defensive strategies such as cutting costs, paying attention to taxes and sticking to a well-thought out plan.”

    And didn’t know, it’s called Defensive Strategies.

  4. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 12 - 11:21 am

    The problem with this book is that the author falls into the index-zealot’s trap of assuming that all “active investing” retail investors are stock pickers who arre overmatched by their professional counterparts, and their access to more and better information. A better apprach for the retail investor is to choose equity mutual funds from the best mutual fund managers, from time to time. This way, they are NOT competing against proffessionals; rather they have an all-star team of pofessionals investing for them. The information which allows retail investors to pick winning managers is readily available from sites such as Globefund, and the additional MER charge is easily offset by the superior results achieved. Yes, some (perhaps many) retail investors can do better than indexing.

  5. Michael James
    Jan 12 - 11:38 am

    Dale: Ellis argues, rather convincingly, that while it used to be possible for some professionals to outperform, it is no longer possible except by luck. Rather than hurling insults, you might consider reading his arguments and countering them if you disagree.

  6. Canadian Capitalist
    Jan 12 - 11:58 am

    @Dale: Ellis knows a thing or two about active management. After all, he has spent an entire career on Wall Street. He clearly explains in the book what he means by active investing and it includes picking professionals who can invest for you. Ellis thinks that investors should avoid the active game (and explains why) entirely. Maybe you should first read the book and try and find holes in Ellis’ arguments. My bet is that you’ll find none.

  7. Four Pillars
    Jan 12 - 2:04 pm

    I just checked out Dale’s website. Looks like he’s a big fan of the “October Strategy”. Very original!

    The newsletter pricing scheme is quite innovative, but it seems to be quite unfair to new subscribers if the price is really high because of past good returns.

  8. NN
    Jan 12 - 2:42 pm

    CC, I am amazed at your patience…

    I would be very frustrated after so many arguments with somebody immune to logic.

    Haven’t commented in a while, still read your blog daily though.

  9. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 12 - 3:00 pm

    CC; MJ and 4 Pillars It is possible for a small and well chosen group of managers to out perform any index FOR SHORT PERIODS OF TIME — (3 months) — simply by virtue of being invested in “hot” countries or industrial sectors. With the internet it is easy for retail investors to find these hot managers. Are you only interested in hearing from index-cheerleaders, or do you also welcome other viewpoints?

  10. Michael James
    Jan 12 - 3:40 pm

    Dale: I’m with you on the first part: managers definitely do outperform for short periods of time. The part that I’ve never seen any evidence for is “it is easy for retail investors to find these hot managers.” I welcome other viewpoints, but I won’t pay you to hear them.

  11. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 12 - 4:29 pm

    MJ Read Dr. Appel’s “Beating the Market 3 Months at a Time” Financial Times Press 2008. You should stop trusting authors who represent Fund Companies who can only profit if investors don’t cause them “excessive paperwork” (administrative expense) by buying and selling more frequently than once per year or two.

  12. Canadian Capitalist
    Jan 12 - 4:56 pm

    @Dale: Isn’t it a bit rich that someone selling newsletter subscriptions based on a purportedly market-beating strategy calls an author (I take it you are referring to Ellis in your comment) who happens to be a director at Vanguard of self-interest? Pot calling a kettle black comes to mind.

    Last I checked October Strategy is *your* strategy and we have no obligation to read anything. You have a website, so knock yourself out explaining why it is such a great strategy and why you expect it to work in the future. As for me, I think I’ve already said “no, thanks!” and explained my reasons in other posts.

  13. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 12 - 5:45 pm

    CC Yes, both my comments and my porfolio are both somewhat “rich”, comparitively speaking. I have long ago stopped trying to convert you or the other index-zealots, who also profit from ads on their blogs read by readers who like to hear cheerleading for the sleepy portfolios that you and they say is a good strategy.

    What did your index portfolios do over the last 8 years? Did they even beat GICs? Assuming that my subscribers were half-invested in fixed income, their returns were 9%. Aggressive, equity only investors averaged 14%.

    You certainly have no obligation to read anything other than index-cheerleading from Vanguard Fund-sellers, unless you wish to fully fulfill your blog’s subtitile which reads, “Helping (Readers) Invest and Prosper”. No indexers “prospered” in any meanignful way over the last number of years. My group did.

