Jul
6
Rebalancing, from Yuri Skrilivetsky
July 6, 2007 | Leave a Comment
I noticed that advisers recommend rebalancing for several reasons:
1. It keeps target allocations in place.
2. What’s hot today may be cold tomorrow, and the reverse.
3. Accomplishes the goal of buying low and selling high by adding to underperforming assets and trimming outperforming assets.
4. Rebalancing can increase the consistency of returns and reduce the possibility of disappointing returns.
I wonder if this is propaganda to get the public to trade more than is necessary? If rebalancing is better than buy and hold for the reasons stated above, is it still better when taxes and transaction costs are factored in? Finally, if one did want to implement a rebalancing strategy, how would one determine the appropriate timeframe or trigger?
Jul
5
Life Insurance, from Yuri Skrilivetsky
July 5, 2007 | Leave a Comment
I was recently approached by a salesman who showed me a variable life insurance policy. Despite the high costs and limited investment options, it seems the tax advantages make up for it being that it’s like a Roth IRA without the limitations.
I know several people who have become wealthy as long-term investors in stocks, and know many similar stories that have been written about people I don't know. I wonder why you don't hear anecdotal stories about people becoming wealthy by investing in equities via life insurance?
Oct
19
Time to Take Profits? asks Yuri Skrilivetsky
October 19, 2006 | Leave a Comment
In times like this isn’t it only prudent to consider taking some profits, or at least getting off margin so that one can have ample buying power for when there is a downturn (as in May), and we can remind ourselves of the drift while the world around talks of doom.
Victor Niederhoffer responds:
Such an idea would be right most of the time, but I think it would have a negative expectation. For example, it would miss most of the 1950s and 1990s while waiting for the pullback.
Dr. Rudolf Hauser replies:
There is a very important consideration in deciding how much one should pull back to a less leveraged, less invested position, namely what one has to take out each year to meet regular living costs. If one does not have another source of income than trading, the percentage of one’s net worth that one has to spend for such living purposes increases as net worth declines. That means your net worth will not recover its loss when the market recovers to it prior high. That might not be a significant problem is your required drawdown at the prior peak was less than 1% and/or much of the drawdown is for discretionary spending you can easily cut back on, but could be a major problem if it is a much higher figure such as 10% and most of that is for necessities. Another advantage of cutting back in times of what one believes is temporarily too high is that one is less likely to make stupid mistakes because of panic if one feels one is not in over his or her head. I agree with Vic that going short is a risky position as you are betting against the long-term trend.
GM Nigel Davies adds:
One thing I’ve noticed about good attacking players is that they constantly strive for the initiative they are often happy to make light material sacrifices (for example a pawn, or rook for bishop and pawn). Bit they will tend not throw in the kitchen sink too early, instead holding back reserves. And often they will take time to pick up a pawn or two in the midst of their onslaught.
This contrasts with weaker players, or those less skilled in the attack, for whom nothing less than checkmate is good enough. They appear to be very insecure being material down without a clear means of forcing a win. But by setting their goal so high they reject many good moves along the way and often fall flat on their faces.
So one thing to look for when you are preparing to play someone is how comfortable they are in the attack and with material imbalance. Against players not adept at this it’s often good to snatch material and watch them ruin their positions in their attempts to punish you.
Sep
28
Smallcaps Vs. Largecaps, from Yuri Skrilivetsky
September 28, 2006 | Leave a Comment
A popular talking point on CNBC is currently the rotation out of smallcaps into largecaps or how largecaps will now outperform smallcaps, but is it fruitful to think in such terms? Certainly smallcaps are more risky because of trading liquidity and various business risks such as lack of diversification and huge leverage, but if a company can grow in excess of 15% a year should the long term not outweigh the short? It seems the media has found a new talking point which is causing panics in various smallcap issues. I wonder if the old men are taking the canes out and buying merchandise on the cheap, or have the goods indeed spoiled?
Sep
21
The Gift of Risk, from Yuri Skrilivetsky
September 21, 2006 | Leave a Comment
Do you think the people who were trying to reach the top of Everest were not full of doubts? For a hundred years, people tried and lost their lives. Not even their dead bodies came back. But still, more people tried…risking…knowing that they may never come back. Why? Because it was worth it. Because in the very risk something is born inside you: the center. It is born only in the risk. That's the beauty of risk, the gift of risk. — Paraphrased from Osho (1931-1990), Indian Professor of Philosophy, Spiritual master.
Archives
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles