Current “game changers”?
-
- Posts: 1574
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:40 pm
- Location: Land of Hypoxia
Current “game changers”?
Seems like investing as a whole has changed a lot in the last decade. I have compiled a list of things which I think are of marked importance.
1. $0.00 commission standard trades. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
2. Mobility. Smart phone, tables, remote internet. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
3. Leverage. Seems like there are more and more ways to use leverage to purchase investment products with leverage even being built into some trading products. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
4. Indexes. There are now indexes created by all kinds of financial entities for all kinds of tilts, sectors, etc. All at very low costs compared to the standard active mutual fund. Investing is cheaper than ever. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
5. ETFs. Who needs mutual funds anymore? An ETF for everyone. Passive, active, hybrid. Can be traded like stocks. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
6. Availability of options trading to the general public.
7. Speed of information. We can get the latest headline about anything in seconds. Can easily lead to creating more frequency and volume.
I think it IS different this time around. The world has changed so much. Overall, investing has gone through huge changes in a very short period of time. It is easier, cheaper and quicker than ever to place a trade. Also, so many way to invest in a non-traditional manner. Not sure how things will be affected in the future, but have a feeling it will look different than the past. Anybody have anything to add to this list?
1. $0.00 commission standard trades. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
2. Mobility. Smart phone, tables, remote internet. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
3. Leverage. Seems like there are more and more ways to use leverage to purchase investment products with leverage even being built into some trading products. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
4. Indexes. There are now indexes created by all kinds of financial entities for all kinds of tilts, sectors, etc. All at very low costs compared to the standard active mutual fund. Investing is cheaper than ever. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
5. ETFs. Who needs mutual funds anymore? An ETF for everyone. Passive, active, hybrid. Can be traded like stocks. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
6. Availability of options trading to the general public.
7. Speed of information. We can get the latest headline about anything in seconds. Can easily lead to creating more frequency and volume.
I think it IS different this time around. The world has changed so much. Overall, investing has gone through huge changes in a very short period of time. It is easier, cheaper and quicker than ever to place a trade. Also, so many way to invest in a non-traditional manner. Not sure how things will be affected in the future, but have a feeling it will look different than the past. Anybody have anything to add to this list?
-
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 12:25 am
- Location: Boston, MA
Re: Current “game changers”?
Fractional shares is another one. Can now invest $100 in a stock or ETF even if the listed price per share is several times that.
"The problem with diversification is that it works, whether or not we want it to"
Re: Current “game changers”?
I think the game is the same as it ever was:
If the game has changed, how should the Boglehead philosophy change?In the short-run, the stock market is a voting machine. Yet, in the long-run, it is a weighing machine.
Re: Current “game changers”?
Fortunately most people are still chasing winners and running from losers. As long as that doesn't change I'll be ok.
-
- Posts: 6011
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm
Re: Current “game changers”?
The philosophy does not change; the implementations of being able to follow it have changed. It really depends on the definition of "game changing".
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
Re: Current “game changers”?
How about social media that let's individual voices go out to the crowd and potentially become viral? Not only does this have implications to social issues and politics, but also investing through meme stocks, bitcoin, and so on.
- asset_chaos
- Posts: 2629
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:13 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Current “game changers”?
You can test your hypothesis that everything over past decade "Creates more trading frequency and volume". A little googling uncovers a Cboe page Historical Market Volume Data. Daily and monthly volume data for most (all?) US stock exchanges, both shares traded and number of trades. Files for 2007 to 2021. For historical context the US census has a spreadsheet that lists annual volume of shares traded on the NYSE from 1970 to 2010.
Regards, |
|
Guy
-
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:27 pm
Re: Current “game changers”?
8. Near zero interest rates
9. National debt > GDP
9. National debt > GDP
Re: Current “game changers”?
Reddit and the influence of the Wall Street group on there
Re: Current “game changers”?
hasn't investing changed in every decade? When I started, mutual funds existed but the choices were thin. Internet didn't exist (for investors). And when I think of it - at the beginning of the decade in which I started, we were on the gold standard.
Don't trust me, look it up. https://www.irs.gov/forms-instructions-and-publications
Re: Current “game changers”?
I think the major factor you mentioned is $0 stock trades for retail investors (and overall fee compression).
Lower fees are a fantastic development for all small investors.
All of the hoopla with WallStreetBets, Robinhood option trading, meme stocks and retail traders is nothing new. Bull markets often bring retail day traders to the fore, but I am grateful that competition from Robinhood motivated Vanguard to eliminate trading commissions.
