6 reasons your investments stink

10:00 AM investments, Reasons, stink No Comments

| By Brett Arends, MarketWatch

Have you ever looked under the hood of your mutual fund? Many of them suffer from a common set of problems.

Wouldn't it be great if there were an investment portfolio you could just forget about? Wouldn't it be great if you could free yourself from the madness of the market and go fishing?

Some people -- including, naturally enough, many MarketWatch readers -- are fond of playing the great game of the financial markets. But others just want to leave their money to work for them quietly.

I have a personal interest in this. I have come to accept that I cannot manage my own portfolio and write actively about the markets. There are strict rules keeping one's personal holdings a million miles from anything one writes about (and quite rightly so). This means I have to give my best tips to my readers, and then I can't buy them myself.

I've decided I just don't want the stress of managing a portfolio, either. Yes, I think a well-run portfolio can beat the market over time. But to do that you need a free hand. And you need to manage it actively: You need to be able to pounce on stocks, sectors, and even markets, when their price falls too far, and sell those that have risen too high.

So I have come to decide I just want to join Main Street and put my money into those fire-and-forget portfolios.

But then I started looking at them, and I came to a harsh conclusion: All the options on offer are fundamentally flawed. They're rubbish.

That includes "target date" funds. It includes managed portfolios by most financial planners. It includes those cookie-cutter "smartest portfolios" you sometimes read about. It even includes index funds.

I'm not even talking about the failings of "active management" -- the fact that most active, stock-picking mutual fund managers end up underperforming their own benchmarks. I'm talking about the new low-cost stuff as well.

Why are they inadequate?

Check out any target date fund and you'll find that 80 percent of the stocks they own are U.S. stocks. The U.S. accounts for about one-fifth of the world's total economy. Why should it account for most of my stock portfolio?

Even the people running these funds know this is silly. At a dinner a couple of years ago I sat next to the chief of the target date fund operation at one of the biggest fund companies in America. I asked him why nearly all their equity exposure was in the U.S. He sighed. "Because that's what the customers want," he replied.

Have you ever looked under the hood of these "index" funds and exchange-traded funds? The marketing departments of the fund companies claim that they are giving you the maximum diversification, what in Wall Street jargon is sometimes called "the market portfolio."

But it's hooey. Most of these funds are massively overweighted toward a handful of individual stocks, simply because those are already the most popular and "valuable." A fund tracking the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ($INX) has a fifth of its money in just 10 stocks. It puts 100 times as much of your money in Apple (AAPL) as it does in, say, Owens-Illinois (OI). That is not diversification. Indeed these funds automatically invest more in the more popular and fashionable stocks.

There is a great deal of research which says that an "equal weighted" portfolio -- for example, one that just holds the same amount in each of the S&P 500 stocks -- will beat these skewed funds over time.

I am tired of people telling me to put all my faith in that standard panacea, a "balanced" portfolio of stocks and bonds. Bah. Since 1982 stocks and bonds have both gone up together most of the time. And guess what? If they can both go up together, they can both go down together. That's what happened in the 1940s and the 1970s. People who entrusted their money to this simplistic "balanced portfolio" malarkey got royally hosed. Thanks, but no thanks.

They own too many U.S. Treasurys, and too many short-term bonds paying bupkis -- deadweight in the portfolio. They own too few zero-coupon bonds (the best insurance against a stock market crash), too few foreign bonds and too few from countries -- such as Norway, Australia and New Zealand, and certain emerging markets -- with the best credit.

Do I need some gold or gold-mining stocks? Timber? Commodity futures? Natural-resources stocks? Inflation-protected securities? If I need commodities, how do I protect myself against getting absolutely hosed on the fees or trading costs? The one thing I know: By the time the money managers work it out, it will be too late.

For example, there is a lot of research showing that over time cheaper "value" stocks, and those of "high-quality" companies, have produced better returns, with lower risk, than other stocks. It is highly likely this is a persistent feature of the market, based on the flaws in market psychology. Give me a simple portfolio that exploits that.

I'm on a quest to construct the perfect "all-weather" portfolio. Stay tuned.

Read More

Fear brings your investments

8:00 AM brings, Fear, investments No Comments

| By Chuck Jaffe, MarketWatch.com

Hockey great Wayne Gretzky statement "you miss that you not take 100 percent." This mantra applies to investments as well as.

Wayne Gretzky--the greatest ice hockey player of all times-once said that "you miss that you not take 100 percent." From the ice, the big one but admits he was "not a big risk taker... I stay away from things that I know nothing."

Two surveys published last month show, affecting most investors of better Gretzky second mood. Many are still afraid of the Borse--a fear created during the financial crisis five years - and the investors were not in their recordings. As a result, they have missed out, not only on the rally of recent years, but also on the way, better positioned for what happens next.

BlackRock published last month its first global investor pulse survey, which showed that during the continuous successes some exchanges worldwide are forced in best brands, "most people are to achieve not comfortable taking more risks to higher income." The poll surveyed more than 17,500 investors (including some 4,000 Americans) in a range of income.

In the United States were 48 percent of investible assets in cash, with only 18 per cent in shares and 7 percent in bonds, according to the survey took place.

This is ultra-conservative even by the standards of the common rules of thumb, as the old saw says that investors should take their age, subtract from 100 and use the result as a guide for how much of their portfolio in shares should be rough.

In the meantime, the investment company Institute annual survey of US households found that even people who own mutual funds are less willing to take investment risk than they were before the financial crisis. "The dramatic stock market decline from October 2007 to March 2009 still appears in investors minds, trailing", said Sarah Holden, ICI senior director of retirement and investor research.

