Üks tõhus (kuigi riskantne) võimalus indekseid lüüa ja saavutada isegi n.ö. absoluutne tootlus on mitte osta „kogu kompotti” (s.t. indeksit), vaid ainult valitud aktsiaid. Ja kui endal ei ole võimalusi, teadmisi või aega aktsiaid analüüsida ja valida, siis võib kasutada ka stock advisor’eid – näiteks LHV Pro-d!
Selline investeerimisstrateegia võiks sobida neile, kes on huvitatud indeksit ületavast tootlusest, kuid ei tegele tööalaselt aktsiate ja fondidega.
Kallis Ouna Ants, indexaktsiate peaeesmark ongi riski vahendada.
Loomulikult on v6imalik lyhiajaliselt (vahest isegi aastaid jarjest) turuindekseid lyya individuaalsete aktsiatega. Kuid pikas perspektiivis kaotavad isegi k6ige paremad stock-pickerid oma tootlusega turu keskmisele. Ja v6imalused, et sina nendest parem oled... suht kindlalt on see nullilahedane.
Ja sinu vaide et stockpickimine sobib inimestele, kes ei ole tihedalt turuga seotud.. see on jallegi yle m6istuse. Sellised inimesed eriti peakski indeksaktsiate poole vaatama.
Loomulikult on v6imalik lyhiajaliselt (vahest isegi aastaid jarjest) turuindekseid lyya individuaalsete aktsiatega. Kuid pikas perspektiivis kaotavad isegi k6ige paremad stock-pickerid oma tootlusega turu keskmisele. Ja v6imalused, et sina nendest parem oled... suht kindlalt on see nullilahedane.
Ja sinu vaide et stockpickimine sobib inimestele, kes ei ole tihedalt turuga seotud.. see on jallegi yle m6istuse. Sellised inimesed eriti peakski indeksaktsiate poole vaatama.
Kas ei võiks kaaluda kahte võimalust indeksite löömiseks:
1. Arvestada, et ka raha on positsioon (mida indeksid ega fondid ei arvesta). St püüda olla turult väljas perioodil, kui turul on nt mõnekuuline langusperiood ja siis siseneda taas. Ehk kalendrisse vaadates meenub "sell in May and stay away".
2. Liikuda erinevate turgude vahel - läbi indeksaktsiate võib ju hõlpsasti paigutada raha ümber USA, Jaapani, Saksamaa, Hiina jne turgude vahel. Vahel kukuvad ja tõusevad küll kõik korraga, kuid ilmselt võiks olla võimalik ära tabada, millal ühel või teisel turul suurem tõusupotentsiaal ees on.
1. Arvestada, et ka raha on positsioon (mida indeksid ega fondid ei arvesta). St püüda olla turult väljas perioodil, kui turul on nt mõnekuuline langusperiood ja siis siseneda taas. Ehk kalendrisse vaadates meenub "sell in May and stay away".
2. Liikuda erinevate turgude vahel - läbi indeksaktsiate võib ju hõlpsasti paigutada raha ümber USA, Jaapani, Saksamaa, Hiina jne turgude vahel. Vahel kukuvad ja tõusevad küll kõik korraga, kuid ilmselt võiks olla võimalik ära tabada, millal ühel või teisel turul suurem tõusupotentsiaal ees on.
Kui see kõik nii lihtne oleks, küllap sis lööksid enamik fonde indekseid, mitte ei jääks neile alla ;-)
Minu kogemuse järgi - kui üritad lanusperioodil turult väljas olla, kaotad alati ka olulise osa tõusust.
Minu kogemuse järgi - kui üritad lanusperioodil turult väljas olla, kaotad alati ka olulise osa tõusust.
Uhoh, paris lahe on seda rubriiki lugeda. Lisan siia yhe WSJ artikli, loodetavasti ei ole probleem. Ehk on abiks.
B.
