Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin

Trading Psychology
 The Equity Desk Forum :Market Strategies :Trading Psychology
Message Icon Topic: Behavioral Finance - Needs more attention Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 20 Next >>
Author Message
BubbleVision
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 05/Aug/2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3142
Quote BubbleVision Replybullet Posted: 23/Feb/2008 at 10:45am
Originally posted by manishdave

Janakbhai,
My strategy is, I have not strategy.
 
Jiske Tad Me Laddu, Uske Tad Me Hum.
 
Sometimes hardcore WB followers get it wrong. WB is not averse to commidities, he only likes it less. He purchased crude oil in '93. He also made trades in copper and probably in corn in past. It is abt understanding of mkt. His silver and currency trades are well known aprat from his trades in commodity stocks.
 
Some investors are so averse to commodities that they don't follow commodities. But to be more complete investor, one needs to learn something of everything and everything of something. IMO understanding of commodities, currencies markets, demand/supply of money/ shares makes you better investor in banking, FMCG, Real Estate etc. also.
 
Manishji......According to me, this is one of the top 3 post on the TED so far, from what ever I have read.
 
Take a Bow!!!
 
 
 
You can't make money if you are unwilling to lose...It's like willing to breathe in but not willing to breathe out. -- ED SEYKOTA ....Read Disclaimer!
IP IP Logged
Janak.merchant1
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 14/Jan/2008
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 364
Quote Janak.merchant1 Replybullet Posted: 23/Feb/2008 at 11:36am
Originally posted by basant

Originally posted by Janak.merchant1

Hi TEd members,

 
What do you people stay away from in the investment world?
 
Hardcore Warren followers do not invest in commodities.
 
Some just specialise in commodities.
 
Thanks for any views-feedbacks.
 
Best wishes,
 
 
I stay away away from companies whose EPS I cannot  predict, my initial strategy is to hold stocks that become cheap after every quarter (rising EPS) and I use the growth as my margin of safety.
 
A company with a PE of 40 automatically becomes a 20 PE company if the EPS grows by 100% and we need to be right for just 12 months in order to make the stock cheap and generate a margin of safety.
 
Anything that does not confirm to this strategy is beyond my scheme of things and I prefer staying out from.
 
 
 
 
Hi BAsant,
 
I hv always found that predicting eps is a very tricky issue. I do not hv any particular expertise for it. So i try to go for much higher MOS.
 
Best wishes,
I love my money, not my opinion. So i am ready and willing to change my opinion for the sake of protecting my money.
IP IP Logged
manishdave
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 05/Aug/2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1371
Quote manishdave Replybullet Posted: 24/Feb/2008 at 10:20pm

Kulmanji,
I am doing this since quite some time and you can say it keeps on evolving. Internet is great tool that provides level playing field and then it comes to individual's judgement. Before internet era, big boys had way better access to information and advantage of clout.
If you want to know more, I will send my signatures in past few years and you send check to Basant. He will send you report how it evolved and you send me copy of that.


BV,
Thanks but it is only theoritical post so please don't go into numbering. It is relative only. The correct and absolute numbers are give by mkt here:

http://www.theequitydesk.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1503

Janakbhai,
You are absolutely right. Basant is very passionate abt TED and it is not joke to put 10,000 quality posts. Eventhough Kulmanji and smartcat had lot of quality jokes, they are behind put together.

Looks like you are hooked up to TED.

Since we are moving away from topic, this will be my last post on this thread.
IP IP Logged
kulman
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 02/Sep/2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9319
Quote kulman Replybullet Posted: 24/Feb/2008 at 10:41pm
Originally posted by manishdave

If you want to know more, I will send my signatures in past few years and you send check to Basant. He will send you report how it evolved and you send me copy of that.
 
Big%20smile I have been given to understand that he is a very kind & generous person who doesn't charge friends & especially loyal TEDies.
 
Originally posted by manishdave

Looks like you are hooked up to TED.
 
TED is very addictive is all I can say to JM bhai.
 
 
Life can only be understood backwards—but it must be lived forwards
IP IP Logged
kulman
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 02/Sep/2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9319
Quote kulman Replybullet Posted: 16/Mar/2008 at 12:59pm
 
Reason No. 1 Your brain is wired for panic.