Lower fees are a fantastic development for all small investors.
All of the hoopla with WallStreetBets, Robinhood option trading, meme stocks and retail traders is nothing new. Bull markets often bring retail day traders to the fore, but I am grateful that competition from Robinhood motivated Vanguard to eliminate trading commissions.
Re: Current “game changers”?
I agree that bull markets bring interest to investing from unlikely, otherwise previously, unengaged retail folks. Yes many do the whole day trading effort when markets are hot. But the Reddit/WSBs activity is different.amphora wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 5:04 pm I think the major factor you mentioned is $0 stock trades for retail investors (and overall fee compression).
Lower fees are a fantastic development for all small investors.
All of the hoopla with WallStreetBets, Robinhood option trading, meme stocks and retail traders is nothing new. Bull markets often bring retail day traders to the fore, but I am grateful that competition from Robinhood motivated Vanguard to eliminate trading commissions.
Organized, targeted campaigns against institutional investors that made them mad for one reason or another. Aside from the fact that historically day traders actually thought they could pick good stocks, and the WSB folks are making money despite knowing the companies aren't worth the prices they are pushing... the big difference is the sophisticated use of options to magnify their market impact.
Re: Current “game changers”?
Things are even more the same as always than they ever were before.
Which reminds me, what happened to HFT? Companies were relocating their data centers to save a few milliseconds on trading time. You don't hear much about that any more.
Which reminds me, what happened to HFT? Companies were relocating their data centers to save a few milliseconds on trading time. You don't hear much about that any more.
Re: Current “game changers”?
I removed an off-topic interchange regarding climate change. As a reminder, see: Non-actionable (Trolling) Topics
If readers can't do anything with the content of a topic other than argue about it, it does not belong here. Examples include:
- US or world economic, political, tax, health care and climate policies
- conspiracy theories of any type
- discussions of the crimes, shortcomings or stupidity of other people, whether they be political figures, celebrities, CEOs, Fed chairmen, subprime mortgage borrowers, lottery winners, federal "bailout" recipients, poor people, rich people, etc. Of course, you are welcome to talk about the stupid financial things you have done.
Re: Current “game changers”?
More ETFs than stocks listed is an interesting one.
Re: Current “game changers”?
10. Very large companies that require very low capital structures relative to size (think programmers in cubes like at Facebook — no capital intensive factories, expensive raw materials, etc).
Re: Current “game changers”?
Custom index funds. The investor feels special by omitting stocks of certain sectors, off-the-shelf ESG funds will not be good enough (in their eyes). The whole complexity of selling this idea, setting it up and maintaining it, will be an income source for financial professionals.
Amateur Self-Taught Senior Macro Strategist
Re: Current “game changers”?
Does anyone feel that these reasons justify ever-increasing P/E ratios and that market P/E ratios which were viewed as lofty in the past are actually justified now that more people have such easy access to buy equities?ChinchillaWhiplash wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:20 pm Seems like investing as a whole has changed a lot in the last decade. I have compiled a list of things which I think are of marked importance.
1. $0.00 commission standard trades. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
2. Mobility. Smart phone, tables, remote internet. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
3. Leverage. Seems like there are more and more ways to use leverage to purchase investment products with leverage even being built into some trading products. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
4. Indexes. There are now indexes created by all kinds of financial entities for all kinds of tilts, sectors, etc. All at very low costs compared to the standard active mutual fund. Investing is cheaper than ever. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
5. ETFs. Who needs mutual funds anymore? An ETF for everyone. Passive, active, hybrid. Can be traded like stocks. Creates more trading frequency and volume.
6. Availability of options trading to the general public.
7. Speed of information. We can get the latest headline about anything in seconds. Can easily lead to creating more frequency and volume.
I think it IS different this time around. The world has changed so much. Overall, investing has gone through huge changes in a very short period of time. It is easier, cheaper and quicker than ever to place a trade. Also, so many way to invest in a non-traditional manner. Not sure how things will be affected in the future, but have a feeling it will look different than the past. Anybody have anything to add to this list?
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4413
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Current “game changers”?
I don't, no. I just think zero cost of capital alone justifies really high P/E ratios. I don't mean to say high P/E's are sustainable. I just mean you can't escape from current reality. It is what it is. If enough people become convinced the cost of capital is going up, then the market will start down. But it takes some level of agreement.
This time is the same
Re: Current “game changers”?
