January 06 Tally

[FundSurfer]

Thanks to Milkman for entering all the data, I just massage the numbers. We now have 80!! people being tracked. Since the list is so long, I'm only posting an abreviated list with an attached text file with the whole list.

Jan Last 3 Last 6 Last 12 2005 Total
Months Months Months
G-fund 0.36% 1.17% 2.26% 4.39% 4.49%
F-fund 0.09% 1.42% 0.87% 1.93% 2.40%
C-fund 2.66% 6.49% 4.76% 10.18% 4.96%
S-fund 6.70% 11.79% 9.27% 20.73% 10.45%
I-fund 6.14% 13.22% 17.23% 21.32% 13.63%
20% Each 3.19% 6.82% 6.88% 11.71% 7.29%

Long Term GURU's - Last 12 months better than C-fund

Dakota 4.03% 10.55% 13.20% 19.88% 14.01%
Showme 0.81% 5.42% 10.80% 17.04% 13.43%
Neirbod 2.53% 9.20% 11.74% 14.84% 8.91%
Pyriel 2.75% 7.97% 10.21% 14.09% 7.89%
Rokid 4.14% 8.41% 7.80% 14.07% 8.07%
mlk_man 2.82% 9.87% 12.96% 13.86% 8.68%
Cowboy 1.81% 6.56% 10.90% 12.57% #N/A
Rod 2.10% 8.30% 10.12% 11.88% 7.56%
Tekno 1.48% 3.49% 4.44% 11.78% #N/A
Safetygu 3.88% 6.19% 6.63% 11.43% 3.94%
Systemtr 2.53% 9.17% 9.78% 11.19% 7.62%
Mike 2.63% 7.68% 8.95% 10.95% 5.21%
Skip 2.82% 7.30% 6.69% 10.80% 7.69%

Top 5 January Returns

Brak 5.38% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Aslan 5.26% 10.77% 6.50% #N/A #N/A
Terptrad 5.21% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
andy 5.04% 5.85% 6.94% #N/A #N/A
GGal 4.90% 10.17% 11.55% #N/A #N/A

Note that to have data for a month you must have started posting before the last day of the previous month.

Milk_man e-mails out a spreadsheet with all the data. Please check that sheet for correct data entry BEFORE PM'ing Milk_man or myself that your number is wrong. We do the best job we can, but we don't catch everything.

These data have had compounding taken out of these numbers so that we are comparing apples to apples. It makes a difference by the time you get to the end of the year. If you want to see compounding then download Tom's spreadsheet and enter your data in that. This Tally is for comparitive purposes. We don't want someone to have an advantage in their monthly totals because they have been posting longer than someone else.

If you have a comment about what columns are shown, let us know. We had a discussion before but I don't think many people saw the discussion. In the future I will add a YTD column (year to date) but it would be a repeat of January this month.

[mlk_man]

Nice job FS, you quick!! :D

[pyriel]

Nice job FS, you quick!! :D
2nd day of the month... That is quick...;-)

[FundSurfer]

I bit the bullet and figured out a better way of setting up the formulas this year. I also set up the spreadsheet at the beginning of the year so it would be easier. It is pretty easy to copy some formulas around and cut n paste results but it takes a lot of time to enter all those transfers. Like I said, milk_man did all the work.

[Fivetears]

Where's mine, FS? My personal Excel tracker has me at a 3.43% for January. I'm not sure what the MM tracker has me at.

[mlk_man]

Where's mine, FS? My personal Excel tracker has me at a 3.43% for January. I'm not sure what the MM tracker has me at.

This is a quote from fundsurfers orginal post

"Note that to have data for a month you must have started posting before the last day of the previous month."

If you need more explanation, let me know.

[rokid]

FYI. The attached is based on the Jan 2006 tally. I wanted to see what correlation there was, if any, between YTD returns, investment style, and number of moves.

Oops. Can't upload the file. It's too large. Too bad. :(

[rokid]

Here is the file described in the previous post. Conversion of the file to .pdf made it small enough to load. Note, the term "decile" just means 10% of the total - in this case groups of eight.:cool:

[mlk_man]

I believe you're doing us an injustice here rokid. One month during a major uptrend is not a very good indicator that one should set it and hold it.

I understand that you're just trying to prove your own opinion though. I do however question your motives. Guess it might take going through another 3 year bear market to change your mind. According to Tech and Wiz, that time could be now..............:eek:

Best of luck to you!

