Seeking Alpha

Market Map

View as an RSS Feed
View Market Map's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Reaching For Yield [View article]
    component 5 of sentiment indicator "McClennan indicator levels on several key indexes" Is that supposed to read "McClellan" ?
    Jul 29 09:10 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Introducing Outstanding Performance Awards [View article]
    How about ( starting today ) an award for the outstanding 10, 20 year volatility adjusted performance ?
    Jul 27 05:18 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividends Don't Matter In Retirement Either [View article]
    That's because these managers are being "paid". Salary and bonuses take away the incentive in getting your analysis and discipline as correct as possible (as compared to running your own money / fund ). When you have your own "skin in the game" then it's a whole different psychology; it holds your feet to the fire.
    Jul 23 09:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Enough With The Bubble Talk Already [View article]
    So what does an average investor do with this artilce ... give us some direction and not anecdote !
    Jul 23 10:02 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Where We Are And Where We May Be Headed - A Secular Bull Story [View article]
    "Never ask anyone for their opinion, forecast, or recommendation. Just ask them what they have - or don't have - in their portfolio." Taleb
    Jul 22 05:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Silly Rabbit, Dividends Do Matter In Retirement [View article]
    Have a hard time believing that a company would pay a dividend to"benefit" shareholders. The corporate world is a tightly run entity with motives to profit and control costs and pricing and it doesn't seem that they would just hand out "free" money to the shareholders because they're nice people. There must be underlying alterior motives for the process; for tax, accounting reasons ? They MIGHT favor the bondholders such as the Buffets, Icahns, Kravises, etc. ( ie. what goes first when there's trouble ? ; stock price, layoffs, dividend cut, bond ratings )
    Jul 22 11:12 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividends Do Matter - Especially In Retirement [View article]
    It's not a swipe, it's a fact. When I have a million + dollars, I will probably do the DG portfolio too. My assertion is that the average investor should read and do the math carefully before investing and assuming that it can take care of x % of their needs.
    Jul 20 03:30 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Stock Markets' Record Highs Are Merely A Fed-Conjured Illusion [View article]
    "Never ask anyone for their opinion, forecast, or recommendation. Just ask them what they have - or don't have - in their portfolio" Taleb
    Jul 20 11:08 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividends Do Matter - Especially In Retirement [View article]
    These Dividend portfolios are mainly for millionaires. Congratulations to all here who are able to partake. Hopefully, a vast majority of 55+ aged investors with "uneven" employment history reading these articles with < $100K, 200K etc. saved, will understand that holding these stocks won't generate $40K a year with untold "compounding".
    Yet, in a country whose population gets sucker punched by subprime loans because of their lack of financial common sense and education twice in 7 years ( latest: ), people will allow themselves to be lured into believing anything.
    Jul 20 10:20 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividends Don't Matter In Retirement Either [View article]
    Yes you are right , I minced the term "survivorship bias". The main point that I was getting at was related to your last statement "it certainly shows that you can also benefit from compounding by investing in non-dividend paying stocks that successfully invested in growing their business which many DGI fans here at SA still deny for whatever reason". As companies in portfolios evolve, one probably does sell off some companies out of the portfolio as the screening criteria drops them "off the radar". But if they're big enough companies in market cap, they probably won't necessarily go "bankrupt" either as they would be purchased by another company.
    Also, as I mentioned that, 20 - 25 years ago there weren't many sources for DGI information as the investing world/ boomers was "younger" and more interested? in growth investing. In hindsight, if one were to try to construct and value a portfolio using Barron's articles, SP Outlook, Value Line as guides in the pre-internet days of the late 80's and 90's, some of the DG names repeatedly bandied about were names like GE, IBM, General Mills, Exxon, Goodyear, Merck, Coca Cola, Upjohn, United Technologies, Navistar, Ford, Bank of America, etc. There were bumps in the road for many of these companies over the years ... and at this point, for DGI "authors" to say that (if) you choose / could/would have chosen THOSE companies (in the DG list in my study), it seems to be unrealistic; as you probably WOULD have had GE or the Goodyear or Navistar or numerous others in the portfolio back then that don't show up in present day analysis ...
    Jul 19 06:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividends Don't Matter In Retirement Either [View article]
    An investor leaning towards individual stock portfolios DOES have and shouldn't be scared to have the choice to diversify and possibly accumulate a larger asset base by retirement phase by buying non dividend payers. Stocks selected from earnings growth screens such as William O'Neill and Co. are a possible selection method. Here's an analysis that I performed showing the performance of dividend paying stocks vs. non dividend paying stocks. Being a successful growth stock portfolio manager in the pre ETF 90's era, I dug up lists of High RS and EPS rank "leading" stock candidates screened using my old stock selection methodolgy*. Then I looked for stocks that have 20 year price histories (to alleviate survivorship bias) and I randomly selected a 10 stock portfolio. For the dividend paying stocks, I selected 10 of some the popular dividend growth consistency "favorites". I ran each portfolio through a dividend reinvestment calculator and rebalanced annually. Each portfolio starts in 1994 at a $10K value.
    The volatility is greater for the non div payers, but just as with the dividend payers, we don't pay attention to that because we're in it for the long term, (right?) And if we combined a non div growth portfolio and a dividend paying portfolio, then we still came out pretty well.

    P.S. Back in the 90's, from my recollection, there weren't many dividend growth stock methodolgies. Geraldine Weiss' was pretty good and her newletter, according to Hulbert has 11% CAGR performance over it's lifetime. Shirley Lazlo reported dividend information in Barron's but didn't build and follow portfolios from that info.

    * Daily Graphs by William O'Neil and Co
    Jul 19 11:42 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Regression To The Mean And Why Investors Should Not Ignore Its Importance [View article]
    Regression to the mean is a repeatable phenomenon and has been so in the U.S. market since 1924. I just depends on which "mean" you're regressing to and if and how you develop techniques towards making actionable tactical asset allocation decisions using it. Components 1 and 2 :
    Jul 15 05:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • $3,000 Annual AT&T Dividends Are Like An Aesop Fable Sprung To Life [View article]
    Still don't understand the "emphasis" put on reinvesting the dividends. It should be a given in terms of the mechanics in getting you on the way to total return. If you don't reinvest them, then there goes 40% of your long term return. Unless of course, you invested in high quality "growth" stocks, then management would reinvest them for you.
    Jul 15 03:59 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How To Bulletproof Your Portfolio [View article]
    The % of your total trading capital that you allocate to a system should be proportional to the trading frequency and length of trade holding periods. After commissions and slippage, the touted returns shrink dramatically in proportion to your total trading capital and total return ( because obviously you would probably only expose a few % of your capital to a system such as the one described in the article ). Speaking from experience.
    Jul 11 09:33 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Summer Doldrums? Not Usually [View article]
    It's because most analysis is "single factor". You'll see that most financial journalism entails the use of one ( sometimes two ) variables in it's reporting / articles. Finding the multi-variables ( or components as we like to call them ) with which to construct a quantitative model is the real challenge.
    Jul 3 12:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment