Why not growth all the way?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

It seems like growth ETFs are like a rocket ship in bull markets and even with harder falls in bear markets, overall it seems like growth is a “no brainer” investment strategy. Even now, in a high interest rate environment, growth stocks are leading the way. I am personally trying to conquer FOMO and become a tortoise not a hare so I’m not chasing growth but rather sticking with VTSAX. But then I can’t help but feel like I’m opting out of the rocket ship? I know VTSAX holds the big growth names but is there ever a Boglehead case for adding a specific growth ETF to the mix? Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
Wanderingwheelz
Posts: 3145
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:52 am

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by Wanderingwheelz »

The more times you use “seems” the harder you want to back away from whatever idea it is you think seems like a good one.

Historically there are periods where US value outperforms growth, and hang onto your chair here.. periods where international outperforms both of them.

This is why most of us here want some exposure to all three. It’s called being diversified.
Being wrong compounds forever.
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

Wanderingwheelz wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:28 am The more times you use “seems” the harder you want to back away from whatever idea it is you think seems like a good one.

Historically there are periods where US value outperforms growth, and hang onto your chair here.. periods where international outperforms both of them.

This is why most of us here want some exposure to all three. It’s called being diversified.
Is VTSAX considered diversified in and of itself? Is there enough “growth” in there?
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
asif408
Posts: 2616
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:34 am
Location: Florida

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by asif408 »

Value has outperformed growth in the US, foreign developed, and emerging markets by anywhere between 8-10% CAGR since November 2020, with much larger drawdowns to boot: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/fun ... 2F1%2F2020

Not seeing where growth stocks are leading the way.
User avatar
SimpleGift
Posts: 4477
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:45 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by SimpleGift »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:41 am Is VTSAX considered diversified in and of itself? Is there enough “growth” in there?
One way to answer your question is to look at the history of the U.S. total stock market. In the chart below, using the CRSP historical database, its capitalization is divided into each of the Fama-French 2x3 style bins (used to compute the value (HmL) and size (SmB) factors), for each month from 1927 to 2020:
  • Image
    Data source: Fama French Library, showing CRSP monthly data for March 1927 - March 2020.
The large-growth bin (in blue) has historically been the largest, averaging 51% of market cap over 93 years. In some ways, one could argue that the U.S. total stock market index is already a large growth fund.

For more on this, see this Forum post and discussion: Is the Total Stock Market a Large-Growth Fund?
Last edited by SimpleGift on Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
willyd123
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:23 am

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by willyd123 »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:12 am It seems like growth ETFs are like a rocket ship in bull markets and even with harder falls in bear markets, overall it seems like growth is a “no brainer” investment strategy. Even now, in a high interest rate environment, growth stocks are leading the way. I am personally trying to conquer FOMO and become a tortoise not a hare so I’m not chasing growth but rather sticking with VTSAX. But then I can’t help but feel like I’m opting out of the rocket ship? I know VTSAX holds the big growth names but is there ever a Boglehead case for adding a specific growth ETF to the mix? Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
https://www.longtermtrends.net/growth-s ... ue-stocks/
muffins14
Posts: 5529
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:14 am
Location: New York

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by muffins14 »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:12 am Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
If you already know, then why post?

Obviously growth stocks can go down

Yes you are performance chasing
Crom laughs at your Four Winds
muffins14
Posts: 5529
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:14 am
Location: New York

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by muffins14 »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:41 am
Wanderingwheelz wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:28 am The more times you use “seems” the harder you want to back away from whatever idea it is you think seems like a good one.

Historically there are periods where US value outperforms growth, and hang onto your chair here.. periods where international outperforms both of them.

This is why most of us here want some exposure to all three. It’s called being diversified.
Is VTSAX considered diversified in and of itself? Is there enough “growth” in there?
It contains all the stocks, so, yes.
Crom laughs at your Four Winds
Tom_T
Posts: 4837
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:33 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by Tom_T »

If you own a broad-based index fund, then you don't have to worry about having enough growth stocks.

You sound as if you are worried that you won't get the maximum return for your portfolio. Don't worry about that because I can already tell you that you won't. Nobody can predict the future, and "maximum" is relative, anyway, depending on what you own and when you take a measurement of your portfolio. There is always some combination of investments (or even a single stock) that can beat the market. We just don't know what it is.

If you can accept a "good enough" return, you'll sleep better.
seajay
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 3:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by seajay »

SimpleGift wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:53 am
meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:41 am Is VTSAX considered diversified in and of itself? Is there enough “growth” in there?
One way to answer your question is to look at the history of the U.S. total stock market. In the chart below, using the CRSP historical database, its capitalization is divided into each of the Fama-French 2x3 style bins (used to compute the value (HmL) and size (SmB) factors), for each month from 1927 to 2020:
  • Image
    Data source: Fama French Library, showing CRSP monthly data for March 1927 - March 2020.
The large-growth bin (in blue) has historically been the largest, averaging 51% of market cap over 93 years. In some ways, one could argue that the U.S. total stock market index is already a large growth fund.

For more on this, see this Forum post and discussion: Is the Total Stock Market a Large-Growth Fund?
PV data for 1972 to 2022 and large cap growth versus small cap value had LCG being the years best total return asset in 45% of years (so SCV best in 55% of years). As a Callan Table, the top row (yearly best) averaged +20.7%, whilst the bottom row (yearly worst) averaged 6.7%. Equal yearly rebalanced weightings was like having half your money in something that averaged +20.7%/year, other half in just a 6.7% return, combined average of 13.7%, actual CAGR 12.1% versus 10.2% for TSM.