Don't give in. Pros have all sorts of clever computer models for assessing risk. But even those brilliant machines misjudge risk from time to time (like in the subprime meltdown).

So how can the rest of us expect to be right on risk when all we have to work with is that carbon-based computer we keep between our ears? "Most people just can't think about risk in an analytic way," says Paul Slovic, a University of Oregon psychologist and an authority on how we assess risk. "The average person goes by gut feelings."

As behavioral scientists have proved, those feelings are notoriously unreliable in a market like this. Part of the problem is that your brain evolved to feel the pain of loss more acutely than the pleasure of gains.

That means that the normal human reaction in a downturn is to turn fearful and sell - even though risk is lower than it was when stocks were higher and the rational move would be to buy.

"We always say 'Buy low and sell high,' " says John Nofsinger, a finance professor at Washington State University and author of "Investment Madness: How Psychology Affects Your Investing." "But after the market has gone down for a while, the 'buy low' option is just not emotionally available to most people."

Obsessing over every bit of market news only raises the odds that you'll overestimate risk, according to behavioral economist Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago. The more often you check stock prices, he found, the greater you perceive your risk to be.

Prices move up and down pretty much constantly. If you're watching that activity minute by minute on your PC or TV, your brain gets the message that it's dangerous out there.

A simple, effective way to lower your anxiety: In Thaler's experiment, the subjects who perceived the least risk were those who checked their investments no more than once a year.

Reason No. 2 You see safety in the herd.

It's an illusion. Faced with uncertainty, your instinct is to follow the crowd. Bad idea. "The herding tendency clouds your judgment," says UCLA finance professor Subra Subrahmanyam. "If others are selling, you'll be prone to ignore your own assessment and sell as well." Economists dub this progression "information cascading." You might call it a lemming parade.

The record of mutual fund cash flows shows that the crowd's investing moves are a reliable indicator of what not to do.

The great manager of FPA Capital fund, Robert Rodriguez, notes that the largest fund in 2000, as stocks were peaking, was growth star Fidelity Magellan. Three years later the new darling had become bond fund Pimco Total Return, just as bond returns peaked. "You can't make this stuff up," he marvels.

Today's fund cash flows suggest that you should buy stocks, since stock funds saw a net $44 billion withdrawn in January, and should avoid bonds and commodities, which saw multibilliondollar inflows.

Sure, it's not easy to hang on to stocks when everyone around is bailing or to avoid buying bonds or commodities when others are cashing in. But if you do, history suggests that you won't regret it.

Reason No. 3 You underestimate the risk of being out of stocks.

These days it's helpful to remind yourself of this: In the long run the risk of missing stocks' upside poses a graver threat to your wealth than taking hits on the downside does. There's no denying that the big one-day drops we've seen recently are no fun, but if you hang in, the math works in your favor.

"Stocks go up and down," says Stephen Wood, senior portfolio strategist at Russell Investment Group. "To make money you need to capture their upward movements. The only way to do that is to stay invested in dicey times."

Don't kid yourself that if you flee stocks now, you can slip back in just in time for a rebound. Years of data and volumes of research have proved that not even the pros can time the market with any consistent success. Focus instead on the fundamentals.

When the market plunges, so too do price/earnings ratios. And the cheaper you can buy, the better your chances of making money in the future.

For proof, consider the crash of October 1987 and its aftermath. Had you owned an S&P 500 index fund, you would have lost 23% during that month, including a stunning 21% on Black Monday, the 19th. Had you sold, you would have locked in that loss. But had you stuck it out, you would have gotten back to even in 20 months. And then you would have participated in the great bull run that followed, racking up an annualized 15% return over the next 10 years.

Sticking to your guns was psychologically no easier 20 years ago than it is today; but the results suggest that the investors who will look the smartest in a few years won't be the ones who are now jumping out of stocks and plunging into commodities.

Reason No. 4 There's no such thing as 'risk tolerance.'

Open a brokerage account, click around your 401(k) provider's website or consult with a financial pro and you're bound to come across a questionnaire that tries to assess your appetite for risk.

