Co wiesz z dużym stopniem pewności o inwestowaniu, co nie wymaga wsparcia statystycznego? Zapytano znanych inwestorów, blogerów w USA. Może nie odkrywcze, ale ciekawe, zmuszające do refleksji wypowiedzi…
Leverage can be deadly. It doesn’t take a statistician to know that if you bet more than you have, you are dramatically increasing your risk. It’s great on the way up, though!
I know how little I know: I am aware of the limitations of what I truly know for sure; that I have no idea what the market will do next year or the year after; what sectors are going to outperform, what stocks will still be here in a decade or two; what the Fed will do, where the Dow will be, what GDP looks like. Once we acknowledge what we do and don’t know, it makes the task before us easier, as we are not relying on a false set of premises to build our investments and portfolios upon.
Performance distorts decision making. Almost always and almost everywhere. Very few investors, including professionals, can avoid the tug of historical numbers when making decisions. (Some are more swayed by long-term numbers and others by what’s happened recently.) The evidence backs up that belief, but you don’t need it to know it’s the way of the world; you can easily observe it.
Top traders and investors work to find strategies that suit their personalities (so they can stick with it) and produce net profits over time. Then there is risk management, which keeps you in the game. Whether you are a chart-based swing trader or a long-term value investor, you must find some way to limit your losses or define your “margin of safety” in order to preserve your capital and secure your ability to take advantage of future opportunities. As the popular Market Wizards book series suggests, there are many paths to trading and investing success. While investing styles can vary wildly, a common thread among the top investors interviewed is a respect for the markets and a defined process for controlling risk.
No matter what anyone tells you, successful investing is hard. No stance in the financial markets is ever easy and no strategy will ever give you 100% confidence in your ability to achieve your financial goals. You can make things simpler or more complex but no matter what you do it’s going to be hard. There are far too many psychological landmines to allow this game to ever be easy.
Investors should minimize or optimize taxes and fees.
The stock market goes up most of the time and every so often it goes down a lot and scares the hell out of a lot of people because it is somehow “different” than other past declines. The circumstances for the declines are different but not the market process for handling declines. It goes down a lot, people panic then it stops going down, often for no apparent reason and then it starts to go back up to a new high. The only variable is how long it will take to make that new high. An advisor or investor may or may not be able to add alpha along the way but the simple act of remembering there is nothing new about the market going down a lot along with maintaining a suitable asset allocation and adequate savings rate should be sufficient provided that panic is not succumbed to.
Thanks to investment costs, investors must collectively lag behind the market–and, thanks to skewness, the number who outperform will be far fewer than a normal distribution curve would suggest.
Markets will take you to the point of emotional breakage. You will get out. Then it will go the way you wanted it to go.
Brett Steenbarger, TraderFeed, @steenbab, author of Trading Psychology 2.0: From Best Practices to Best Processes:
Diversification works. If you can harvest returns from relatively uncorrelated strategies with positive expected value, your return stream will be smoother and more reliable than if you go big on any particular strategy. The way to get big is to get broad. Investors have finite Sharpe ratios and those Sharpes have some degree of variability. Many of the psychological problems that occur among investors and traders are the result of amping up strategies and being unable to tolerate the drawdowns when those strategies hit expectable drawdowns.
Więcej pod: abnormalreturns.com