Indeed LCG has tended to more align with TSM. Is alone perhaps too much single factor loading.

Understanding how gains arise is key. Split the S&P500 into two 250 stock halves, best and worst, or the Dow 30 into two best and worst 15 pairings, and the average of the best will tend to offset and more the average of the worst. Individually a stock might decline -25% one year, gain +33.3% the next year, geometric/compound to 0%, but having a +4.15% simple/arithmetic average. Multiple assets in around equal weightings uplifts the geometric more towards the arithmetic. Concentrate into a single asset and that benefit is missed.

TSM in itself overweights according to past performance, has you investing more dollars in the stocks that have grown the most. Often yesterdays winners aren't tomorrows winners, others step up to take over that lead. When you load more into one stock, so there's less capital remaining to spread across others. Large cap growth and even TSM follows that tendency. Great if yesterdays winners continue to keep the lead, but sooner or later things change around.
Wanderingwheelz
Posts: 3145
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:52 am

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by Wanderingwheelz »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:41 am
Wanderingwheelz wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:28 am The more times you use “seems” the harder you want to back away from whatever idea it is you think seems like a good one.

Historically there are periods where US value outperforms growth, and hang onto your chair here.. periods where international outperforms both of them.

This is why most of us here want some exposure to all three. It’s called being diversified.
Is VTSAX considered diversified in and of itself? Is there enough “growth” in there?
What works for me is to view the US stock market as one big whole, and to view International as another entity, entirely.

I don’t concern myself with growth and value at all. Whichever is the winner over the next 30 years I’ve fine with since I own them both.

It might be unfair to say this (particularly to financial advisors), but I feel like growth, value, blend, large cap, small, mid, international, dividend, etc.. they’re all designed to have an investor own far too many different investments.
Being wrong compounds forever.
3funder
Posts: 1814
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:35 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by 3funder »

Total market funds prevent me from having to ask this question. Don't worry about it.
Global stocks, US bonds, and time.
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

muffins14 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:57 am
meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:12 am Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
If you already know, then why post?

Obviously growth stocks can go down

Yes you are performance chasing
Because I enjoy the brutally honest feedback from this forum! I know my weaknesses and admitting them openly feels like a good first step in overcoming them :mrgreen:
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

Tom_T wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:34 am If you own a broad-based index fund, then you don't have to worry about having enough growth stocks.

You sound as if you are worried that you won't get the maximum return for your portfolio. Don't worry about that because I can already tell you that you won't. Nobody can predict the future, and "maximum" is relative, anyway, depending on what you own and when you take a measurement of your portfolio. There is always some combination of investments (or even a single stock) that can beat the market. We just don't know what it is.

If you can accept a "good enough" return, you'll sleep better.
This is a really helpful perspective. Thank you!
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
Pepper11
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 9:22 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by Pepper11 »

asif408 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:49 am Value has outperformed growth in the US, foreign developed, and emerging markets by anywhere between 8-10% CAGR since November 2020, with much larger drawdowns to boot: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/fun ... 2F1%2F2020

Not seeing where growth stocks are leading the way.
How about since April 2020?
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 15081
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:41 am
Wanderingwheelz wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:28 am The more times you use “seems” the harder you want to back away from whatever idea it is you think seems like a good one.

Historically there are periods where US value outperforms growth, and hang onto your chair here.. periods where international outperforms both of them.

This is why most of us here want some exposure to all three. It’s called being diversified.
Is VTSAX considered diversified in and of itself? Is there enough “growth” in there?
there's more growth than value:

Image

Source

is that enough growth for you?

If not you're free to tilt, but first ask yourself what you know that the market doesn't?

also ask yourself why you want to buy more of something AFTER it's gone up? If anything, you make more buying that which has gone down, not that which has gone up. Paying higher prices for something leads to lower expected returns. Paying lower prices generally leads to higher expected returns.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions | Wiki
User avatar
like2read
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:30 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by like2read »

One of the simpler ways to know if your portfolio is diversified is if a portion of it is lagging, or down. Of course with the caveat that each allocation is a sound long term investment.
rkhusky
Posts: 17766
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by rkhusky »

Keep in mind that size boundaries are completely arbitrary. And there are many definitions for the value/growth metric. If you own the market, the boundaries and definitions don’t matter.
chassis
Posts: 2183
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:28 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by chassis »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:12 am It seems like growth ETFs are like a rocket ship in bull markets and even with harder falls in bear markets, overall it seems like growth is a “no brainer” investment strategy. Even now, in a high interest rate environment, growth stocks are leading the way. I am personally trying to conquer FOMO and become a tortoise not a hare so I’m not chasing growth but rather sticking with VTSAX. But then I can’t help but feel like I’m opting out of the rocket ship? I know VTSAX holds the big growth names but is there ever a Boglehead case for adding a specific growth ETF to the mix? Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
It's called growth for a reason. Invest as you like. Avoid becoming enslaved to labels, names, systems or mantras.
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