I think there are a couple more game changers including low cost brokers and Bogleheads. The low cost brokers means investors can get a fair shake at the market returns and not pay ridiculous assets under management fees (Vanguard POS only 0.3% vs. 1 to 2% for a full service broker). If an investor needs more help, they can hire someone on an hourly basis. Bogleheads allows the do it yourself investor, through books and this forum, a clear path to follow to be more successful than 80% of investors going through full service brokers.
- Portfolio7
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:53 am
Re: Current “game changers”?
I guess I'm a bit of a dinosaur, or a curmudgeon, when it comes to this topic. I can see how these things have changed the process of investing, but not the essence of it.
I'm still investing pretty much the same way I have for 25+ years. Every month, part of my paycheck goes into my 401K as an Index fund purchase. I'm buying the total market, like I always have. I'm buying bonds like in the past.
In my brokerage, I have lower costs and more variety, and lots of ETFs available... but the essence of it is the same.
Crypto really could change the essence of investing, but it hasn't yet and won't for quite some time if I'm any judge. For now it's just another flash in the pan (that doesn't mean it goes away. Crypto will be with us forever, but not in the current form, I think.)
I'm still investing pretty much the same way I have for 25+ years. Every month, part of my paycheck goes into my 401K as an Index fund purchase. I'm buying the total market, like I always have. I'm buying bonds like in the past.
In my brokerage, I have lower costs and more variety, and lots of ETFs available... but the essence of it is the same.
Crypto really could change the essence of investing, but it hasn't yet and won't for quite some time if I'm any judge. For now it's just another flash in the pan (that doesn't mean it goes away. Crypto will be with us forever, but not in the current form, I think.)
"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest" - Benjamin Franklin
Re: Current “game changers”?
The thing about total marketing indexing is it doesn't depend on the efficient market hypothesis or prices being attached to fundamentals in any way. You are mathematically guaranteed to get the average market returns before costs, and usually well above after said costs. So while the game may change in a sense, total market indexing automatically adapts to those changes.
- ivyhedge
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:59 pm
- Location: A Town of Beans with only one hill remaining
Re: Current “game changers”?
Absolutely, but this is already a substantial revenue driver (internally) for FOs and (externally) for oCIO models - both for ESG and non ESG related efforts.
Forester wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 6:14 am Custom index funds. The investor feels special by omitting stocks of certain sectors, off-the-shelf ESG funds will not be good enough (in their eyes). The whole complexity of selling this idea, setting it up and maintaining it, will be an income source for financial professionals.
Polymath.
Re: Current “game changers”?
Pretty much everything you have pointed out results in an increase in trading frequency and volume.ChinchillaWhiplash wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:20 pm Seems like investing as a whole has changed a lot in the last decade. I have compiled a list of things which I think are of marked importance.
1. ...Creates more trading frequency and volume.
2. ...Creates more trading frequency and volume.
3. ...Creates more trading frequency and volume.
4. ...Creates more trading frequency and volume.
5. ...Creates more trading frequency and volume.
6. Availability of options trading to the general public.
7. ...Can easily lead to creating more frequency and volume.
I think it IS different this time around. The world has changed so much. Overall, investing has gone through huge changes in a very short period of time. It is easier, cheaper and quicker than ever to place a trade. Also, so many way to invest in a non-traditional manner. Not sure how things will be affected in the future, but have a feeling it will look different than the past. Anybody have anything to add to this list?
So that's the difference. We have been seeing the effect for some time now.
Increased trading volume leads to momentum.
Increased trading frequency leads to higher volatility.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 890
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:41 am
Re: Current “game changers”?
I think the only real 'game changers' from all this is:
1. More retail involvement on the stock market going forward and the top active funds (Renaissance Technologies) able to have even greater outsized returns due to more 'dumb money' in the market.
2. Higher P/E ratios because of the lower barrier to entry (is there even a 'barrier' anymore?).
3. 'Investing' becoming a mainstream 'habit'. It seems the idea of 'passive income' has become quite prevalent among the younger community.
4. Stock market potentially having lower returns in the near future as every mom and pop is now investing to 'FIRE'.
5. More financial products readily accessible to the public (robo-advisors, low or no fee margin/borrowing, etc.).
6. Pressure for DTCC to settle trades in T+1 -> T+0.
7. More gamblers in the market. Robinhood has game-ified the market and the younger generation has gotten hooked to it. There's going to be many losers from this and I worry what the repercussions of such could be. More social unrest, conspiracy theorists, etc.?