If investors ever wanted or needed proof that Wall Street climbs a wall of worry, they've got it in the last five years. And they saw that it increases in the last six months, like everything from very Central Bank policy changes on international problems in countries such as Syria a Government discussed switching off and more made the headlines and feel would give it a market implosion every minute.

And yet, if off your news feed six months ago, you would turn it its now mostly happy with your portfolio as grown, completely unaware of all of the daily misery, that you missed.

This is not encouragement to "Don't worry, be happy."

Instead, there is an urge to properly understand the risk.

Investment professionals like to say that risk generates return on investment. A "less risk"portfolio as a "Return less portfolio" could be described that is clearly not what most investors look; If they were, they would their money in the mattress or the piggy bank to apply.

The larger problem is that investors for portfolios that are free from risk looking as if such a thing actually exists.

This not the case.

Put your money in the mattress, you have completely avoided risk that lost probability of your funds, but you have stock purchasing-power risk, to keep hugging the potential for your money with inflation in the course of time. (In the mattress, also you would need to risk about how your nest egg could endanger a fire, theft or other disasters.)

It does so for practical where you can avoid any risk of any kind of risk, only by exposing themselves to another.

"Always too conservative as risky as anything that could meet your portfolio", Steve Wood, chief market strategist for Russell said investments. "A riskless portfolio is not what people want to follow, because low-return or return-less would be."

In this economy, and with the current market investors have too little choice but to accept risk stock market partly because the Federal Reserve policies virtually force her hand. While the interest was altogether to creeping have, they are not still rises on most forms of savings.

And it is fair to say that at this time Wall Street the wall of "unnecessary concern." Climbing has in the last five years the standard & poor's 500 index ($INX) is 15 percent annually; Factor in the crisis and prolong the time frame after a decade and this profit will be cut in half.

But at 7.5 percent, which has market in the last ten years about what investors have been taught are its annualized return of shares.

Ironically, studies show that these types of stocks are about half would disappoint investors when the appeal to the other half. The unfortunate investors are those expected a greater-than 10-percent return for the chance to share, while that pleased investors are just grateful that they suffer no losses and stay something significantly better than they could have earned in cash.

"Is there a stock exchange can not without risks," said Rob Kron, Director and head of investment and retirement education for BlackRock, "but stock market avoid losses without other risks."

Gretzky, investors need to borrow not "big risk-taking", but you have to take risks and understand why they take it.

If you "do your shots" because you take a calculated risk and that your portfolio will benefit in the long run believe by waiting, until later, Gates try, then you have a strategy.

But if you are not taking the shots, because you are still scared about events now more than five years in the rear-view mirror must detect, influence how the ultimate score. You're kidding yourself if you think that the kind of strategy-even if you verlassliche-- holds does not "lose."

Read More

7 of the most common mistakes, investments

11:30 AM common, investments, mistakes No Comments

| By Mike Patton, Forbes

There is no computer program or individual making the right investment decisions all the time. Here are some common mistakes investors make.

Mistakes happen in life. This also applies to investments. With all there is historical data and experience that we have yet no computer program or single, get it equal all the time. This is because investing includes uncertainty. In addition the investment an emotional endeavor, especially, if the money was the product of years and years of hard work and discipline. In this article, we review some common mistakes investors make.

It is true that investments are part science and part art. For this reason, successful investing in General should contain elements of each. Decisions can bring disastrous results go to feel like decisions, which can represent a problem only from a computer program. Emotional decisions are often subject to prejudice. For example, can if investors buy a specific investment and it then rises, they believe they were sure apply, this would happen. However, rejects the investment, they can convince themselves that they had any idea, what could also happen.

This contradiction is because human behavior has a tendency to arrange our thoughts to fit the thesis of the moment. This is where "behavioral finance" enters the picture. Psychologists have identified a number of human inclinations to explain the inconsistent behavior patterns. The truth is, that contain good investment decisions elements of number crunching and human reason. And while it is important to recognize this, it is much easier said than done. Now we come to the error #2, owners lose one investment too long.

I've seen a few times over the years. The story goes like this. I bought an investment and lost it in value. Now it is around 20%. But when I bought it, I thought it was a good investment. So I'm pretty sure it will rest and if it breaks, I'm going to sell it. The truth is that she probably does not comply with. Why? Because if it comes back, she'll keep it, will believe that it will continue to increase, strengthen their original believe that it was a good investment decision. Here is the problem.

The individual would be there with loss to sell they forced to admit that she is a bad decision. And admit it is very difficult for some. In fact, it is sometimes the best your losses and move on. Now we look at bug #3, impatience.

Investment requires much patience. Vice versa which can be problematic hasty decisions in any effort. Most of us were trained by the company to expect "instant gratification." The truth is, life doesn't work that way, and nobody does invest. Investment requires patience. For example, there are an investment heavily to numerous cases in which for several years afterwards, before it turned and was a top performer.

That's not at all unusual. Therefore assuming that you quality selected who can play out an investment to maximize his return, what that you have, keep it through a full cycle of the Manager strategy itself. How long does it take for a complete cycle? This can be answered only in hindsight. It's the same in determining the end of the recession. It is usually several months after the fact, until we realize that a recession is actually finished.

Leave you when choosing an investment not only on past is. For example, if you buy a mutual fund it is important to assess how the Manager in a bad time in the markets, carried out such as 2008. My customers on average lost 16.25% that year.

There were a number of reasons why it's not worse, but here is the point. If you want an investment funds performance during a bad year look at, when you realize that she lost significantly less than similar funds, can be an indication, have strong risk management controls in place. The importance of this not overemphasize, especially the next downturn occurs.

Read More