Danielle Park debunks buy and hold.
Danielle
Park’s blog “Jugglingdynamite” nails it down. It exposes the hypocrisy of the
ultra rich when it comes to favoring buy and hold. Her points are:
· Drawdown tolerance and time horizon
dramatically differ between “the very rich” and the smaller shareholders.
·
Book value gains are nice and dandy
but for the small shareholder price rules. If the small shareholder wants to
sell, he/she will get “price” not value for his or her shares.
I quote one
of Park’s best paragraphs:
“Since
Berkshire is an equity fund with too-big-to-move concentrated positions, it now
follows a buy and hold approach. Not surprising then that Buffett says he
doesn’t sweat about the economy or market moves; he doesn’t worry about market
rigging or HFT front-running, he just buys businesses he likes. Nice but, how
does any of that help real people with finite life spans and time horizons.
After all, 99.99% of the world’s population are not billionaires Warren. For
most of us, years spent making back losses are years we simply can’t afford.”
I remember
that when reading some years ago Constantino Bresciani’s book “The Economics of Inflation” something hit home. Bresciani (who experienced first-hand Weimar’s
hyperinflation) said that the controlling owners of listed businesses (i.e.,
the Krupps, the Thyssens) survived in pretty good shape the hyperinflation
crisis. Even though their shares in real terms did not manage to keep their purchasing
power intact (they went up thousandfold, but prices went up millionfold), they
could compensate their “stock paper losses” with higher perks, such as higher
salaries, higher directors fees, relatives that suddenly found a well paid
employment, etc. Of course, the average “Schmidt”, who had put all his savings
in such companies, was not offered any of these perks and saw their modest
wealth being decimated. Thus, it is either nonsensical, at best, or
hypocritical, at worst, when the very rich try to teach us about the long term,
the intrinsic value of their
companies (the company doesn’t belong to the average Joe, make no mistake about
it), while being despiteful of speculation and the values underlying it. Let’s
be clear about it: You owe loyalty to something you really own and control. You
don’t owe any loyalty to a piece of paper or digit entry called a “share” which
merely gives you an uncertain economic right.
Hence I get mad
at the very rich people (not the 1%, but the 0.001%) when they pontificate
about the virtues of patience, the long-term, buy and hold, book value (alas
not reflected in price), the beauty of the companies they hold, and the
wonderful team behind them, while despising the little man obsessed with making
a quick buck. While some of the virtues expounded by the very rich hold true
irrespective of the investor’s situation, clearly if you are a mouse, you
better behave like a mouse and not like a dinosaur. Furthermore, small
investors enjoy the privilege, not available (even if he wanted to) to Buffet,
of being able to move in and out of stocks with relative ease.
All in all:
If we are not ultra rich, we better become proficient at timing and shoudn’t heed
the “buy and hold” siren’s songs.
US Stocks
The SPY, Transports
and Industrials closed up. On May 19, the Transports made a higher closing high
which was been confirmed today by the SPY. So confirmation has occurred pretty quickly,
which technically, and all the gloom and doom notwithstanding, tells me that the
odds for the primary and secondary trend to remain in good health are high.
The primary trend was reconfirmed as
bullish on October 17th, 2013, and November 13th, 2013 and March
7th, 2014, for the reasons given here, here and here.
So the
current primary bull market signal has survived three secondary reactions.
Gold and
Silver
SLV, and GLD
closed down. For the reasons I explained here, and more
recently here
the primary trend remains bearish.
For the
primary trend to turn bullish, SLV and GLD should jointly break above the secondary (bullish) reaction highs. As a
reminder, the secondary reaction closing highs were made on August 27th,
2013. From such highs the market declined without jointly violating the June 27th,
2013 primary bear market lows.
Here I analyzed the
primary bear market signal given on December 20, 2012. The primary trend was
reconfirmed bearish, as explained here. The
secondary trend is bullish (secondary reaction against the primary bearish
trend), as explained here.
On a
statistical basis the primary bear market for GLD and SLV is getting old. More
than one year since the bear market signal was flashed has elapsed. However, I
am extremely skeptical as to the predictive power of statistics. I prefer price
action to guide me, and the Dow Theory tells me that the primary trend remains
bearish until reversed. However, the secondary bullish reaction against such
old primary bear market is also getting quite old. Tie.
Furthermore,
the June 27, 2013 lows remain untouched. The longer this situation lasts, the
higher the odds that something might be changing. But I wait
for the verdict of price action.
As to the gold and silver miners ETFs, SIL
closed and GDX closed down.
I profusely
explained that SIL and GDX set up for a primary bull market signal. You can
find all the relevant information from a Dow Theory standpoint here.
Please mind
that a setup is not the real thing. So the primary trend has not turned bullish
yet (or maybe “never”).
The secondary
trend is bullish, as explained here.
In spite of short term bullish accomplishments, SIL and GDX are not in a
primary bull market.
The primary
trend for SIL and GDX remains, nonetheless, bearish, as was profusely
explained here
and here.
The secondary
trend is bullish, as explained here. In spite of short term bullish accomplishments, SIL
and GDX are not in a primary bull market.
The primary
trend for SIL and GDX remains, nonetheless, bearish, as was profusely
explained here
and here.
General note for both GLD/SLV and GDX/SIL:
The “coiling” not only persists but is becoming even more extreme. More about
the “coiling” here and here.
Sincerely,
The Dow Theorist
No comments:
Post a Comment