rkhusky wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:56 pm Keep in mind that size boundaries are completely arbitrary. And there are many definitions for the value/growth metric. If you own the market, the boundaries and definitions don’t matter.
That’s a great point. Truth be told, I owned a growth ETF for a few years that was very volatile and caused me a fair amount of angst, so I sold it (for a tiny profit) in order to buy VTSAX but now, of course, that old fund is way up and I am kicking myself for not just staying on the ride (even though it was an uncomfortable ride!) My logic then was that I didn’t want that kind of volatility and was willing to sacrifice some growth for a more stable return. Now, I have remorse. Is this a textbook case of emotional investing?! I know I need to move on but seeing growth roaring back in 2023 stings a little.
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Posts: 32842
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by Taylor Larimore »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:12 am It seems like growth ETFs are like a rocket ship in bull markets and even with harder falls in bear markets, overall it seems like growth is a “no brainer” investment strategy. Even now, in a high interest rate environment, growth stocks are leading the way. I am personally trying to conquer FOMO and become a tortoise not a hare so I’m not chasing growth but rather sticking with VTSAX. But then I can’t help but feel like I’m opting out of the rocket ship? I know VTSAX holds the big growth names but is there ever a Boglehead case for adding a specific growth ETF to the mix? Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
meadowrue:

You are right--you are "wrong". These experts should convince you:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=156579

Best wishes.
Taylor
Jack Bogle's Words of Wisdom: "The beauty of owning the market is that you eliminate individual stock risk, you eliminate market sector risk, and you eliminate manager risk. -- "Never think you know more than the market. Nobody does." -- "In my view, owning the market and holding it forever is the ultimate strategy for winners."
Last edited by Taylor Larimore on Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

chassis wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:17 pm
meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:12 am It seems like growth ETFs are like a rocket ship in bull markets and even with harder falls in bear markets, overall it seems like growth is a “no brainer” investment strategy. Even now, in a high interest rate environment, growth stocks are leading the way. I am personally trying to conquer FOMO and become a tortoise not a hare so I’m not chasing growth but rather sticking with VTSAX. But then I can’t help but feel like I’m opting out of the rocket ship? I know VTSAX holds the big growth names but is there ever a Boglehead case for adding a specific growth ETF to the mix? Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
It's called growth for a reason. Invest as you like. Avoid becoming enslaved to labels, names, systems or mantras.
But “growth” can retract too. Being called growth doesn’t guarantee it’s always growing, right? Otherwise, why would anyone choose value over growth? Is it all about stability/risk tolerance? To get potential high growth you have to take more risk and not everyone wants to do that.
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 15081
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:18 pm
rkhusky wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:56 pm Keep in mind that size boundaries are completely arbitrary. And there are many definitions for the value/growth metric. If you own the market, the boundaries and definitions don’t matter.
That’s a great point. Truth be told, I owned a growth ETF for a few years that was very volatile and caused me a fair amount of angst, so I sold it (for a tiny profit) in order to buy VTSAX but now, of course, that old fund is way up and I am kicking myself for not just staying on the ride (even though it was an uncomfortable ride!) My logic then was that I didn’t want that kind of volatility and was willing to sacrifice some growth for a more stable return. Now, I have remorse. Is this a textbook case of emotional investing?! I know I need to move on but seeing growth roaring back in 2023 stings a little.
first rule of investing is after you sell something never ever not ever do you keep looking at the performance of that thing you sold. Why would you do that? You don't own it anymore so why would you care what it's done since you've sold it? You sold it for a good reason. Just because it did better after you sold it doesn't mean it was wrong to sell it. Hindsight is 20/20. If you knew what it would do before you sold it you wouldn't have sold it. There is no risk in the past. There's risk in the future. It could just have easily gone the other way, i.e., you sold it and then it went down and now you feel like a frickin' genius instead kicking yourself with regret. Also, you have no emotional attachment to the growth etf when you don't own it. Sure you have regret because you see how it played out (which again, you couldn't have known ahead of time or you would have done something different perhaps). But having regret is one feeling but having angst because of the volatility are two different things/emotions. You wanted to rid yourself of the angst. Why now would you go looking for remorse?
Last edited by arcticpineapplecorp. on Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions | Wiki
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

Taylor Larimore wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:22 pm
meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:12 am It seems like growth ETFs are like a rocket ship in bull markets and even with harder falls in bear markets, overall it seems like growth is a “no brainer” investment strategy. Even now, in a high interest rate environment, growth stocks are leading the way. I am personally trying to conquer FOMO and become a tortoise not a hare so I’m not chasing growth but rather sticking with VTSAX. But then I can’t help but feel like I’m opting out of the rocket ship? I know VTSAX holds the big growth names but is there ever a Boglehead case for adding a specific growth ETF to the mix? Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
meadowrue:

You are right--you are "wrong". These experts should convince you:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=156579

