Why buy and hold doesn't work anymore

I'm sure most of you saw this, but just in case...
formatting link

Quick summary: Andrew Lo (MIT economist) says technology is one of the major
driving forces of stock market volatility. And volatility is so high now that
buy-and-hold investors are getting shellacked.
Reply to
Bill Woessner
Bill Woessner writes:
Also, the markets being riskier/more volatile doesn't mean they're any less efficient. Efficiency is not the same as rationality. A market diverging from some alleged "rational" value as it swings way above and way below the "rational value" doesn't a priori mean the market isn't efficient.
I'm sure Lo knows all that, which it why it would be interesting to see what he actually said.
Reply to
Rich Carreiro
Inscrutably, Andrew Lo says that buy-and-holders are getting shellacked because they do not buy-and-hold. For example:
Reply to
Yes, exactly! The example he gives for why buy and hold doesn't work has the investor bailing out, instead of buying and holding - and doing it at exactly the wrong time.
Which is one of the arguments for buy and hold! If it's your strategy, you don't do that - maybe you don't even know the market went down. Even better, you buy-hold-rebalance and take the opportunity to "buy low." That's low, not Lo, which I'm just not buying.
On the bright side, with another 6 months like the last 6 this genre of article/economist will fade from view, replaced by "Did you just miss that? The virtues of buy & hold." Remember when everyone was so freaked out by high frequency traders that they didn't notice that the US stock+bond market was at an all-time high? (as were the balanced index funds that track those markets)
Reply to
Tad Borek
I'd written "For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor?s 500 index" Taken from a report by Dalbar. In a perfect world, one would see that 11.8 minus some very small cost, or perhaps even beating the 11.8 with the effect of averaging in over time. In a high fee world, even 10.8 looks great compared to the 4.3 they calculated.
Reply to
I almost spewed my dinner-salad onto my keyboard when I read the above. :-)
You bet.
You oughta join the folks at the Wall Street Journal site commenting on Bodie's article. Ninety percent are Dapperdobbs-type (bona fide) hotshots with all wisdom.
Reply to

Site Timeline Threads

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.