2024 Year End Review & Dividends – 3rd slowest increase in cash dividends
since 2011
-
Although 2024 started off as a year where investors were anticipating
whether rate cuts would happen (rate cuts eventually happened on 18
September 2024)...
3 hours ago
CW,
ReplyDeleteLOL!
She obviously don't practice buy and hold ;)
I like her savvy gambling instincts!
"But, as the song goes, you’ve got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them."
Some retail "investors" really believed being 100% vested in the stock market is "not gambling"...
Investing is still Game of strategies. Like it or not.
Deletetemperament,
DeleteYou are what Hokkiens call "iron teeth" - "ai gong wei"!
If you read the post properly, this ang moh librarian practice the same as you and me lah!
"But if the market totally tanks tomorrow, you ask, and stocks become such a crazy bargain that I’d be a fool not to put at least some of my money back into that mutual fund that served me so well, wouldn’t I?
Of course I would! I’m no fool. Plus, the one thing I’ve learned about the market over the past three decades is “what goes down, eventually comes back up.” But until that happens, I’m staying put. And if it never happens? I’m still set."
She more gungho than you and me! She is now 100% out of equities! Power!
She'll be back when the next crashes ;)
She has gone through what you've gone through during the past 3 decades. Buy and hold my foot!
And note her honesty!
DeleteShe relied on mutual funds that served her so very well.
I can't imagine her interested in the craft of DIY investing. She smarter. She hired a shepherd to do the investing for her ;)
But she knows a shepherd will not voluntarily return cash or advocate market timing (how to earn fees like that?)...
So like a land owner, she knows when to dismiss the services of the shepherd ;)
This is classic example of B & H. Holding it for three decades and quit the Game when she has enough.
ReplyDeleteBuy & Hold is alive!
Traders love to poke failed B & H investors. But; those successful B & H investors will point to their bank account and laugh back. Right?
ReplyDeleteCW and temperament,
ReplyDeleteLOL!
This is classic example of we see what we want to see ;)
Traders see and take into account entries and exits.
You guys see and count her entry, her holding period of 30 years, and "convenietly" ignore her final EXIT?
100% exit from equities is still counted as Buy and Hold?
And I thought the meaning of "Hold" meant still vested...
Let's say I am very impressed with this 62 years young librarian. She knows she has "enough".
She is more guungho than the 3 of us. She dares to go 100% all out!
C'mon, all 3 of us are not 100% vested in equities right now... That's not Buy and Hold too ;)
If you believe Buy and Hold is still alive, what take partial profit? (People listen to what we do; not what we say)
We are just 50 steps laughing at 100 steps :)
temperament,
ReplyDeleteI'll leave it you and CW to work it out between you two... You both have quite different definition of Buy-and-Hold ;)
temperament version:
"On the other hand, i think she a little like me loh - B & H & S, B & H & S."
CW version:
"This is classic example of B & H. Holding it for three decades and quit the Game when she has enough."
What the hell is "S" and "quit" when it comes to Buy-and-Hold?
Just having fun lah! Its quite clear my mental bias is on the end game :)
I think all 3 of us know very well how we can tell whether an investor is competent or not. Its never the noun or label of "trader" or "investor"...
COMPETENT investors/traders know when to sell ;)
Hand to heart right?
Had you held all the 3 Temasek stocks you mentioned, you would love to sell nearer to their 2013 highs right?
Definitely not at current prices...
Can agree selling is much harder?
Have a Great Retirement! U have work hard for it!
ReplyDeletetemperament,
ReplyDeleteExactly!
I don't care about labels. Don't sell how to take profits?
Although I am teasing and debating with you - we both are closer to the same definition - we both see and acknowledge the "S" ;)
CW sides with you in "words"; but his multiple rounds in "actions" speak louder! LOL!
We both know WHY CW will NEVER sell his multi-baggers out COMPLETELY like the US librarian above even if STI zooms up to 10,000. It has nothing to do with fundamentals or technicals. Or lack of guts or conviction.
Shhh... Don't say it out loud ;)
Young people too respectful and courteous to you and CW. So I play the "rude" idiot role here to have a bit of fun playing out the Socratic method.
Maybe some bei kambings reading our debates can benefit and figure out for themselves what does Buy-and-Hold really means - especially the "Hold" part :)
We make a good 相声 pair!