  14. E
    Jan 12 - 6:13 pm

    @Dale: Even Warren Buffett recommends index funds for the average investor, and it’s not like he “sells” index funds. Go figure. :S

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/e-zines/trade-by-numbers/warren-buffett-sings-a-different-tune-in-his-advice-to-investors/article1384364/

  15. Canadian Capitalist
    Jan 12 - 6:13 pm

    Turns out the book you mention is available on Google Finance. The relevant bits are in Chapter 4.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=HPEhbiple3kC&lpg=PP1&dq=Gerald%20Appel&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    I’ll let readers judge the quality of supposed “research” for themselves but I’ll add my two cents. The entire momentum strategy is based on two “studies”: one showing picking the top two best asset classes of the previous quarter beats the market by 5 percentage points in the period between 1979 to 2007. The other shows picking a mutual fund in a similar fashion based on prior quarter’s performance beat the performance of all funds.

    I have a few comments:

    (1) These so-called “studies” are another classic example of data snooping. For instance, why start in 1979, when good quality stock market data goes back all the way to 1926? I suspect the answer is that returns weren’t so hot in other periods. Also, recall that other data snooping techniques have failed miserably in real life. Remember the Foolish Four? Or the Dogs of the Dow?

    (2) The mutual fund “study” has significant survivor bias because it only looks at funds that survived. In any case, there is no mention of how the strategy performed against the index, only that the top quartile funds performed better than the next quartile and so on. Why leave out this information?

    (3) Any strategy that involves as much turnover as selling your investments every three months will have significant taxes in taxable accounts.

    So, I go back to the 2 questions I had in my previous post: (1) Where is the evidence that this strategy has outperformed in the past? and (2) Why should this strategy succeed in the future? I’m still waiting for these answers.

  16. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 12 - 6:32 pm

    You need to read p 64 of “Beating The Market 3 Months at a Time” which has a chart showing that momentum beat the Vanguard S&P 500 Index by 2% per year from 1986 – 2006. You also need to consider my strategy over the last # of years, in comparison to yours. (14% versus 3%).

    The reason that we should not look at data prior to the 1980s is that mutual funds didn’t really exist in their present form untill the 80s. Prior to that they were really blue chip index funds.

    Your “survivor bias” argument is specious because momentous investors only invest in non-dog funds. It is only dog-funds that fail to survive.

    Your taxation argument has partial merit; if you use a momentum strategy in a non-registered accouint you will pay more tax than if you use a lesser strategy, because you will have higher capital gains. Other than that, the capital gain rate is the same on index funds and “active” funds.

    Any other myths that you would like me to debunk?

  17. Canadian Capitalist
    Jan 12 - 6:46 pm

    @Dale: You sound like the guy who runs through a dynamite factory with a lighted match and brags about it because he survived. Just because for the 2002-2009 time period, your strategy beat the benchmark (what’s your benchmark anyway?) doesn’t mean the odds are favourable in the future. You might want to brush up on the different between ex-ante and ex-post when it comes to investment returns.

    And since you ask, a 50% bond, 50% TSX allocation would have returned 7.6% over 8 years. The TSX would have returned 7.9% over 8 years. Whether your portfolio returns are better than mine is immaterial to this discussion. What is material is how your portfolio performed against your benchmarks. With that in mind, the returns posted above are public and verifiable. Your returns published on your website are unaudited claims that I’m assuming to be true.

  18. Canadian Capitalist
    Jan 12 - 6:56 pm

    @Dale: Except that hot funds have a distressing habit of turning stone cold. And such funds are not included in the study because they would have been killed off in the future and disappear from the list of funds that cease to exist. So “survivor bias” is very relevant to studies of this nature and it doesn’t even merit a mention in this study.

    You completely lost me on capital gains being the same on an index fund you buy-and-hold and an active fund you turnover every three months. You may want to brush up on the effect that capital gains taxes paid on a regular basis have on investment returns and how it affects compounding. I have a hint for you: your supposed 2% advantage will evaporate pretty quick if you are paying capital gains every year.

  19. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 12 - 7:30 pm

    My 14% average return portfolio performed very well against all benchmarks, including all index-benchmarks. I don’t understand why you are touting a 50% TSX index; yours is weighted heavily in favour of the US. But I beat a 50% TSX index by a wide margin — (6%). In my humble experience, hot funds do not often turn stone cold in the next ensuing 3 months that we own them. Your “survivorship bias” point is therefor hard for me to counter, except intuitively.