_______
Choosing an Actively Managed Fund That Even a Passive Investor Could Love
IT'S LIKE ASKING a vegetarian to name his favorite cut of beef.
Market-tracking index funds regularly beat most actively managed funds, institutional investors have a third of their stock-market money indexed, and the proposed Social Security private accounts will likely be limited to a menu of index funds. Yet ordinary investors seem oblivious to indexing's success, continuing to keep 86% of their money in actively managed stock funds.
Still hunting for the next superstar stock fund? Trust me, you need all the help you can get, so I called on the collective wisdom of an unlikely group of experts -- some of my fellow index-fund investors.
Their advice: If you are going to buy actively managed funds, stick with funds that have a long-term focus -- and which seek shareholders with the same mentality. To that end, consider these nine criteria. If a fund meets at least seven of the nine, you may have yourself a winner.
1. Cutting costs. If you use a commission-charging broker, you will end up in load funds. If you invest on your own, you should buy no- load funds. But either way, you want stock funds with annual expenses below 1.5% and preferably below 1%, thus ensuring you keep more of whatever your funds make.
Annual expenses are also an excellent indicator of management's attitude toward shareholders. If a fund is hosing you on expenses, it probably doesn't have your best interests at heart.
2. Sitting tight. William Bernstein, an avid indexer and author of "Four Pillars of Investing," argues that low portfolio turnover is as important as rock-bottom annual expenses and no sales commission.
"What you want in an actively managed fund is a real fear of trading costs," he says. "The markets are really very efficient and you don't want to mess with them too much." That's why he likes companies such as Dodge & Cox and Tweedy, Browne Co., both of which offer actively managed funds with notoriously low turnover. As an added bonus, low- turnover funds are typically more tax-efficient.
3. No billboards. Mr. Bernstein also prefers funds that rarely or never advertise, because heavy advertising is a sign that management's chief focus is hauling in a heap of assets.
4. Case closed. Similarly, look fondly on companies that regularly close funds that grow too fast or get too large. Such closings indicate management is willing to sacrifice its own bottom line for the sake of shareholders.
Also try to limit yourself to smaller funds, favoring large-cap funds with less than $5 billion in assets and small-cap funds with less than $500 million. "Once a fund gets too huge, it becomes impossible to beat the market, because the fund is forced to own the market," argues Larry Swedroe, an investment adviser in St. Louis and author of four books, all of which advocate indexing.
5. Keeping it private. John Bogle, founder of Vanguard Group in Malvern, Pa., and the fund industry's most famous proponent of indexing, advises sticking with fund companies that are privately held, rather than publicly traded.
The reason: Fund managers who are part of stock-market-listed companies are often under pressure to deliver regular earnings and revenue growth. That can drive them to engage in dubious tactics like promoting top-performing funds and bringing out new funds in hot market sectors.
6. Limited selection. Mr. Bogle is clearly a staunch supporter of Vanguard, which now has 110 varieties of fund. But he says a more limited array of funds is often a good omen, because it suggests a company isn't greedily trying to pull in assets by offering funds in every possible category.
7. Weighing results. Investors typically put the most weight on past performance. That's understandable. If you are going to buy an actively managed fund, you want evidence the manager is talented, such as a sparkling five or 10-year record. Still, because past performance is such a rotten guide to future results, never pick a fund on performance alone.
8. Counting stars. If you buy a fund with strong performance, make sure the manager responsible for the record is still at the helm. You might even protect yourself against manager turnover by favoring funds run by investment teams.
Mr. Swedroe says team-run funds are also less prone to "style drift," shifting into different market sectors and thereby messing up your portfolio's diversification. Among team-run funds, he likes American Funds, Dodge & Cox, Tweedy Browne and Vanguard Windsor and Windsor II.
9. Erratic behavior. One reason I like index funds is they offer greater certainty. Whatever the underlying index delivers, that is the performance you should get.