M_M

[oldschool]

Thanks Rokid, MLK, interesting! I do wonder how things would look after even one down month. I'd hazard a guess that overall folks would under/out perform C (for example) in roughly the same proportions, but the names (i.e. investing styles) that outperformed would change quite a bit.

oldschool

[pyriel]

My friend and I stumbled on this site over a year ago. When we learned about what people are doing we decided to try it. I started jumping around while he kept his at 20c40s40i. Well, as everyone can see, he got more than 10% return while I got a paltry 7.49% for the year. He is still 20c40s40i and kicking my butt for this year. I've changed my timing tactics and not moving as much. However, if he still kick my butt for the next six months, I will probably will switch to hold and steady investing. The only thing I would keep is to send my new investment to the G fund so that I can buy on the downtrend later. P

[mlk_man]

If we all buy and held, we wouldn't need this site. It's a conspiracy Tom!!!! :p

[Rod]

If we all buy and held, we wouldn't need this site. It's a conspiracy Tom!!!! :p

This isn't my target nest egg for retirement. That said, buying and holding for me would be too boring. Also, perhaps 1 year I may hold a certain allocation for a period of time just to see how it performs. But for right now, I'm just having fun.:)

God Bless:cool:

[oldschool]

Suppose the housing market hits the skids, Fed keeps going to 5% or more, oil demand around the world stays high or supplies (Iran?) shrink... no retail spending here, no growth in eps - all would equal no fun for the buy and holders... regardless of CSI allocations... and from my posted allocations one can tell what direction I think things likely to go....

[rokid]

MM,

I agree that one month - or even one year - doesn't prove a thing. However, I thought it would be interesting to incorporate the raw tracker returns with an indication of individual investing styles. I intend to update the info on a monthly basis.

Obviously, I'm pro passive allocation. I believe in the academic experts, efficient markets, diversification, statistics, and probability. Furthermore, I think the L Funds are a good idea. However, if someone, e.g. Dakota, keeps on piling up the out sized returns with a market timing approach, I would have to reevaluate.

Finally, I understand the "too boring" complaint. Fortunately for me, I'm boring by nature, i.e. I'm into boring. :cool:

[oldschool]

Not sure how this might be calculated, but quantifying risk undertaken by an account over a given period would be a great addition to rate of return and investment style. I have a fuzzy recollection that someone did some calculations along those lines and posted 'em late last year somewhere on tsptalk....

I guess I'm thinking that an investment strategy can't really be viewed as successful unless returns are proportionate to risk - so the mere fact that one strategy is ahead or behind the C fund, or any other benchmark, may not really tell us much until we look at the results through a "risk" colored lens...

[rokid]

Oldschool,

Excellent point. I can calculate risk vs return, e.g. Sharpe Ratio, for the passive, diversified and concentrated portfolios based on historical returns. Unfortunately, I need a series of returns to calculate similar stats for the swing traded portfolios. I'll take a stab at it next month - even if at that point it's only a series of two.:D

[bkrownd]

Suppose the housing market hits the skids, Fed keeps going to 5% or more, oil demand around the world stays high or supplies (Iran?) shrink... no retail spending here, no growth in eps - all would equal no fun for the buy and holders...

No fun? Nonsense. Falling prices are VERY fun when you're early in your accumulation phase. Rising fund prices suck. I'm a big fan of the proactive fed this year. 5% or bust!

[oldschool]

Well, I'm a bit like Rokid in that I believe in [mostly] efficient markets - so if the Fed goes to 5% and stocks go down, I'm thinking those darned efficient markets are in fact pricing stocks correctly for a 5% interest rate world. And the stocks purchased earlier in the 4.5% interest rate world have lost real value (assuming you held 'em.) Seems you get what you pay for. If shares are cheaper in the future, isn't that because the [mostly] efficient market is correctly saying the shares have less potential then they did previously? Yes, with time, the shares will likely gain potential, and thus price - but doesn't one usually pay the correct amount at the time of purchase for the potential at that moment?

Now as to dollar cost averaging during the accumulation phase... how long does that phase run, anyway? Now if I had, say, 400k in my TSP, and was adding, say, 24k per year (2k/month), wouldn't it take me many years of contributions to make any meaningful dollar cost averaging inroads into a yearlong down market's effect on my 400k nugget? I'm just thinking, the bigger the nugget is compared to the annual contribs, the less power there is in dollar cost averaging....

'course maybe I'm not drinking the same kool-aid as everyone else ;)

oldschool

[tsptalk]

If we all buy and held, we wouldn't need this site. It's a conspiracy Tom!!!! :p

I think we need a 20% loss in the S&P one year in order to win this argument. :eek: That could take a few years.

[mlk_man]

Now as to dollar cost averaging during the accumulation phase... how long does that phase run, anyway? Now if I had, say, 400k in my TSP, and was adding, say, 24k per year (2k/month), wouldn't it take me many years of contributions to make any meaningful dollar cost averaging inroads into a yearlong down market's effect on my 400k nugget? I'm just thinking, the bigger the nugget is compared to the annual contribs, the less power there is in dollar cost averaging....

oldschool

Those are my exact feelings as far as dollar cost averaging with contributions. Early on it's cool. Later I don't think it's that big of a deal. Once you get a nice nest egg, your best bet for dollar cost averaging is to gradual increase your equity holdings. I've noticed a couple of our members doing this and you seem to do it a little bit

M_M

[oldschool]

MM, yes it does seem like some of us here to sort of dollar cost average our way into, and out of, what we hope are the best near/mid term allocations. I'm thinking that's quite different in effect than just holding a static allocation, sending in a little more each pay period regardless of price...