8. A lot of 'dumb money' making market quite inefficient in the meme space of things. There were many people back in Feb buying SPY puts that would expire in 0 to 1 day in which the only way for the puts to go ITM was for SPY to drop 30% within the day. This is actually mathematically impossible for 0 day expiry.
And these people hold onto the contracts until expiry. This is literally the definition of 'dumb money' == 'free money'. This is just as 'free money' for the other side of the trade as buying risk free assets. Quite crazy.
9. More leverage in the market (and here to stay long term). Again, justifies higher P/E. This also includes products like call options, put options, etc. 3x leveraged ETFs and so on. I assume there might be more extreme stories of 'winners' and 'losers' on both sides.
(more exaggerated ups and downs also due to this effect)
10. More day traders at retail level. Again, this only benefits the very top professionals in the market (e.g.: Renaissance Technologies, Hudson River Trading, Two Sigma, etc.).
Things I am curious about: With more and more retail joining in the market (globally), what could happen to many of the US stocks if there are no stocks to purchase in the market (with people globally all purchasing US equities).
For instance, say a small market cap company A only has 100 shares. But 100 shares are all bought up and there's 200 more purchases in demand every 2 weeks. Except the problem is, those 100 shares are held on 'passive indexes' and the owners have no thoughts selling regardless. How would the 200 biweekly purchases go then (especially if this purchase is through another index fund in which the index has to buy the shares to track the benchmark more closely).
I think the only major changes to this is:
* Markets will most likely have higher P/E ratios going forward (relative to historical P/E).
* There will be more stories of people losing lots of money and gaining lots of money on the media.
* There will be short periods of time in which markets can be very inefficient due to heavy retail involvement (aka 'dumb money'). We all evidenced this with the meme stocks. Quite fascinating how much retail can drive price at the smaller cap firms.
1. More retail involvement on the stock market going forward and the top active funds (Renaissance Technologies) able to have even greater outsized returns due to more 'dumb money' in the market.
2. Higher P/E ratios because of the lower barrier to entry (is there even a 'barrier' anymore?).
3. 'Investing' becoming a mainstream 'habit'. It seems the idea of 'passive income' has become quite prevalent among the younger community.
4. Stock market potentially having lower returns in the near future as every mom and pop is now investing to 'FIRE'.
5. More financial products readily accessible to the public (robo-advisors, low or no fee margin/borrowing, etc.).
6. Pressure for DTCC to settle trades in T+1 -> T+0.
7. More gamblers in the market. Robinhood has game-ified the market and the younger generation has gotten hooked to it. There's going to be many losers from this and I worry what the repercussions of such could be. More social unrest, conspiracy theorists, etc.?
8. A lot of 'dumb money' making market quite inefficient in the meme space of things. There were many people back in Feb buying SPY puts that would expire in 0 to 1 day in which the only way for the puts to go ITM was for SPY to drop 30% within the day. This is actually mathematically impossible for 0 day expiry.
And these people hold onto the contracts until expiry. This is literally the definition of 'dumb money' == 'free money'. This is just as 'free money' for the other side of the trade as buying risk free assets. Quite crazy.
9. More leverage in the market (and here to stay long term). Again, justifies higher P/E. This also includes products like call options, put options, etc. 3x leveraged ETFs and so on. I assume there might be more extreme stories of 'winners' and 'losers' on both sides.
(more exaggerated ups and downs also due to this effect)
10. More day traders at retail level. Again, this only benefits the very top professionals in the market (e.g.: Renaissance Technologies, Hudson River Trading, Two Sigma, etc.).
Things I am curious about: With more and more retail joining in the market (globally), what could happen to many of the US stocks if there are no stocks to purchase in the market (with people globally all purchasing US equities).
For instance, say a small market cap company A only has 100 shares. But 100 shares are all bought up and there's 200 more purchases in demand every 2 weeks. Except the problem is, those 100 shares are held on 'passive indexes' and the owners have no thoughts selling regardless. How would the 200 biweekly purchases go then (especially if this purchase is through another index fund in which the index has to buy the shares to track the benchmark more closely).
I think the only major changes to this is:
* Markets will most likely have higher P/E ratios going forward (relative to historical P/E).
* There will be more stories of people losing lots of money and gaining lots of money on the media.
* There will be short periods of time in which markets can be very inefficient due to heavy retail involvement (aka 'dumb money'). We all evidenced this with the meme stocks. Quite fascinating how much retail can drive price at the smaller cap firms.
Re: Current “game changers”?