Best wishes.
Taylor
Jack Bogle's Words of Wisdom: "The beauty of owning the market is that you eliminate individual stock risk, you eliminate market sector risk, and you eliminate manager risk. -- "Never think you know more than the market. Nobody does." -- "In my view, owning the market and holding it forever is the ultimate strategy for winners."
Thank you, Taylor. I always appreciate your posts on here and feel honored you responded to me! I am still a novice investor and my husband isn’t interested in finances so this forum is my sounding board and I am very grateful for everything I have learned so far (including the link you just shared … which confirms that sector investing is a fool’s errand!). I am trying my best to learn and to overcome my behavioral biases.
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 15081
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:22 pm
chassis wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:17 pm
meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:12 am It seems like growth ETFs are like a rocket ship in bull markets and even with harder falls in bear markets, overall it seems like growth is a “no brainer” investment strategy. Even now, in a high interest rate environment, growth stocks are leading the way. I am personally trying to conquer FOMO and become a tortoise not a hare so I’m not chasing growth but rather sticking with VTSAX. But then I can’t help but feel like I’m opting out of the rocket ship? I know VTSAX holds the big growth names but is there ever a Boglehead case for adding a specific growth ETF to the mix? Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
It's called growth for a reason. Invest as you like. Avoid becoming enslaved to labels, names, systems or mantras.
But “growth” can retract too. Being called growth doesn’t guarantee it’s always growing, right? Otherwise, why would anyone choose value over growth? Is it all about stability/risk tolerance? To get potential high growth you have to take more risk and not everyone wants to do that.
theory says people overpay for growth which leads to lower returns. there are different aspects of risk. growth stocks can be like lottery tickets. growth stocks can overpromise and underdeliver. some businesses grow to their detriment. some businesses make bad acquisitions because they have too much money and don't know what to do with it. Value stocks can be risky because they can be value traps. Or they can not have the cash to weather an economic storm. So on. They each have their own risks and rewards. Every asset class has its day in the sun.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions | Wiki
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:26 pm
meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:18 pm
rkhusky wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:56 pm Keep in mind that size boundaries are completely arbitrary. And there are many definitions for the value/growth metric. If you own the market, the boundaries and definitions don’t matter.
That’s a great point. Truth be told, I owned a growth ETF for a few years that was very volatile and caused me a fair amount of angst, so I sold it (for a tiny profit) in order to buy VTSAX but now, of course, that old fund is way up and I am kicking myself for not just staying on the ride (even though it was an uncomfortable ride!) My logic then was that I didn’t want that kind of volatility and was willing to sacrifice some growth for a more stable return. Now, I have remorse. Is this a textbook case of emotional investing?! I know I need to move on but seeing growth roaring back in 2023 stings a little.
first rule of investing is after you sell something never ever not ever do you keep looking at the performance of that thing you sold. Why would you do that? You don't own it anymore so why would you care what it's done since you've sold it? You sold it for a good reason. Just because it did better after you sold it doesn't mean it was wrong to sell it. Hindsight is 20/20. If you knew what it would do before you sold it you wouldn't have sold it. There is no risk in the past. There's risk in the future. It could just have easily gone the other way, i.e., you sold it and then it went down and now you feel like a frickin' genius instead kicking yourself with regret. Also, you have no emotional attachment to the growth etf when you don't own it. Sure you have regret because you see how it played out (which again, you couldn't have known ahead of time or you would have done something different perhaps). But having regret is one feeling but having angst because of the volatility are two different things/emotions. You wanted to rid yourself of the angst. Why now would you go looking for remorse?
That is so true. I have traded angst for remorse, and neither one achieves anything. I guess I’m punishing myself because I feel like I sold the fund out of “weakness” (not being able to handle the volatility). Had I been stronger, I would be sitting on bigger gains now. Oh, the good ol’ hindsight thing! I realize it’s a major behavioral pitfall.
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 15081
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:33 pm That is so true. I have traded angst for remorse, and neither one achieves anything. I guess I’m punishing myself because I feel like I sold the fund out of “weakness” (not being able to handle the volatility). Had I been stronger, I would be sitting on bigger gains now. Oh, the good ol’ hindsight thing! I realize it’s a major behavioral pitfall.
1. it's not a weakness not being able to handle the volatility. Risk tolerance is a very personal thing. Most people think they're more risk tolerant than they really are. It's easy to think you can handle risk in a bull market. You find out your risk tolerance in a bear market. It's been said that in bear markets stocks return to their rightful owners. This just means rightful owners of stocks are investing, not speculating. They're buy and holding for the long haul no matter what happens in between.

2. But it's not an all or nothing thing. Life's rarely that way. Instead you need to determine your need, ability and willingness to take risk and then decide on a suitable asset allocation that carries an amount of risk that matches your need, ability and willingness to take risk. Read more here:

How much risk do you need to take: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/asset-allo ... -you-need/
How much risk do you have the ability to take: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/asset-allo ... -you-take/
How much risk do you have the willingness to take: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/asset-allo ... tolerance/
How to deal with conflicts between the need, ability and willingness to take risk: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/asset-allo ... ing-goals/

3. and look at the kind of volatility that exists with different amounts of stock:

Image

4. I think it also helps to realize that the market falls every single year. Most don't remember or notice. It's the 2008 or the 2020 or 2000 that people remember. The big falls. But volatility happens every year. It's something we have to deal with and then wait for the eventual recovery (when owning markets, not individual stocks some of which may fall and never recover):

Image

Source
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions | Wiki
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:43 pm
meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:33 pm That is so true. I have traded angst for remorse, and neither one achieves anything. I guess I’m punishing myself because I feel like I sold the fund out of “weakness” (not being able to handle the volatility). Had I been stronger, I would be sitting on bigger gains now. Oh, the good ol’ hindsight thing! I realize it’s a major behavioral pitfall.
1. it's not a weakness not being able to handle the volatility. Risk tolerance is a very personal thing. Most people think they're more risk tolerant than they really are. It's easy to think you can handle risk in a bull market. You find out your risk tolerance in a bear market. It's been said that in bear markets stocks return to their rightful owners. This just means rightful owners of stocks are investing, not speculating. They're buy and holding for the long haul no matter what happens in between.