    You may be right that a 2% advantage with dissapear quickly when taxes are considered; however my advantage on equities was more like 7%. Will that get eaten up? I should also add that most of my subscribers use my momentum strategy for their registered accounts, so the taxation point is moot to them.

    I can’t guarentee that my returns in the future will be as stellar as in the past; but you can’t guarantee the future of your system either. All we can do is postulate that what has typically worked in the past will likely continue to work in the future. Neither of us can do better than that.

    It seems that you doubt my past returns. I have a proposition for you. Why don’t you organize your friends into signing up for continuous trial subscriptions for $1.05 and monitor and post my ongoing future results?

  20. badcaleb
    Jan 12 - 7:48 pm

    Or this can be settled by meeting at 3 o’clock next to the monkey bars.

  21. Sampson
    Jan 12 - 8:42 pm

    MONKEY B-A-R-S!!!!

    No offense to this community…I do like most of you ;)

    But if I had 14% returns over the past 8 years, I wouldn’t spend anytime on the internet. I be off sailing the World on a continuous basis, or enter your favorite financial freedom dream here.

    I would also hazard that Dale should contact Warren Buffet directly since he poured millions and millions of dollars at Goldman Sachs and GE for a measly 10% per year.

    MONKEY B-A-R-S!!!!

  22. Canadian Capitalist
    Jan 12 - 9:33 pm

    @badcaleb, @Sampson: I’m telling you, monkey bars is starting to sound so much more appealing :)

  23. B.C. Doc
    Jan 13 - 4:05 am

    14% return over 8 years? If it sounds to good to be true…

  24. B.C. Doc
    Jan 13 - 4:06 am

    14% return over 8 years? If it sounds too good to be true…

  25. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 13 - 11:08 am

    @BC Doc and Sampson Don’t forget that I have earned 14% on my equities, but much less on my fixed income assets (half of my portfolio). Also, the Securities Commissions are charged with the task of crushing false claims; if my subscribers had achieved less than my posted returns, someone would likely have complained over the last 8 years, and I would have been fined or shut down like Brian Costello, not to mention disbarred by my Law Society. Earning 14% on one half of my nest-egg has been good for my portfolio, but it doesn’t yet allow me to sail around the world in a yacht. It did, however, allow me to cut back to working half-time at age 47, and to act like a beach bum in the summers.

    E Warren Buffet recommends indexing for the “average investor”; people who read this blog are typically sophisticated enough to do better than average.

  26. Matt
    Jan 13 - 11:13 am

    Is this argument based on someone really saying that stocks they picked gained 14% per annum, or are they saying that the stocks they bought gained 14% per annum. There is a difference. If you pick the stock and don’t buy them, you deserve a drubbing for even talking about it. I’ll be at the monkey bars at 3 p.m.

  27. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 13 - 11:37 am

    Matt Average anaual gain on actual mutual funds purchased from 2002 -2009. See http://www.octoberstrategy.com.

  28. Sampson
    Jan 13 - 12:07 pm

    Dale,

    While I am a believer of indexing simply because most people don’t take the necessary time required to invest properly, I also don’t think 14% per annum is necessarily attractive. I would hazard that without the inclusion of last October, your strategy was NOT outperforming the markets. In fact, at the peak the TSX has easily been up well above 14% per annum.

    So if another significant downturn does not occur over the next 20 years, your strategy should lag behind most market index based strategies. My question to you is whether you know when the next one is coming?

    There are no silver bullets. If the strategy was so easily adopted, then why do not all professionals use it, or if they are not aware, why are you not employed by Goldman Sachs? Their bonuses are sufficient to fuel the my ‘dream’ over a single year.

  29. E
    Jan 13 - 12:52 pm

    “E Warren Buffet recommends indexing for the “average investor”; people who read this blog are typically sophisticated enough to do better than average.”

    While that is true, it seems that even though they are sophisticated, they are quite content with average.

    CC made an earlier note about if a strategy is that effective in producing better than average results other people would jump on it, and arbitrage it away so that it eventually becomes average. It would be a tough sell to assume that a part-time lawyer, no matter how intelligent, would have the same tools or time as a professional investor who sits on complex tools and a constant stream of information.

    Hey, if you’re doing that well for yourself, than good for you. You should be proud that you’re doing well and better than average. But it would be unwise to wrestle against people who are going with the empirical evidence that low-cost index funds in the long run is the best strategy, especially since you’re trying to hawk your newsletter by making unsubstantiated claims. As a skeptical outsider, it actually smells of Ponzi, and so caveat emptor.