You might be asked what you'd do if the market dropped 20% or if a stock you owned doubled. Answer a bunch of these and a formula spits back an assessment of how "risk tolerant" you are and recommends a portfolio that supposedly suits you.

Three months into the crazy '08 market, you probably already see the flaw in this thinking: You can't predict what you'd do in a downturn until you're in one.

No doubt you felt a lot more daring when the Dow was at 14,000 last fall than you feel now - and you might have picked a much different portfolio. You're not alone. Says Nofsinger: "The idea that you have a constant risk tolerance is just not an accurate view of how things work."

Moreover, your appetite for risk doesn't wax and wane solely with the market's ups and downs. It changes for all kinds of reasons.

"It can depend on your mood, the time of day, whether you had a fight with your spouse, even the weather," says UCLA's Subrahmanyam. He notes, for instance, that stocks typically spike prior to holidays like the Fourth of July when investors are happily anticipating their vacations.

The lesson: Research into investor psychology shows that you're likely to see the risk in today's stock market as greater than it really is, just as last fall you saw it as less than it really was. And postwar market history suggests that if you act on that emotional perception, you'll regret it later when stocks rebound and leave you behind.

What do you do? Instead of relying on your gut feel for risk and reward today, you'll be far better off focusing on your long-term financial goals, allocating your assets accordingly and sticking to your plan.

....before you can build a strategy around goals, you need to spend some time figuring out what yours truly are - which is the second big thing you need to get right in this market.

Views/comments/analysis......welcome!
 
 
Life can only be understood backwards—but it must be lived forwards
IP IP Logged
BubbleVision
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 05/Aug/2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3142
Quote BubbleVision Replybullet Posted: 16/Mar/2008 at 1:35pm
Originally posted by kulman

 
....before you can build a strategy around goals, you need to spend some time figuring out what yours truly are - which is the second big thing you need to get right in this market.
 
Views/comments/analysis......welcome!
 
 
 
Fwiw....
 
“If you wish to trade for a living you might consider studying yourself."………Ed Seykota
 
 
 


Edited by BubbleVision - 16/Mar/2008 at 1:36pm
You can't make money if you are unwilling to lose...It's like willing to breathe in but not willing to breathe out. -- ED SEYKOTA ....Read Disclaimer!
IP IP Logged
valueman
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 29/May/2007
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1134
Quote valueman Replybullet Posted: 16/Mar/2008 at 8:47pm

This is the best piece I found :


For proof, consider the crash of October 1987 and its aftermath. Had you owned an S&P 500 index fund, you would have lost 23% during that month, including a stunning 21% on Black Monday, the 19th. Had you sold, you would have locked in that loss. But had you stuck it out, you would have gotten back to even in 20 months. And then you would have participated in the great bull run that followed, racking up an annualized 15% return over the next 10 years.


To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize ; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks .
Benjamin Graham.
IP IP Logged
kulman
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 02/Sep/2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9319
Quote kulman Replybullet Posted: 20/Mar/2008 at 5:29pm

Market swings & equity wealth effect

The markets are gyrating. The consequential change in demand (Pigovian Wealth effect) that accompanies massive changes in wealth — realised / unrealised, real / illusory — from market valuations has upset the ‘economic bliss’ (standard macro-economic identities). Macro-economic policy makers need to wake up to this reality and explore new policy parameters to restore and push up the ‘economic bliss’ to higher levels.

Look at the figures. India’s GNP was Rs 41 trillion in 2006-07. The market value of equity portfolio is almost double that figure, however. More importantly, the market capitalisation increased by about Rs 38 trillion, almost the size of the GNP, in the first nine months of this fiscal. Add to this the rise in valuation of real estate and bullion (major asset portfolios, the latter particularly in India): welcome to the world of ‘unearned’ income with both its real and illusory effects [wealth illusion, similar to the Patinkin ‘money illusion’] that could trigger an age of much higher aggregate demand (consumption and investement) far in excess of the aggregate supply or income.