2. But it's not an all or nothing thing. Life's rarely that way. Instead you need to determine your need, ability and willingness to take risk and then decide on a suitable asset allocation that carries an amount of risk that matches your need, ability and willingness to take risk. Read more here:

How much risk do you need to take: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/asset-allo ... -you-need/
How much risk do you have the ability to take: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/asset-allo ... -you-take/
How much risk do you have the willingness to take: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/asset-allo ... tolerance/
How to deal with conflicts between the need, ability and willingness to take risk: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/asset-allo ... ing-goals/

3. and look at the kind of volatility that exists with different amounts of stock:

Image

4. I think it also helps to realize that the market falls every single year. Most don't remember or notice. It's the 2008 or the 2020 or 2000 that people remember. The big falls. But volatility happens every year. It's something we have to deal with and then wait for the eventual recovery (when owning markets, not individual stocks some of which may fall and never recover):

Image

Source
Thank you for sharing this. I will read in-depth. You are so right about believing I was more risk tolerant than I truly am. What I didn’t factor in was that, when markets are down, it is not always an isolated negative event. In my case, markets were falling (in 2022) at the same time as my job became unstable (I have since found a much better one), my DH’s business had its worst year ever, and we had to get major home repairs done. So I was suddenly fearful, not because I hate risk but because I felt like I could no longer afford the risk (i.e. my ability to take risk changed). When things are going great, it’s easy to think you can handle whatever the market or life throws at you. But last year taught me that building a safety net is just as important as chasing big returns, probably even more so. I jumped from being greedy to being fearful very quickly and I’d like to avoid both extremes in the future.
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 15081
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:55 pm Thank you for sharing this. I will read in-depth. You are so right about believing I was more risk tolerant than I truly am. What I didn’t factor in was that, when markets are down, it is not always an isolated negative event. In my case, markets were falling (in 2022) at the same time as my job became unstable (I have since found a much better one), my DH’s business had its worst year ever, and we had to get major home repairs done. So I was suddenly fearful, not because I hate risk but because I felt like I could no longer afford the risk (i.e. my ability to take risk changed). When things are going great, it’s easy to think you can handle whatever the market or life throws at you. But last year taught me that building a safety net is just as important as chasing big returns, probably even more so. I jumped from being greedy to being fearful very quickly and I’d like to avoid both extremes in the future.
excellent points. there are different risks we face, not all of them in our investments. This does get down to the "ability" to take risk. If you're a tenured professor with a job for life you have a greater ability to take risk than a gig worker or in some field where layoffs are occurring. If you have 3 years of savings in the bank you have a greater ability to take risk than someone with no savings (if you lose your job, you'll be fine provided you can find a job in 3 years). That sort of thing. Which is why determining your need, ability and willingness to take risk have to be thought of very carefully before determining your asset allocation.

Some have said in recessions the problem is people with the capital don't have the courage and people with the courage don't have the capital.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions | Wiki
User avatar
SB1234
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:41 pm
Location: Laniakea

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by SB1234 »

Don't be greedy. Or in other words, don't be a pig. Because bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered.
If you just focus on growth, there is going to be more volatility and you will likely sell out at bottom.

It's already tough holding through 20-30% drawdowns in broader market, the drawdowns in growth only will be much higher. If your monthly contributions are large compared to your portfolio value then the bigger drawdowns will not be noticeable as much. But it will get you when you see years of contributions going seemingly into a black hole while the market tanks and growth tanks even more.

Most people here didn't make money on stocks, they had good stable jobs and many had high paying jobs that allowed them to invest steadily over a long period. Or some people hit a jackpot while working at a startup etc. In any case very few got rich primarily from stocks investing or investing in growth.

If you are early in your career then focusing on growing your income so as to be able to invest more makes more sense rather than focusing on making more in stocks.

If you are mid career like myself. It makes more sense to try to preserve and grow portfolio in a steady fashion over the next few years.

And if you're towards the end of career, then it's better to be in safer investments.

Strategically it never makes any sense to focus solely on growth.
superstition: belief that market will one day come around to your concept of fair value
secondopinion
Posts: 6011
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by secondopinion »

SB1234 wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:23 pm Don't be greedy. Or in other words, don't be a pig. Because bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered.
If you just focus on growth, there is going to be more volatility and you will likely sell out at bottom.

It's already tough holding through 20-30% drawdowns in broader market, the drawdowns in growth only will be much higher. If your monthly contributions are large compared to your portfolio value then the bigger drawdowns will not be noticeable as much. But it will get you when you see years of contributions going seemingly into a black hole while the market tanks and growth tanks even more.

Most people here didn't make money on stocks, they had good stable jobs and many had high paying jobs that allowed them to invest steadily over a long period. Or some people hit a jackpot while working at a startup etc. In any case very few got rich primarily from stocks investing or investing in growth.

If you are early in your career then focusing on growing your income so as to be able to invest more makes more sense rather than focusing on making more in stocks.

If you are mid career like myself. It makes more sense to try to preserve and grow portfolio in a steady fashion over the next few years.

And if you're towards the end of career, then it's better to be in safer investments.

Strategically it never makes any sense to focus solely on growth.
I wonder if tortoises and hares make money (I coin them for volatility markets; tortoises want a low volatility markets, hares for high volatility markets)...