By contrast, you want actively managed funds to have inconsistent performance. As Mr. Bogle notes, for funds to beat their category's benchmark index, they need to hold a selection of stocks that is different from the index. With any luck, those stocks will outperform. But because their portfolios don't look like the market, "good managers are going to have inconsistent performance," he says.
Which fund companies meet Mr. Bogle's various criteria? He mentions Dodge & Cox, Oakmark Funds, Royce Funds, Torray Funds and Weitz Funds.
B.
_______
Choosing an Actively Managed Fund That Even a Passive Investor Could Love
IT'S LIKE ASKING a vegetarian to name his favorite cut of beef.
Market-tracking index funds regularly beat most actively managed funds, institutional investors have a third of their stock-market money indexed, and the proposed Social Security private accounts will likely be limited to a menu of index funds. Yet ordinary investors seem oblivious to indexing's success, continuing to keep 86% of their money in actively managed stock funds.
Still hunting for the next superstar stock fund? Trust me, you need all the help you can get, so I called on the collective wisdom of an unlikely group of experts -- some of my fellow index-fund investors.
Their advice: If you are going to buy actively managed funds, stick with funds that have a long-term focus -- and which seek shareholders with the same mentality. To that end, consider these nine criteria. If a fund meets at least seven of the nine, you may have yourself a winner.
1. Cutting costs. If you use a commission-charging broker, you will end up in load funds. If you invest on your own, you should buy no- load funds. But either way, you want stock funds with annual expenses below 1.5% and preferably below 1%, thus ensuring you keep more of whatever your funds make.
Annual expenses are also an excellent indicator of management's attitude toward shareholders. If a fund is hosing you on expenses, it probably doesn't have your best interests at heart.
2. Sitting tight. William Bernstein, an avid indexer and author of "Four Pillars of Investing," argues that low portfolio turnover is as important as rock-bottom annual expenses and no sales commission.
"What you want in an actively managed fund is a real fear of trading costs," he says. "The markets are really very efficient and you don't want to mess with them too much." That's why he likes companies such as Dodge & Cox and Tweedy, Browne Co., both of which offer actively managed funds with notoriously low turnover. As an added bonus, low- turnover funds are typically more tax-efficient.
3. No billboards. Mr. Bernstein also prefers funds that rarely or never advertise, because heavy advertising is a sign that management's chief focus is hauling in a heap of assets.
4. Case closed. Similarly, look fondly on companies that regularly close funds that grow too fast or get too large. Such closings indicate management is willing to sacrifice its own bottom line for the sake of shareholders.
Also try to limit yourself to smaller funds, favoring large-cap funds with less than $5 billion in assets and small-cap funds with less than $500 million. "Once a fund gets too huge, it becomes impossible to beat the market, because the fund is forced to own the market," argues Larry Swedroe, an investment adviser in St. Louis and author of four books, all of which advocate indexing.
5. Keeping it private. John Bogle, founder of Vanguard Group in Malvern, Pa., and the fund industry's most famous proponent of indexing, advises sticking with fund companies that are privately held, rather than publicly traded.
The reason: Fund managers who are part of stock-market-listed companies are often under pressure to deliver regular earnings and revenue growth. That can drive them to engage in dubious tactics like promoting top-performing funds and bringing out new funds in hot market sectors.
6. Limited selection. Mr. Bogle is clearly a staunch supporter of Vanguard, which now has 110 varieties of fund. But he says a more limited array of funds is often a good omen, because it suggests a company isn't greedily trying to pull in assets by offering funds in every possible category.
7. Weighing results. Investors typically put the most weight on past performance. That's understandable. If you are going to buy an actively managed fund, you want evidence the manager is talented, such as a sparkling five or 10-year record. Still, because past performance is such a rotten guide to future results, never pick a fund on performance alone.
8. Counting stars. If you buy a fund with strong performance, make sure the manager responsible for the record is still at the helm. You might even protect yourself against manager turnover by favoring funds run by investment teams.
