A few weeks ago we wrote a post entitled The Economics of Loss discussing the importance of reducing volatility and managing exposure to large draw downs in your portfolio.. Not only are large swings in investment value hard to deal with emotionally, but they can be detrimental to the mathematical sustainability of a long-term retirement plan.
Our obsession with insulating our client portfolios from the risk of a significant drawdown permeates every aspect of our investment approach. Growing capital over time is about striking an appropriate balance between preserving capital in turbulent times and capturing growth in good times.
Sometimes we get asked the question of whether “trend following is a form of market timing.” In this week’s post we will explore this question and unpack why there are subtle, yet very import differences between a trend following investment discipline and a market timing strategy.
We field many questions about the potential value-add of a tactical allocation strategy over a more static buy-and-hold approach. Ultimately, there are a number of different ways to solve the retirement puzzle. Buy-and-hold investing is one perfectly legitimate strategy, but it is not a one-size-fits-all solution that every investor should follow.
The word “post-truth” was recently named the word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries as its use skyrocketed 2,000% this year. At its core, post-truth is the act of influencing people by appealing to their emotions at the expense of facts and truth. In a post-truth world, the end always justifies the means.
While most of the time I feel like the media consistently blow things out of proportion, in this case I feel quite the opposite. A real and present danger is being swept under the rug due to a lack of politically agreeable solution. The danger I’m referring to is the looming crisis lying in wait within our state and local pensions.
Why do we all have such an innate desire to spend money? For many of us, it is as if money literally burns a hole in their pocket as it is spent faster than it can be accumulated. The desire to spend money and acquire things comes from an innate desire to boost our self-esteem.
Since the election, investors have been scrambling to understand what a Trump presidency might mean for future of financial markets. Global asset prices had all but priced in a Clinton victory, and the chaos that ensued in futures markets as Trump’s victory took shape throughout the evening reflected a sense of confusion over how to interpret the results.
I think we can all agree, that this Presidential election cycle has been extremely polarizing for our country. All of this polarization has led to the near extinction of a group of voters known as swing voters. Polarization rather than persuasion now paves the way to the White House.
Today we’re taking a slight departure from any semblance of serious financial commentary and discussing one of those topics that is sure to bear little to no fruit – if not end up being downright counterproductive.It’s time to talk politics! More specifically, let’s prognosticate what might happen in financial markets in response to a Trump vs Clinton victory.
Dennis Rodman was a game changing player on the basketball court even though he was sub-par (at best) when it came to scoring. One could argue that the Pistons went from being a good basketball team to a championship team with his addition. Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
When people ask me what I do sometimes I struggle with what terminology to use. Not because I don’t know what I do, but because all of the most accurate descriptors have been co-opted by an industry that I honestly don’t want to be associated with. As a result the term financial adviser has lost all significance in my opinion.