K****D
发帖数: 30533 | 1 Today I looked back at my trading account record.
I made 5 deposits to the account in history:
6/18/2007
7/23/2007
8/3/2007
10/3/2007
6/24/2008
S&P was at 1531.05, 1541.57, 1433.06, 1539.59, 1314.29 respectively.
Today S&P is at 843.
你说这YTD能好么？？ //sigh... |
K****D
发帖数: 30533 | 2 My yield-to-date in my trading account is -33%.
Had I bought SPY each time after I deposited, the yield would be
-48% without dividends (yield should be worse than -43% if dividends
are added.)
So not too bad after all, hehe.
【在 K****D 的大作中提到】
: Today I looked back at my trading account record.
: I made 5 deposits to the account in history:
: 6/18/2007
: 7/23/2007
: 8/3/2007
: 10/3/2007
: 6/24/2008
: S&P was at 1531.05, 1541.57, 1433.06, 1539.59, 1314.29 respectively.
: Today S&P is at 843.
: 你说这YTD能好么？？ //sigh...
|
s******d
发帖数: 323 | 3 good. beat the market!
【在 K****D 的大作中提到】
: My yield-to-date in my trading account is -33%.
: Had I bought SPY each time after I deposited, the yield would be
: -48% without dividends (yield should be worse than -43% if dividends
: are added.)
: So not too bad after all, hehe.
|
o***e
发帖数: 164 | 4 1530左右搞了一把.
1000左右又搞一把.想这1000可能是个底.
结果再次被套.
这次680左右用IRA搞了个"反弹".
结果抛得太急(730).只挣了点小钱.
现在做壁上观.
【在 K****D 的大作中提到】
: Today I looked back at my trading account record.
: I made 5 deposits to the account in history:
: 6/18/2007
: 7/23/2007
: 8/3/2007
: 10/3/2007
: 6/24/2008
: S&P was at 1531.05, 1541.57, 1433.06, 1539.59, 1314.29 respectively.
: Today S&P is at 843.
: 你说这YTD能好么？？ //sigh...
|
n******n
发帖数: 12088 | 5 According to long-term investment theory, it doesn't matter. :)
【在 K****D 的大作中提到】
: Today I looked back at my trading account record.
: I made 5 deposits to the account in history:
: 6/18/2007
: 7/23/2007
: 8/3/2007
: 10/3/2007
: 6/24/2008
: S&P was at 1531.05, 1541.57, 1433.06, 1539.59, 1314.29 respectively.
: Today S&P is at 843.
: 你说这YTD能好么？？ //sigh...
|
i******l
发帖数: 828 | 6 肯尼小弟，你对我老句乐布感兴趣么？
我老对你的投资表示一下古力。。
【在 K****D 的大作中提到】
: Today I looked back at my trading account record.
: I made 5 deposits to the account in history:
: 6/18/2007
: 7/23/2007
: 8/3/2007
: 10/3/2007
: 6/24/2008
: S&P was at 1531.05, 1541.57, 1433.06, 1539.59, 1314.29 respectively.
: Today S&P is at 843.
: 你说这YTD能好么？？ //sigh...
|
b****e
发帖数: 460 | 7 I think it does matter at which price to chip in.
【在 n******n 的大作中提到】
: According to long-term investment theory, it doesn't matter. :)
|
m**********r
发帖数: 887 | |
n******n
发帖数: 12088 | 9 I remember there's some empirical study showing that assuming one lucky one
always buy on local dip while the unlucky one always on local top, the long-
term return doesn't make big difference.
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: I think it does matter at which price to chip in.
|
n******n
发帖数: 12088 | 10 I remember there's some empirical study showing that assuming one lucky one
always buy on local dip while the unlucky one always on local top, the long-
term return doesn't make big difference.
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: I think it does matter at which price to chip in.
|
|
|
K****D
发帖数: 30533 | 11 how come? It looks so counter-intuitive.
one
long-
【在 n******n 的大作中提到】
: I remember there's some empirical study showing that assuming one lucky one
: always buy on local dip while the unlucky one always on local top, the long-
: term return doesn't make big difference.
|
l******n
发帖数: 641 | 12 the 1-2% difference is at least more than the difference in the management f
ees of MF. how come it's no use at all?
one
long-
【在 n******n 的大作中提到】
: I remember there's some empirical study showing that assuming one lucky one
: always buy on local dip while the unlucky one always on local top, the long-
: term return doesn't make big difference.
|
n******n
发帖数: 12088 | 13 I think this is DCA's basis: market timing is invalid.