    If you’re that good, why not set up your own mutual fund? With a 3% MER you could do even better for yourself, and get to that yacht in no time.

    Anyways, one has to be curious about your losses, because there’s always losses, even among Warren Buffett types…unless of course you’re saying you’re better than them… *raises eyebrow*

  30. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 13 - 12:55 pm

    Sampson You seem to be of the view that we did 14% last year; we did 24% in2009. 14% is our average 8 year annual gain. It is true that single country indexes have out-performed my multi-country portfolios from time to time. My strategy is not perfect, just very good.

    I don’t know when the next bear is coming; only liars and fools claim this degree of prescience.

    Many professionals do employ this strategy; I stole most of it from others. I too hope that Goldman does come knocking, but so far I have to settle for a subscription list of a few hundred.

  31. Michael James
    Jan 13 - 12:59 pm

    Dale: Is your 14% average gain on equities for the past 8 years an arithmetic average or a compounded average? If it is an arithmetic average, what is the compounded average?

  32. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 13 - 1:03 pm

    E I am not smart enough to be a good stock-picker and to outdo the pros. I am smart enough to be a good fund-picker, 3 months at a time, which is a lot easier. Globefund’ s and Paltrac’s screeners are set up specifically to make this easy. CC says that my good returns will get arbitraged away. Time will tell, but I believe that his argument is based on the “January effect” and other “get in sooner than others” theories for market-beating. I don’t think that momentum and autumn-abstinence suffer from this weakness, because intuitively, the more people that join in, the better the momentum, and the more people that practice autumn abstinence, the bigger the carnage, and the better for us who sit on the sidelines in the fall.

  33. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 13 - 1:04 pm

    MJ average returns; compound return is better but I can’t recall how much better.

  34. Michael James
    Jan 13 - 1:15 pm

    Dale: The word “average” is used to mean different things. By “average” do you mean that you added up the 8 yearly returns and divided by 8? This is an arithmetic average. The arithmetic average is always higher than the compound average. If you give the 8 yearly returns, I can calculate what I’m interested in.

  35. Canadian Capitalist
    Jan 13 - 1:23 pm

    @Michael: I checked Dale’s numbers and yes, he uses the arithmetic mean of 14.1%. The geometric mean is 13.27%. So, there goes another 1% in outperformance.

    @Dale: A gentle suggestion — you have to use numbers precisely. Using arithmetic mean is not kosher when it comes to looking at compounded annualized returns. If I quoted the arithmetic average for the TSX for the past 8 years, it works out to 10.26%. I also notice that all your return numbers are nicely rounded out to whole numbers, which I take have been rounded as well.

    Sampson makes a valid point. When I compare your returns with the benchmark (TSX Composite), I find that your numbers beat the index in 5 out of 8 years and trailed the index in 3 out of 8:

    2002: 22.4%
    2003: 8.3%
    2004: -9.5%
    2005: 0.9%
    2006: 6.7%
    2007: -9.3%
    2008: 23%
    2008: -11.1%

    For all I know, one more year of underperformance could easily wipe out the excess gains you are so proud about. Has it ever crossed your mind that it is possible that the entire outperformance is a statistical quirk of looking at a small sample set that is skewed by a couple of outliers? I think it is a definite possibility.

  36. NN
    Jan 13 - 1:41 pm

    Dale, you are contradicting yourself:

    “I don’t think that momentum and autumn-abstinence suffer from this weakness, because intuitively, the more people that join in, the better the momentum, and the more people that practice autumn abstinence, the bigger the carnage, and the better for us who sit on the sidelines in the fall.”

    And this is supposedly *not* a “get in sooner than others” strategy?

    I guess I’m dum

  37. NN
    Jan 13 - 1:48 pm

    From the posted annual returns, the compounded return is 3.143%….