Mr. Swedroe says team-run funds are also less prone to "style drift," shifting into different market sectors and thereby messing up your portfolio's diversification. Among team-run funds, he likes American Funds, Dodge & Cox, Tweedy Browne and Vanguard Windsor and Windsor II.
9. Erratic behavior. One reason I like index funds is they offer greater certainty. Whatever the underlying index delivers, that is the performance you should get.
By contrast, you want actively managed funds to have inconsistent performance. As Mr. Bogle notes, for funds to beat their category's benchmark index, they need to hold a selection of stocks that is different from the index. With any luck, those stocks will outperform. But because their portfolios don't look like the market, "good managers are going to have inconsistent performance," he says.
Which fund companies meet Mr. Bogle's various criteria? He mentions Dodge & Cox, Oakmark Funds, Royce Funds, Torray Funds and Weitz Funds.
Yups, thanks Buhvet.
Hiljuti just lugesin Bogle'i raamatut "Common Sense on Mutual Funds". Mees teab millest raagib.. soovitatav kirjandus k6igile.
Kes veel midagi huvitavat tahab.. otsigu yles Benjamin Graham'i "The Intelligent Investor". Ma pole kindel, kas neid teoseid eestikeelde on t6lgitud, aga ingliskeelselt peaks laialdaselt saadaval olema.
Hiljuti just lugesin Bogle'i raamatut "Common Sense on Mutual Funds". Mees teab millest raagib.. soovitatav kirjandus k6igile.
Kes veel midagi huvitavat tahab.. otsigu yles Benjamin Graham'i "The Intelligent Investor". Ma pole kindel, kas neid teoseid eestikeelde on t6lgitud, aga ingliskeelselt peaks laialdaselt saadaval olema.
Grahami teoseid eestikeelde tõlgitud ei ole. Soovitan kindlasti lugeda Intelligent Investorit, on tõsine distsipliiniõpetus. Eestis teda siiski ei saada ei ole, aga Kriso.ee kaudu saabub ta suht kiiresti. Ülejäänud Grahami teosed on juba spetsiifilisemad.
Huvitav, et keegi ei olegi veel mõnes strateegiast sisulisemaks läinud. Paljukõneldud value investing, growth, dollar cost averaging, dogs of the dow, swingimine jt.
Muuseas, toon ära viite Zacksi erinevatele strateegiatele, mida võiksid algajad ("soovita häid aktsiaid" foorumiteema) virtuaalportfellides proovida, testida ja arutleda.
http://www.zacks.com/research/screening/index.php
Huvitav, et keegi ei olegi veel mõnes strateegiast sisulisemaks läinud. Paljukõneldud value investing, growth, dollar cost averaging, dogs of the dow, swingimine jt.
Muuseas, toon ära viite Zacksi erinevatele strateegiatele, mida võiksid algajad ("soovita häid aktsiaid" foorumiteema) virtuaalportfellides proovida, testida ja arutleda.
http://www.zacks.com/research/screening/index.php
Siin pole eriti kasu value, growth ja muudest pikaajalistest investing-strateegiatest raakida, sest enamus inimesi arvab, et nn. daytrading on investeerimine.
LHV foorumeid loevad regulaarselt põhiliselt need, kellel raha paigutamise horisont lühemapoolne, seega ei tasu oodata eriti arutelusid strateegiatest, mis nõuavad aktsiate "unustamist". Ja nende nimetatud strateegiatega on ka vist nii, et kes kasutab, ega see enam seletada viitsi.
Otsustades firmadest ja fondide üle, pean oluliseks ka juhi isikuomadusi. (positiivsed: ei ole varem pättusi teinud, pigem nohik kui ilueedi). Kas on üldse kuskil tehtud statistikat firmade ja fondide vahel, keda juhivad nohikud või ilueedid?
Edukaid nohkuid tean mitmeid, (pikemas perspektiivis) edukaid ilu-eedikuid nagu ei meenu...