【在 K****D 的大作中提到】
: how come? It looks so counter-intuitive.
:
: one
: long-
|
K****D
发帖数: 30533 | 14 Although I agree with the conclusion, but I disagree with the
proof.
DCA thinks "market timing is invalid" because DCA thinks "nobody
can time the market with more than 55% accuracy", not because
"if someone time the market with 100% accuracy, it still doesn't
make any difference."
【在 n******n 的大作中提到】
: I think this is DCA's basis: market timing is invalid.
|
n******n
发帖数: 12088 | 15 Well, you think you can always buy on top?
If not, in long run, your "unlucky" buy will be compensated with lucky ones
later. So I said at the very beginning, it doesn't matter for long-term.
【在 K****D 的大作中提到】
: Although I agree with the conclusion, but I disagree with the
: proof.
: DCA thinks "market timing is invalid" because DCA thinks "nobody
: can time the market with more than 55% accuracy", not because
: "if someone time the market with 100% accuracy, it still doesn't
: make any difference."
|
K****D
发帖数: 30533 | 16 Again, I agree with your conclusion. I am just having trouble
contemplating your post stating:
"I remember there's some empirical study showing that assuming
one lucky one always buy on local dip while the unlucky one always
on local top, the long term return doesn't make big difference."
ones
【在 n******n 的大作中提到】
: Well, you think you can always buy on top?
: If not, in long run, your "unlucky" buy will be compensated with lucky ones
: later. So I said at the very beginning, it doesn't matter for long-term.
|
n******n
发帖数: 12088 | 17 I think it just means local variance in shor-term is small compared to long-
term.
But my memory could be wrong...
【在 K****D 的大作中提到】
: Again, I agree with your conclusion. I am just having trouble
: contemplating your post stating:
: "I remember there's some empirical study showing that assuming
: one lucky one always buy on local dip while the unlucky one always
: on local top, the long term return doesn't make big difference."
:
: ones
|
K****D
发帖数: 30533 | 18 I think that depends on how many times you contribute leh.
If doing that all the time throughout 30 years, there is no way
that difference can be neglected.
Maybe your example was talking about doing DCA for 1 year, then
hold for 30 years. Then it makes sense.
long-
【在 n******n 的大作中提到】
: I think it just means local variance in shor-term is small compared to long-
: term.
: But my memory could be wrong...
|
K****D
发帖数: 30533 | 19
Wait, even that doesn't make sense either. The only way to work
is DCA with bad luck for 1 year, then DCA for another 29 years
with normal luck.
【在 K****D 的大作中提到】
: I think that depends on how many times you contribute leh.
: If doing that all the time throughout 30 years, there is no way
: that difference can be neglected.
: Maybe your example was talking about doing DCA for 1 year, then
: hold for 30 years. Then it makes sense.
:
: long-
|
o***e
发帖数: 164 | 20 我想他的说法是对的.
过去,一个月内有10%波动都是少见的.
而且一投进去就不动了.
如果每月投资,差别是不大.
现在不一样了,几天就可能10%的变化.
这一个多月下来,超过20%的增长.这在过去
是一年的变化.
这是个充满惊奇的世代!
【在 K****D 的大作中提到】
: I think that depends on how many times you contribute leh.
: If doing that all the time throughout 30 years, there is no way
: that difference can be neglected.
: Maybe your example was talking about doing DCA for 1 year, then
: hold for 30 years. Then it makes sense.
:
: long-
|
|
|
b****e
发帖数: 460 | 21 一个疯狂的市场有助于大牛挣钱
【在 o***e 的大作中提到】
: 我想他的说法是对的.
: 过去,一个月内有10%波动都是少见的.
: 而且一投进去就不动了.
: 如果每月投资,差别是不大.
: 现在不一样了,几天就可能10%的变化.
: 这一个多月下来,超过20%的增长.这在过去
: 是一年的变化.
: 这是个充满惊奇的世代!
|
K****D
发帖数: 30533 | 22 偶觉得是有助于赚了钱之后成为大牛。
疯狂的市场是很适合出几个运气好的赌棍的，呵呵。
【在 b****e 的大作中提到】
: 一个疯狂的市场有助于大牛挣钱
|
b****e
发帖数: 460 | 23 也是
【在 K****D 的大作中提到】
: 偶觉得是有助于赚了钱之后成为大牛。
: 疯狂的市场是很适合出几个运气好的赌棍的，呵呵。
|