Back on topic, while I fully agree it is better to focus efforts on a career, the choice of tilting towards growth stocks is not exactly going to make or break things.
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.
secondopinion
Posts: 6011
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by secondopinion »

The type of drawdown (market discounting or economical) makes the difference as to whether growth or value is more impacted. Growth did better with 2008 and 2020 when economical drawdown occurred. Value did better with 2000 and 2022 when a market discount drawdown occurred. An honest assessment of which type of drawdown is more important to hedge and which one can be tolerated will drive the decision; I do not think either is a wrong choice, but clearly figure out which drawdown is more tolerable beforehand and not just chase performance.

If the risks of growth stocks cannot be assessed well as it relates to one's objectives (focus on risks, not returns, with any assessment), then it is dubious to tilt as it might not meet one's actual needs at all.
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.
freyj6
Posts: 554
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by freyj6 »

Here's one of my favorite boglehead topics of all time: viewtopic.php?t=339971

This was posted the day after ARKK peaked, and subsequently lost 80% of it's value. It's still down 75% from it's high.

Very similar to this topic.
rkhusky
Posts: 17766
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by rkhusky »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:18 pm
rkhusky wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:56 pm Keep in mind that size boundaries are completely arbitrary. And there are many definitions for the value/growth metric. If you own the market, the boundaries and definitions don’t matter.
That’s a great point. Truth be told, I owned a growth ETF for a few years that was very volatile and caused me a fair amount of angst, so I sold it (for a tiny profit) in order to buy VTSAX but now, of course, that old fund is way up and I am kicking myself for not just staying on the ride (even though it was an uncomfortable ride!) My logic then was that I didn’t want that kind of volatility and was willing to sacrifice some growth for a more stable return. Now, I have remorse. Is this a textbook case of emotional investing?! I know I need to move on but seeing growth roaring back in 2023 stings a little.
Value and growth swap out-performance every so often. You surely don’t want to buy back into growth at the peak and then watch it underperform for a few years. By owning TSM you own both growth and value. Your volatility goes down and you get the average return - not the best and not the worst.
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by Marseille07 »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:12 am It seems like growth ETFs are like a rocket ship in bull markets and even with harder falls in bear markets, overall it seems like growth is a “no brainer” investment strategy. Even now, in a high interest rate environment, growth stocks are leading the way. I am personally trying to conquer FOMO and become a tortoise not a hare so I’m not chasing growth but rather sticking with VTSAX. But then I can’t help but feel like I’m opting out of the rocket ship? I know VTSAX holds the big growth names but is there ever a Boglehead case for adding a specific growth ETF to the mix? Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
Compare performances of growth ETFs and VTSAX and go from there. Growth is more volatile but that doesn't necessarily mean it is returning more.
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

freyj6 wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 12:52 am Here's one of my favorite boglehead topics of all time: viewtopic.php?t=339971

This was posted the day after ARKK peaked, and subsequently lost 80% of it's value. It's still down 75% from it's high.

Very similar to this topic.
Wow. This makes me realize how easy it is to be swept up in zeitgeist and think you’re a genius when markets are going up. If everyone says you MUST invest in x,y,z because it’s a no-brainer you should probably run the other way. Jumping into growth when it’s going up is pretty much the same thing. I only want the journey up but loathe the ride back down (been there!) so the smart move is to stick with the smoother ride of VTSAX. Funny, with VTSAX, I never even check my portfolio more than once every few months. With my growth ETF, I checked it daily. That should tell me high volatility is probably not for me.
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

Marseille07 wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 10:13 am
meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:12 am It seems like growth ETFs are like a rocket ship in bull markets and even with harder falls in bear markets, overall it seems like growth is a “no brainer” investment strategy. Even now, in a high interest rate environment, growth stocks are leading the way. I am personally trying to conquer FOMO and become a tortoise not a hare so I’m not chasing growth but rather sticking with VTSAX. But then I can’t help but feel like I’m opting out of the rocket ship? I know VTSAX holds the big growth names but is there ever a Boglehead case for adding a specific growth ETF to the mix? Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
Compare performances of growth ETFs and VTSAX and go from there. Growth is more volatile but that doesn't necessarily mean it is returning more.
Great point. It’s easy to forget the massive drops when things are going up. Ultimately, those big drops dampen the overall return, or bring it more in line with a “boring” fund.
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

rkhusky wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 10:07 am
meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:18 pm
rkhusky wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 8:56 pm Keep in mind that size boundaries are completely arbitrary. And there are many definitions for the value/growth metric. If you own the market, the boundaries and definitions don’t matter.
That’s a great point. Truth be told, I owned a growth ETF for a few years that was very volatile and caused me a fair amount of angst, so I sold it (for a tiny profit) in order to buy VTSAX but now, of course, that old fund is way up and I am kicking myself for not just staying on the ride (even though it was an uncomfortable ride!) My logic then was that I didn’t want that kind of volatility and was willing to sacrifice some growth for a more stable return. Now, I have remorse. Is this a textbook case of emotional investing?! I know I need to move on but seeing growth roaring back in 2023 stings a little.
Value and growth swap out-performance every so often. You surely don’t want to buy back into growth at the peak and then watch it underperform for a few years. By owning TSM you own both growth and value. Your volatility goes down and you get the average return - not the best and not the worst.
This is what I plan to do. It might be less “exciting” but it definitely seems wiser.
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
User avatar
Fat-Tailed Contagion
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:49 am

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by Fat-Tailed Contagion »

I have noticed this trend and seems to signal a potential top for Large Growth similar to 1999.