  38. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 13 - 2:16 pm

    CC Something is amiss with your chart of TSX index returns; you have listed 2008 twice, and I don’t think 2008 showed positive returns. You are correct in your assertion that we need to use numbers precisely. Based on your chart (with some type of typo) it seems that I beat the TSX in 7 out of 8 years; moreover, when I beat it, I tended to beat it by a large margin. Let’s look at compound rates of return, (or total return), and let’s look at real world portfolios — few index portfolios over the last 8 years were, or should have been so undiversified as to be only invested in the TSX — that is too little diversification for most prudent investors. Your sleepy portfolio was better diversified than that — so was mine. Let’s compare your returns with mine, or let’s compare mine with anything else — because as soon as anything else starts to look better than mine I will steal it, if I can for the benefit of my portfolio and my subscribers, or I will join it if I can’t steal it. I have a 7 figure nest-egg, and if my own portfolio returns can be improved upon, I will renounce my October Strategy for the benefit of my nest-egg, because the improved return in my portfolio will out-weigh the money I earn from subscriptions. That is why I continously monitor your sleepy portfolio, the Stingy Investor, the guys at Contra the Heard, the pundits in the Money letter, and those in Cdn Money Saver. I’m always looking for a better system. When I find it I will join it.

    NN I don’t know how to better convince you; if you get in sooner on a momentum strategy you will do about the same as those who pile on later. Not so, for the late comers in a January effect strategy, which CC is probably correct in stating will probably “get arbitraged away to average” over time.

  39. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 13 - 2:19 pm

    NN My compound return is not 3%; it depends on how often you compound, but it is better than 14%.

  40. E
    Jan 13 - 2:20 pm

    @Dale:
    “I am not smart enough to be a good stock-picker and to outdo the pros. I am smart enough to be a good fund-picker, 3 months at a time, which is a lot easier.”

    So you’re one of those mutual fund active traders, using the get-out-3-months-after-so-you-don’t-get-penalized technique. So you’re jacking up the costs for the long-term holders. Nice. This convinces me that the penalty should be in effect for longer than 3 months…

    Do your returns factor in the cost of front/rear-load costs, or are you conveniently forgetting those?

  41. E
    Jan 13 - 2:31 pm

    On a side note, healthy debates are good for getting different perspectives on an issue, and while I do enjoy the heat of this particular battle, is it not getting to be a bit much?

    CC has convinced me that low-cost index is the way to go (and I just started reviewing the blog a couple months ago, but), by providing evidence and support from many sources for his position. While they could be construded as being one-sided, at least he’s providing much to review. Dale, on the other hand, your side is very much anecdodal and doesn’t provide much strength for any counterview you may have. Even your “blog” doesn’t provide much and looks more like one of those ads that propose that I could make $14,000 a day by watching TV on my couch (of course, your side is not as extreme). Anyways, in this debate, your side has lost to CC’s side by a significantly large margin. Considering your profession is that of a lawyer, you’d think you would know how to provide compeling evidence to support your case.

  42. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 13 - 2:31 pm

    E If you use a deep discount broker you pay no loads. All of the big banks now have such deep discount brokerage arms, and yes, I am probably driving up the MERs. Sorry!

  43. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 13 - 2:35 pm

    E Why don’t you lay out a whole $1 for a trial subscription, and then monitor and post my future real world results for the whole wide world to see, and compare to any other well reasoned investment strategy. Would that possibly convince you?

  44. Michael James
    Jan 13 - 2:43 pm

    Dale: Compound returns do not depend on how often you compound. Taking the figures from your web site plus the 24% you said for 2009, your arithmetic return is 14.2% and your compound return is 13.3% as CC said. His table is your excess return over the TSX composite. I’m guessing that the last 2008 is just a typo and should be 2009.

    CC: Where do you get your TSX total return figures? I can’t seem to remember and Google search is failing me.

  45. E
    Jan 13 - 2:47 pm

    I’m too much of a sheep…I’ll settle for average, and let someone else do the thinking for me…Baaaahhhh…

    In principle, I have this habit of not paying people who make claims on how their techniques can make me rich – regardless if it’s $1 or not. But thanks for the offer anyways.

  46. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 13 - 2:58 pm

    MJ I am not a mathemetician but I think that you are wrong in saying that the frequency of compounding is irrelevant. Thanks for proding me on what CC’s chart is all about. I now see that I trailed the TSX in 3 years out of 8, but did I trail any real-world portfolios, in any meaningful and consistent way? And if not, am I just a statistal fluke? Those are the real questions. I invite you and CC to monitor my future returns, or to get the Securities Commissions to audit my past returns. I’m open to joining a better system as soon as it starts to consistently out-perform mine. Are you?

  47. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 13 - 3:09 pm

    I will be unable to post further retorts for the next 5 hours as I am leaving for Court. The debate will have to do without me untill tonight.

  48. Matt
    Jan 13 - 3:57 pm

    Spoken like a true lawyer.