There are times in a market economy when the aggregate demand exceeds GNP. This happens when the portfolio owners perceive themselves to be richer due to an asset price boom of the kind that India experienced in 2007. Consequently they feel more comfortable and secure, and tend to spend more. Since the increase in wealth is ‘unearned’, they may splurge a little. Or, at least the urge to add more to their portfolio reduces and they save less. A sharp decline in savings is, therefore, not uncommon in the economies where wealth is driven by higher equity valuations.

The very low rate savings in G7 countries in 1990s exemplifies this. The asset price boom reduces cost of capital, which coupled with higher consumption demand, pushes up investment demand. The portfolio owners are comfortable to bet on more investment. The combined increase in consumption and investment shifts aggregate demand function upwards because of the positive ‘wealth effect’.

Higher the proportion of people who depend on passive income for livelihood, higher the average size of portfolios, higher the proportion of market-linked assets (securities, real estate, bullion, etc) in the portfolios, higher the elasticity of demand to changes in wealth, the higher is the magnitude of wealth effect. A sharp and lasting change in asset valuation could cause sharp and lasting wealth effect on the level of demand. Measuring the wealth elasticity of demand and modelling for the demand for changes in asset prices, however, is not an easy task as it is not amenable to the ceteris paribus assumption. But the effect, as revealed by many studies, is generally positive and would not be insignificant, more so, if size of ‘unearned’ income is a multiple of the GNP.

Assume an economy which consumes 65% and saves 35% of its GNP and where investment is equal to savings. If it has an ‘unearned’ income (increase in wealth from equity valuation) equal to GNP, it may consume about 5% of this leading to consumption rate of 70%. Probably this explains a part of the recent ‘consumerism’ in India. It may also invest about 5% of the increase in wealth (investment demand of Rs 8 lakh crore in recent Reliance IPO did not come from current GNP) leading to investment rate of 40%. This onsets disequilibrium where aggregate demand (investment) exceeds GNP (savings) and inevitably drives up the economy through the ‘multipliers’ and ‘accelerators’. While these happen, the prices of other assets (non-equities) also go up, creating a ripple wealth effect from those assets also. As the movement approaches equilibrium, the resultant economic growth propels further higher valuations of equities putting a virtuous circle in motion.

Higher economic growth, generally though not necessarily, leads to higher valuation of equities. However, higher valuation of equities necessarily means higher wealth effect, aggregate demand and economic growth. The bull markets can, therefore, power the economies through wealth effect, while economic growth may not always propel a bull run.

The wealth effect reflecting relationship between aggregate demand and equity valuation is a double-edged sword. The poor equity valuations in bear markets can hurt economic growth particularly if the erosion in equity valuation in a day is as high as one-fourth of GNP as witnessed in the recent past. This may even lead to the withdrawal of public issues and consequently lower investment. In such cases, the aggregate demand would be much less than the supply to onset the disequilibrium. This would inevitably drive down the economy through ‘multipliers’ and ‘accelerators’. The stock market crash of 1929 caused sharp decline in wealth, reduced consumption sharply and contributed to depth of the Great Depression. The macroeconomic managers have to worry about the demand and the economy if the stock prices fall sharply from the exalted levels.

With globalisation, the economic agents of one economy hold assets in other economies. The variations in asset valuations in other economies have significant wealth effect in the host economy. Further, since the markets are linked globally, the valuations in one market have ripple effect on others. Time is not far off when the sharp gyrations in valuations of equity or other assets in any part of the world would contribute to divergence between aggregate demand and supply and can move the economies up or down depending on the degree of integration with the global economy and the direction and size of valuations.

As more people invest in market-linked assets and depend on markets for their income and wealth, asset price volatility anywhere in the world could have severe macroeconomic consequences and implications for monetary policy. A substantial rise in asset prices will increase ‘unearned’ incomes and consequently aggregate demand and vice versa. This will amplify macroeconomic swings. Besides, sharp fluctuations in asset prices can fuel expectations in a rather irrational way which can cause systemic risks. This will increase the demand for effective regulation, backed by sound macro policies framed on the basis of these new realities.

Life can only be understood backwards—but it must be lived forwards
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 20 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



This page was generated in 0.031 seconds.
Bookmark this Page