Does anyone have the Growth vs Value chart updated to today?
“The intelligent investor is a realist who sells to optimists and buys from pessimists.” | ― Benjamin Graham, The Intelligent Investor (75/25 - 50/50 - 25/75)
Elysium
Posts: 4120
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:22 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by Elysium »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:12 am It seems like growth ETFs are like a rocket ship in bull markets and even with harder falls in bear markets, overall it seems like growth is a “no brainer” investment strategy. Even now, in a high interest rate environment, growth stocks are leading the way. I am personally trying to conquer FOMO and become a tortoise not a hare so I’m not chasing growth but rather sticking with VTSAX. But then I can’t help but feel like I’m opting out of the rocket ship? I know VTSAX holds the big growth names but is there ever a Boglehead case for adding a specific growth ETF to the mix? Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
I don't think there is a Boglehead way to do this, or may be there is, you just have to figure out what that is yourself. It may be performance chasing because you are asking on June 2nd, after they have gone up a lot, not on Oct 31st or December 31st last year when they were down a lot. You may just catch the end of a rally long in the tooth and regret it just like the person who started the ARK thread around it's peak.

Personally I stopped worrying about semantics and wanted to try an experiment with real money, using a method I know is reasonably sound, to select a few quality companies with sound financials that were selling off their peak prices, at prices I found were attractive to buy because of their competitive business advantages, their balance sheets, and their overall earnings were all looking sound, but with the fear investors had over economy drove prices down. I built a portfolio of such stocks to compliment my otherwise well balanced passive portfolio of stock and bond funds, about 10% of overall portfolio may be. These were companies with businesses I personally like, with proper low relative PE ratios, instead of buying some random growth or tech index. I just bought 9 to 10 companies I liked, keeping each still around 2% of my overall portfolio.

I just didn't think they will work so well, my plan was to hold for 5 years and in that time they will realize the fair value I was expecting, but investors it seems are very impatient and they have pushed all those to the fair value I expected in 5 years. Now I am sitting on 40%+ profits on them in six months, and wondering what to do with it. It was the opposite of performance chasing, it was buying when everyone was afraid. There may be a case for it, but that case is shut I think, everything except value stocks look overbought. You may want to hold on until there is fear again.
User avatar
Karlsefni
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:53 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by Karlsefni »

I talk my way out of tilts by moving from backtest data to conceptualizing catastrophic risks.

As long as the United States is a capitalistic country, TSM is mathematically guaranteed to NOT go to 0. But individual stocks go to 0 all the time.

The closer you are to TSM, the bigger things have to go bad for you to get a really bad result. The closer you are to single stock, the more likely an idiosyncratic risk takes you down. A really bad result for small cap REITs isn’t even going to show up in TSM returns, for example.

So buy an index fund of TSM, get the average return of the market year after year and hope compounding is in my favor… or try fancy tilts and introduce many more points of possible failure into my portfolio’s chances to meet my goals?

(To be clear I’m discussing OPs question for tilting your core holding, not saying there’s no marginal cases).

- Thorfinn
Age minus 10 in bonds/cash | 5% commodities | 50/50 US/Int Equity
User avatar
retiredjg
Posts: 54082
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:56 am

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by retiredjg »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:41 am Is VTSAX considered diversified in and of itself? Is there enough “growth” in there?
Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index is as diversified as a fund can be. It contains essentially the entire US market.

Yes, there is enough growth in there - it contains as much growth stock as the market contains.

Yes, your idea is purely market timing/performance chasing.
chassis
Posts: 2183
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:28 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by chassis »

meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:12 am It seems like growth ETFs are like a rocket ship in bull markets and even with harder falls in bear markets, overall it seems like growth is a “no brainer” investment strategy. Even now, in a high interest rate environment, growth stocks are leading the way. I am personally trying to conquer FOMO and become a tortoise not a hare so I’m not chasing growth but rather sticking with VTSAX. But then I can’t help but feel like I’m opting out of the rocket ship? I know VTSAX holds the big growth names but is there ever a Boglehead case for adding a specific growth ETF to the mix? Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
Answer to the question: Fear. People are afraid of volatility.
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

chassis wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 12:55 pm
meadowrue wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:12 am It seems like growth ETFs are like a rocket ship in bull markets and even with harder falls in bear markets, overall it seems like growth is a “no brainer” investment strategy. Even now, in a high interest rate environment, growth stocks are leading the way. I am personally trying to conquer FOMO and become a tortoise not a hare so I’m not chasing growth but rather sticking with VTSAX. But then I can’t help but feel like I’m opting out of the rocket ship? I know VTSAX holds the big growth names but is there ever a Boglehead case for adding a specific growth ETF to the mix? Is this just performance chasing? (probably, yes!) I know when the tech bubble burst it took a very long time to recover but it seems unlikely tech will crash that hard again, given that technology has now advanced well past the days of early tech/early 2000s. Please tell me why I’m wrong because I’m pretty sure I am!
Answer to the question: Fear. People are afraid of volatility.
Like many I’m guessing, I liked to think I was more immune to the emotional impact of volatility than I really was. When “life” became volatile (job instability, etc.) my appetite for market volatility went way down. I am trying to be more honest with myself about fear, instead of only looking through a lens of greed/chasing max returns. My true risk tolerance has to factor in “life volatility.” If I get fearful when life throws a curve ball, then I need a portfolio that doesn’t magnify that fear, if that makes sense. Appreciate all the wisdom here.
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
KlangFool
Posts: 31526
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by KlangFool »