I'm in the same camp. Nothing in the OP's list is a game changer for me. Bogle's ideas remain as relevant today as they ever were.Portfolio7 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 20, 2021 10:45 am I guess I'm a bit of a dinosaur, or a curmudgeon, when it comes to this topic. I can see how these things have changed the process of investing, but not the essence of it.
I'm still investing pretty much the same way I have for 25+ years.
Bogle was described as a curmudgeon too. So we're in good company.
Financial repression might become a game changer (at least in terms of real returns, perhaps not so much in what we can do about it).
The Bogleheads investment philosophy lives on.
Strategic Macro Senior (top 1%, 2019 Bogleheads Contest)
-
- Posts: 1574
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:40 pm
- Location: Land of Hypoxia
Re: Current “game changers”?
Overall, I still follow the buy and hold index funds for my core investments. I did put some (10%) into alternative investments such as 3x ETFs and Greyscale crypto holdings. I looked at some charts of the S&P and the trade volume has gone up markedly in the last decade. Not sure what this translates too other than there is a lot more trading going on. Can only see this leading to a lot more volatility with bigger ups and down. The future will be a wild ride for sure. If the overall market path is up, we are good to go. Problem is that it could fall quite a ways down now too. It appears if the safety net of fixed income has a lot of holes in it. No safety and more risk. A lot of investors might not be able to hold their ground when things go south.
- asset_chaos
- Posts: 2629
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:13 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: Current “game changers”?
From the data sources I linked to upthread I can make the plot below. The black dots are the annual number of shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), as reported in a table by the US Census, for the years 1970--2010. The green dots are the annual number of shares traded on multiple US exchanges (NYSE, Nasdaq, and a bunch I'm not familiar with) compiled by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) for the years 2008--2021. Note the log vertical axis for number of shares traded (in units of 1 million shares) and linear horizontal time axis. Something has happened in the last decade to alter the growth trajectory of trading volume, but the matter seems to be more subtle than the hypothesis that everything had led to a sudden explosion in trading. Yes, trading volume has about doubled over the last decade, but the most striking thing about this data is the break with the 40 year trend of exponential growth of trading volume.
The red dashed line is a fit to the black dots. To good accuracy trading volume on the NYSE has grown exponentially for 40 years. The green dots covering the last decade fall substantially below this exponential growth line. If trading volume growth had continued its previous 40 year trend, volume today would be about 3x larger than it is now. However the stock trading game is changing, it has caused slower growth of trading volume.
What might be happening?
The current Economist has an article on the rise of retail investors. The picture below from the article suggests what may be happening to stock trading. For reasons that aren't exactly known, but are probably related to many of the things mentioned in this thread, retail investors' share of trading increased substantially about 4 years ago. But the trading share from institutions and banks has decreased substantially. As the first graph shows, total number of shares traded has about doubled over the past decade, but the growth rate has stagnated. Everyone's trading a bit more than 10 years ago, but retail investors are stepping up to the trading desk in droves, just as institutions and banks are backing away.
Will this new trend of stagnating trading volume continue or will the previous 40 year trend of exponential growth of trading volume resume? The answer is irrelevant to how I invest or to how I suggest you invest, but is, nonetheless, an interesting exercise on how the US stock market may be structurally changing right before our eyes.
The red dashed line is a fit to the black dots. To good accuracy trading volume on the NYSE has grown exponentially for 40 years. The green dots covering the last decade fall substantially below this exponential growth line. If trading volume growth had continued its previous 40 year trend, volume today would be about 3x larger than it is now. However the stock trading game is changing, it has caused slower growth of trading volume.
What might be happening?
The current Economist has an article on the rise of retail investors. The picture below from the article suggests what may be happening to stock trading. For reasons that aren't exactly known, but are probably related to many of the things mentioned in this thread, retail investors' share of trading increased substantially about 4 years ago. But the trading share from institutions and banks has decreased substantially. As the first graph shows, total number of shares traded has about doubled over the past decade, but the growth rate has stagnated. Everyone's trading a bit more than 10 years ago, but retail investors are stepping up to the trading desk in droves, just as institutions and banks are backing away.
Will this new trend of stagnating trading volume continue or will the previous 40 year trend of exponential growth of trading volume resume? The answer is irrelevant to how I invest or to how I suggest you invest, but is, nonetheless, an interesting exercise on how the US stock market may be structurally changing right before our eyes.
Regards, |
|
Guy
Re: Current “game changers”?
"If trading volume growth had continued its previous 40 year trend, volume today would be about 3x larger than it is now."
Interesting perspective.
Maybe us lot indexing and never trading are making new converts?
Even WallStreetBets Apes hodl and never sell.