  49. Canadian Capitalist
    Jan 13 - 6:55 pm

    @Dale: I suggest that this debate is becoming rather pointless. I’ve already made my points: i.e. it is hard to draw any conclusions from a small sample set of out performance. I’ve also questioned the conclusions drawn in the book that you base your strategy on. It is becoming tedious going over the same ground over and over and over again.

    I’m subscribing to a couch-potato strategy secure in the belief that it is sure to outperform three-quarters to four-fifths of all other active strategies out there simply by reducing costs and sticking to the plan. Just because markets haven’t been kind in the past decade, I’m not about to abandon it. In fact, I’d like markets to be low in my asset accumulation years. That way, I get to buy into equities at cheap prices.

    Is it possible that your October Strategy will be one of the small minority of strategies that out performs, whether by luck or skill over the truly long-term, i.e. over 20 years? Yes, it is possible. While I doubt that the odds are in your favour, it doesn’t bother me at all that you could out perform. I have no interest in abandoning a good plan in a constant and possibly futile search for a perfect plan, so let’s give it a rest.

    @Michael: You can find the returns data here:

    http://libra-investments.com/Total%20returns.xls

  50. Dale Rathgeber
    Jan 13 - 7:43 pm

    Cc Agreed; keep up the good work you do in keeping your blogging community up to speed on new deveopments in the world of personal finance. Ditto for Michael James. In the pre-blogging era, us dinosaurs were required to pay subscriptions to publications like Cdn Money Saver, Investor’s Digest and the Money Letter. Now you are giving people interested in personal finance a lot of the same type of information for free. That is laudable. In the future, I will only get “into your kitchen” when you disparage all “active investing as ludicrous.” Anything blasphemous that stops short of that will prompt no further outbursts from me.

  51. Lior
    Jan 16 - 5:23 pm

    14% return over the last 8 years is plausible but not for the Cramer Nation. The only people who *could* pull it off are top notch hedge funds and some have indeed posted much higher returns before the market turmoil started in 2007 AND after by shorting financials, energy, commodities, etc. In contrast, the average investor doesn’t possess the tools, talent, financial resources, and knowledge that these funds utilize. And remember that hedge fund investors don’t really care about turnover, tax liabilities, or management fees.

  52. Ranger
    Jan 16 - 7:13 pm

    CC: I think the greatest thing about index investing is that it does not take much time, in fact, very little time once you get a PLAN and STICK WITH IT.

    Every once in a while I get into a funk and start looking for good stocks. I have been following smartdividends, which is a pretty interesting read. BUT, this is a very time consuming thing to do. And as much as one should not look over the shoulder after buying a stock it is unavoidable.

    So if you want a life, or if you have kids and a wife and want to spend time with them (mental time), I think that nothing can beat indexing or ETFs.
    that is, if you want to do it yourself. And I do not think anyone is going to do a better job for you if they are investing in mutual funds. They will cost you more and pay you little attention. Even the “best” companies for money management that will invest solely in stocks usually charge in the 1.5% range and up, and they rarely will include this cost in their returns.

    The one thing I cannot get out of my head is will a long term dividend index fund give you a leg up on the TSX or S$P500? Say something like the Calymore CDZ or CYH?
    Smartdividends loves dividend companies and so does someone like Tom Connolly. But I really do not know what their long term (and I mean >20 yrs) results are like. And to keep track of 20-30 companies is too daunting

    So it would seem that the best strategy is to index.
    Still, every now and then I cannot help but buy what I think is a good deal, like as Teck at $5.

    Love the blog. Keep it up. It keeps me on track.

    Ranger

  53. [...] Book Review: Winning the Loser’s Game | Canadian Capitalist [...]

  54. [...] Ellis is a legendary portfolio manager and author of Winning the Loser’s Game (I reviewed it here). They have combined forces to boil down investing to its elements in this short book that you can [...]

  55. [...] Ellis is a legendary portfolio manager and author of Winning the Loser’s Game (I reviewed it here). They have combined forces to boil down investing to its elements in this short book that you can [...]

  56. [...] Winning the Loser’s Game by Charles Ellis. A classic now in its fifth edition, this book offers timeless strategies for successful investing by one of Wall Street’s legends. My review is available here. [...]

  57. [...] Winning the Loser’s Game by Charles Ellis. A classic now in its fifth edition, this book offers timeless strategies for successful investing by one of Wall Street’s legends. My review is available here. [...]

Leave a Reply

Mobile Theme