Edukaid nohkuid tean mitmeid, (pikemas perspektiivis) edukaid ilu-eedikuid nagu ei meenu...
P.S Olen ise ka nohik :-)
lissabon, n6ustun sinuga. Kuid kui lugu ongi nii, siis ei peaks me siin arutama 'investeerimisstrateegijaid" S6na 'investeerimine" tahendab just pikema-ajalist raha paigutamist.
Just vastupidi! See jutulõim sai Henno poolt tehtud (on's nii, Henno?) just neile, kelle jaoks investeerimine kui termin tähendab raha paigutamist pikemaajalises (kuud-aastaid) perspektiivis. Ülipika perspektiivi austajaile on kasvukonto.
Kui siin juba Grahamist räägitakse, siis tema Intelligent Investor`is (mainitud raamat mu lauanurgal arvuti kõrval hetkel) defineeritakse investeerimine hoopis selliselt (mainisin seda ka juba oma esimeses postis).
Investeerimine on tegevus, mis läbi põhjaliku analüüsi pakub investeeringu algsummale turvalisust ja piisavat tootlust. Tegevus, mis ei vasta nimetatud nõuetele on spekulatsioon.
Ehk otseselt ei ole investeerimine määratletud pikemaajalise raha paigutamisena.
Kuidas võtta!? Põhjaliku analüüsi tulemusel nädalaks paigutatud raha on investeerimine?
Ja kas TA on põhjalik analüüs või ei ole? Grahami järgi võib-olla ei ole investeeerimist määratletud pikaajlisena, aga enamus siiski arvab nii.
Ja üldse, peaaegu kõik, kes kasumit toodavad (ka daytraderid), on investorid, sest on eelnenud põhjalik analüüs; ja kes ei tooda, on spekulandid, sest kui juba kahjum on, siis järelikult polnud analüüs põhjalik. (:) Kulmudega smile :)
Ja kas TA on põhjalik analüüs või ei ole? Grahami järgi võib-olla ei ole investeeerimist määratletud pikaajlisena, aga enamus siiski arvab nii.
Ja üldse, peaaegu kõik, kes kasumit toodavad (ka daytraderid), on investorid, sest on eelnenud põhjalik analüüs; ja kes ei tooda, on spekulandid, sest kui juba kahjum on, siis järelikult polnud analüüs põhjalik. (:) Kulmudega smile :)
Sellest saan ma niimoodi aru, et põhimõtteliselt ei tee Graham vahet spekulandi ja investori vahel, sest mõlema eesmärk on teenida kasumit.Mis vahet seal on kas kasum tuleb pikema või lühema ajaperioodi jooksul, tähtis on see, et eelnevalt on on tehtud põhjalik analüüs firmade kohta kuhu kavatsetakse raha paigutada.Kui sellist analüüsi ei ole tehtud siis olgu investeering pikk või lühike, mõlemil juhul on tegemist spekulatsiooniga.
Kunagi nimetati spekulantideks kõiki, kes vaheltkasu saamiseks midagi ostsid ja müüsid.
Orwell see oli siin Eestis tõesti kunagi nii aga ise arvan, et see oli puht eestlaslik kadedus, kui keegi kusagil suutist teistest lihtsamate nõksude abil rohkem raha teenida ja sii tembeldati nad enda pahameele väljendusena spekulantideks.Kui selline tegevus ei ole kriminaalne siis ei saa ju inimest spekulandiks nimetada.
Ütleks hoopis nii, et igaüks, kes võtab vastu otsuseid, omamata täielikku informatsiooni võimalike valikute kõikidest tagajärgedest, tegeleb spekuleerimisega.
globalnet
See mõiste oli kahjuks kogu NL-i territooriumil (kui sellist riiki veel mäletad :)) ja oli ebaseaduslik.
See mõiste oli kahjuks kogu NL-i territooriumil (kui sellist riiki veel mäletad :)) ja oli ebaseaduslik.