Interesting perspective.
Maybe us lot indexing and never trading are making new converts?
Even WallStreetBets Apes hodl and never sell.
Better lucky than smart.
-
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:41 pm
Re: Current “game changers”?
I would say the big change is social media. There is a lot of bad information out there. More than there ever has been.
When you read a book about investing, you know who the author is. Beneath their name is a list of their credentials and their their experience.
When you browse a forum, or watch a TikTok video, it can be difficult to find out who you're getting advice from. Often it will be an amateur, or a child, or a person interested in spreading shocking or inflammatory opinions for the purpose of self-promotion, or even a person with a financial interest in feeding you lies.
Often the advice will be very bad.
When you read a book about investing, you know who the author is. Beneath their name is a list of their credentials and their their experience.
When you browse a forum, or watch a TikTok video, it can be difficult to find out who you're getting advice from. Often it will be an amateur, or a child, or a person interested in spreading shocking or inflammatory opinions for the purpose of self-promotion, or even a person with a financial interest in feeding you lies.
Often the advice will be very bad.
-
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:16 pm
Re: Current “game changers”?
The observations are correct but the game (as in the long term investor game) remains the same.
Financologist
-
- Posts: 1574
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:40 pm
- Location: Land of Hypoxia
Re: Current “game changers”?
After a lot of research I have changed my core holdings to positions that use leverage. PSLDX/PISIX in IRA/Roth and NTSX/NTSI in taxable. So new theories and products have changed my game, so to speak. I am convinced that these investment products will provide better returns than traditional index funds, even with the higher expense and active management. Otherwise still hold SCV index funds for a tilt and invest the same way as before. Oh, did scale back on fixed income as a separate holdings as these funds already have exposure to bonds in one form or another.Financologist wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 1:37 am The observations are correct but the game (as in the long term investor game) remains the same.
-
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:13 am
Re: Current “game changers”?
Not sure I understand the rationale here. NTSX is levered 60/40, so it should (at least in theory) increase volatility. If you also decrease your fixed equity exposure, aren't you increasing risk (volatility) even more? I suppose it matters what your previous strategy was.ChinchillaWhiplash wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 5:39 pm Oh, did scale back on fixed income as a separate holdings as these funds already have exposure to bonds in one form or another.
-
- Posts: 1574
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:40 pm
- Location: Land of Hypoxia
Re: Current “game changers”?
Not too worried about volatility. Still in the accumulation phase of things. It does seems to increase volatility overall though, but also increases returns.traveling_salesman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:06 amNot sure I understand the rationale here. NTSX is levered 60/40, so it should (at least in theory) increase volatility. If you also decrease your fixed equity exposure, aren't you increasing risk (volatility) even more? I suppose it matters what your previous strategy was.ChinchillaWhiplash wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 5:39 pm Oh, did scale back on fixed income as a separate holdings as these funds already have exposure to bonds in one form or another.
-
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:13 am
Re: Current “game changers”?
Of course it does that's math. Kudos to you for not confusing volatility for risk (in your case) and good luck on your accumulation!ChinchillaWhiplash wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:35 pmNot too worried about volatility. Still in the accumulation phase of things. It does seems to increase volatility overall though, but also increases returns.traveling_salesman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:06 amNot sure I understand the rationale here. NTSX is levered 60/40, so it should (at least in theory) increase volatility. If you also decrease your fixed equity exposure, aren't you increasing risk (volatility) even more? I suppose it matters what your previous strategy was.ChinchillaWhiplash wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 5:39 pm Oh, did scale back on fixed income as a separate holdings as these funds already have exposure to bonds in one form or another.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Current “game changers”?
Things are always different in meaningful ways.
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man."
- Heraclitus
The real question is whether your investment strategy should change. That's a much harder question to answer, IMHO.
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man."
- Heraclitus
The real question is whether your investment strategy should change. That's a much harder question to answer, IMHO.
The Sensible Steward
-
- Posts: 897
- Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:23 pm
Re: Current “game changers”?
if (when) we colonize Mars that will be a game-changer.
it's looking more and more realistic.
---------------------------------------------------
it's looking more and more realistic.
---------------------------------------------------
-
- Posts: 609
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 5:46 pm
Re: Current “game changers”?
QE 1,2,3 —> P/E multiple expansion
Re: Current “game changers”?
In more realistic timeframe we may see space tourism.mr_brightside wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:30 am if (when) we colonize Mars that will be a game-changer.
it's looking more and more realistic.
---------------------------------------------------