meadowrue wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:07 pm
Like many I’m guessing, I liked to think I was more immune to the emotional impact of volatility than I really was. When “life” became volatile (job instability, etc.) my appetite for market volatility went way down. I am trying to be more honest with myself about fear, instead of only looking through a lens of greed/chasing max returns. My true risk tolerance has to factor in “life volatility.” If I get fearful when life throws a curve ball, then I need a portfolio that doesn’t magnify that fear, if that makes sense. Appreciate all the wisdom here.
meadowrue,

Let's take emotion out of this.

Life is unpredictable. If your employer start laying off people in the coming recession and you are unemployed longer than your emergency fund can support your family, you will have to sell your stock to support your family. Whether your were fearful or not is irrelevant, you are forced to sell in a down market.

Unless you can predict your future and no emergency could ever happen to you that is bigger than your emergency fund can handle, you cannot rule out you may have to sell your stock in the worst possible time. The, there will be no recovery for you.

50% of my co-workers were laid off at my location at 1/1/2009.

KlangFool
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
User avatar
retiredjg
Posts: 54082
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:56 am

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by retiredjg »

meadowrue wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:07 pm Like many I’m guessing, I liked to think I was more immune to the emotional impact of volatility than I really was.
I think this describes most people. I do not believe that many people can judge their true risk tolerance until it has been rigorously tested. Only older investors have actually had that opportunity.
When “life” became volatile (job instability, etc.) my appetite for market volatility went way down. I am trying to be more honest with myself about fear, instead of only looking through a lens of greed/chasing max returns. My true risk tolerance has to factor in “life volatility.” If I get fearful when life throws a curve ball, then I need a portfolio that doesn’t magnify that fear, if that makes sense. Appreciate all the wisdom here.
I think this is a wise realization on your part and you will be a better investor because of it.

As has been said many times....everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. Mike Tyson
User avatar
upekkha
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:05 am
Location: Western NY

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by upekkha »

Tom_T wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:34 am If you own a broad-based index fund, then you don't have to worry about having enough growth stocks.

You sound as if you are worried that you won't get the maximum return for your portfolio. Don't worry about that because I can already tell you that you won't. Nobody can predict the future, and "maximum" is relative, anyway, depending on what you own and when you take a measurement of your portfolio. There is always some combination of investments (or even a single stock) that can beat the market. We just don't know what it is.

If you can accept a "good enough" return, you'll sleep better.
+1
"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan." - Carl Von Clausewitz
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by Marseille07 »

meadowrue wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:07 pm Like many I’m guessing, I liked to think I was more immune to the emotional impact of volatility than I really was. When “life” became volatile (job instability, etc.) my appetite for market volatility went way down. I am trying to be more honest with myself about fear, instead of only looking through a lens of greed/chasing max returns. My true risk tolerance has to factor in “life volatility.” If I get fearful when life throws a curve ball, then I need a portfolio that doesn’t magnify that fear, if that makes sense. Appreciate all the wisdom here.
Just hold VOO or VTI then. I don't think it makes sense to tilt growth given what you're describing.

I guess I don't understand why you feel FOMO and fear volatility at the same time. That's not a good combination to be a good investor because you'd chase volatile stuff during the upturn then panic sell during the downturn.
Topic Author
meadowrue
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by meadowrue »

Marseille07 wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:33 pm
meadowrue wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:07 pm Like many I’m guessing, I liked to think I was more immune to the emotional impact of volatility than I really was. When “life” became volatile (job instability, etc.) my appetite for market volatility went way down. I am trying to be more honest with myself about fear, instead of only looking through a lens of greed/chasing max returns. My true risk tolerance has to factor in “life volatility.” If I get fearful when life throws a curve ball, then I need a portfolio that doesn’t magnify that fear, if that makes sense. Appreciate all the wisdom here.
Just hold VOO or VTI then. I don't think it makes sense to tilt growth given what you're describing.
I have VINIX in my 401K and VITSX in my HSA which I think are similar to VOO/VTI? Essentially, low-cost index funds tracking the whole market, or a large percentage at least in the form of VINIX. This is my move away from the aggressive growth midcap fund (in HSA only) that gave me angst and is now flying high of course … because I sold it! :oops: But probably long term, it was the right move for me.
“We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.”—Aristotle Onassis
Marseille07
Posts: 16054
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm

Re: Why not growth all the way?

Post by Marseille07 »

meadowrue wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:41 pm I have VINIX in my 401K and VITSX in my HSA which I think are similar to VOO/VTI? Essentially, low-cost index funds tracking the whole market, or a large percentage at least in the form of VINIX. This is my move away from the aggressive growth midcap fund (in HSA only) that gave me angst and is now flying high of course … because I sold it! :oops: But probably long term, it was the right move for me.
Nobody knows, but it's evident the volatility of aggressive growth midcap is getting to you. VINIX and VITSX seem like VOO & VTI, so just stick with them.

I only hold VOO or VTI equivalents in my core holdings myself.
Post Reply