LOL!
Any young ones see the difference from the above comments?
ReplyDeleteThe $800,000 question (I'm assuming that's the rough size of her portfolio) is how much capital she put in? I'd bet it wasn't more than $100K. Vanguard's balanced funds are about 8+% to 9+% CAGR from mid-1980s till now.
ReplyDeleteFor the 9.57% CAGR Vanguard Star Fund, it'll just take about $43K to hit $800K over last 32 years. With starting capital of $50K, it'll be $930,000 today.
No definite definition of B&H --- generally just means no or very little emphasis on selling assets within weeks or even months to cash in on a higher price. Emphasis is on compounding interest & re-invested dividends to grow capital.
For how long? Up to societal norms lah. 30 years ago people in US generally held stocks for 10 years before selling. Now it's like 1-2 years.
The US tax dept is quite helpful in deciding whether to be a trader or B&H (at least on a mini scale). If you realise profits after 365 days of buying an asset, you pay "long term" income tax of 15%. If you realise profits within 365 days, you pay "short term" income tax at your marginal tax rate (usually much higher than 15%).
That lady is also very lucky ... for compounding to work, not only it requires TIME, but also the RIGHT ASSET. She invested into the US market at the beginning of the longest secular bull market in US history from 1982 till Mar 2000. The crash of 1987 & the mild bear in 1991 were just small blips in that 18-yr bull run.
The double-dips in 2000-2002 and 2008/2009 basically resulted in 10 years of flat portfolio growth. But the last few years of QE gave her the final Oomph to cross the finish line.
Just imagine if she practiced market timing ... no need expert level, just follow brain-dead 200-day MA --- she would easily be millionaire now instead of "not exactly a millionaire .... a nest egg in the high six figures". :)
But if she did use long-term market timing, she'd probably have avoided the draw-down in 2000-2002 and cashed out in 2008 & declare victory then. LOL!
Btw she was only vested in 60% equities; the other 40% in bonds. To me that's still B&H lah.
Btw2 she's still vested in bonds, Treasuries & TIPS --- should be mostly in Vanguard mutual funds. Does this still count as being B&H?? Does B&H only mean risky assets? Heheheh!!
Spur,
DeleteLOL!
Something so "simple" as Buy-and-Hold has become not so crystal now...
Why get out of bonds when the 37 year old bull market in US Treasuries is still on going? I envy her capital gains in bonds!
She has beaten many hedge fund managers who shorted Treasuries as they refused to accept how interest rates can still stay so low for so long... That's power of QE for you!
Painful widow maker trade to short US or Japan Treasuries :(
But then, as with all cycles, mean revision will exert its pull.
It will be interesting to see if this US librarian will exit her bond holdings BEFORE or AFTER the bond crash?
That's how we tell competence ;)
Paiseh... me not young 1... but still dont understand... bcos i blur blur 1... hehehe
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteUncle CW,
Thumbs up. I also wondered how many fold the cards. I call that 瀟灑。
Have a great golden period:
曾经沧海,终究抖了抖衣袖,
潇潇洒洒,带不走的都留下。
因为拥有了一片蓝天,
够了。
回头看看风风雨雨,
此程也不枉了。
Sillyinvestor 谨启
Who should poke this Grand Investor from selling?
ReplyDeleteBuffett began rolling back this decision earlier this year, dumping about one-third of his position prior to Berkshire's annual meeting. He cited tough competition, saying he had revalued the stock "somewhat downward" as a result. With revenue slumping for more than five years, those competitive advantages had clearly eroded.
Berkshire's latest regulatory filing shows that Buffett has trimmed this multi-billion-dollar stake even further. Berkshire owned 37 million shares of IBM as of Sept. 30, worth about $5.5 billion today. That's down from around 50 million shares earlier this year. IBM's turnaround effort has dragged on, and even Buffett's legendary patience has run thin.
CW,
ReplyDeleteNo need to poke Warren Buffett. Great investors have the ability to poke themselves:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thestreet/2012/02/28/warren-buffett-owns-up-to-mistakes/#3060ccdc6ac6
Well, at least Warren Buffett never Buy-and-Hope that crude will go back to above USD100 again... Maybe one day it will. He rather take his one billion loss and make it back not the same way he took the losses ;)