'course you have to be right much of the time on what are those "best" allocations...

oldschool

[mlk_man]

Different, but similar. Sort of like you and I went to different high schools together..............;)

[dell]

MM,

I agree that one month - or even one year - doesn't prove a thing. However, I thought it would be interesting to incorporate the raw tracker returns with an indication of individual investing styles. I intend to update the info on a monthly basis.

Obviously, I'm pro passive allocation. I believe in the academic experts, efficient markets, diversification, statistics, and probability. Furthermore, I think the L Funds are a good idea. However, if someone, e.g. Dakota, keeps on piling up the out sized returns with a market timing approach, I would have to reevaluate.

Finally, I understand the "too boring" complaint. Fortunately for me, I'm boring by nature, i.e. I'm into boring. :cool:

If you go to Yahoo's Financial News section, David Dreman has a pretty good article in the Thursday edition of Forbes titled Deficient Market or something like that where he gives his reasons for NOT relying on the efficient market theory. I am not smart enough to agree or disagree. I just like to arm myself with as much knowledge as I can.

Currently 50% C and 50% I.

Dell

[SkyPilot]

"Buy and Hold" works great in a positive market, almost any strategy does. However, you will get skunked on the down side (2000-2003). It's really a choice between being the captain of your own ship, or being a victim of the market. For those in the L-fund's, don't quit paying attention. If we head for another recession, the L-funds do not account for trends, market conditions or anything else. They will "cruise-control" you into a brick wall, just as any "buy and hold" strategy will. I encourage you to keep your head in the game, and watch for the next big downturn, so you can preserve your retirement. Good Luck!

[Soldat]

With an increasing population, there is increased consumption, jobs, and production. Unless people start dying by the millions, the five to ten year trend will always be up.

[mlk_man]

Bird flu.................:eek:

[SkyPilot]

With an increasing population, there is increased consumption, jobs, and production. Unless people start dying by the millions, the five to ten year trend will always be up.

Except for when it isn't...

[rokid]

"Buy and Hold" works great in a positive market, almost any strategy does. However, you will get skunked on the down side (2000-2003). ...I encourage you to keep your head in the game, and watch for the next big downturn, so you can preserve your retirement. Good Luck!

Tom made a similar point, i.e. passive investing works in an up market, but not in a bear market.

Researchers Jess H. Chua and Richard S. Woodward arrive at a different conclusion in their paper Gains from Stock Market Timing. They state: If the investor has only a 50% chance of forecasting bull markets, then he should not practice market timing at all. His average return will be less than that of buy-and-hold even if he can forecast bear markets perfectly. Ouch!

Furthermore,Roger Gibson states in his book Asset Allocation that:

...a disproportionate percentage of total gain from a bull market tends to occur very rapidly at the beginning of a market recovery.

Therefore, it doesn't really help to forecast bear markets correctly, you have to forecast at least 50% of the bull markets correctly and forecast them at the beginning of the upturn.

Chua and Woodward go on to conclude that for market timing to pay:

Investors require the forecast accuracies of at least:

80 percent bull and 50 percent bear;
70 percent bull and 80 percent bear; or
60 percent bull and 90 percent bear...

Finally, Gibson states that a mythical 1926 investor, who invested $1 million and choose, with perfect predictive capability, on an annual basis, the best performing asset class (T-bills, long-term corporate bonds, large company stocks, and small company stocks), would have been worth $20 trillion in 1998. In other words, that mythical investor would have owned all of corporate America and half of all non-U.S. companies.

Obviously, that didn't happen, although on the surface, it doesn't sound all that hard, i.e. annually predicting and concentrating investments in the best performing of four asset classes.:cool:

[SkyPilot]

Rokid,

I don't think anyone can accurately pick bull or bear markets over any length of time. However, if you can identify trends and positions, you will likely outperform buy and hold. True, this can be tricky as well. However, if you do not stay engaged you may "buy and hope" instead of "buy and hold", and end up riding the coaster down when you will need to access the money at retirement.

[dell]

I can almost predict bull and bear markets and I am willing to share my methodology with everyone who posts here, for a price. If everyone sends me $10.00 USD, I will tell you which Funds I am about to invest in. They are GUARANTEED to go down as soon as word gets out that I have bougfht in.

Dell

[SkyPilot]

:) :) :) I must follow the same signals / indicators as you... will PayPal work?

[nnuut]

Hey Mike, no tracker this week, OK. I don't want to know!!!!:confused:
Norman
Just kiddin'!!:D

[Mike]

Finally, Gibson states that a mythical 1926 investor, who invested $1 million and choose, with perfect predictive capability, on an annual basis, the best performing asset class (T-bills, long-term corporate bonds, large company stocks, and small company stocks), would have been worth $20 trillion in 1998. In other words, that mythical investor would have owned all of corporate America and half of all non-U.S. companies.

And the mythical inventor that builds a time machine and travels back in time to bet on every winning horse, boxer, team, and company would be worth more than the rest of the world combined. :D

[rokid]

And the mythical inventor that builds a time machine and travels back in time to bet on every winning horse, boxer, team, and company would be worth more than the rest of the world combined. :D

Which is Gibson's point - it didn't happen and it isn't going to happen in the future.:cool: