Sentences with phrase «bad stock holdings»

Not exact matches

This chart shows the best and worst annual returns stocks generated over the last 141 years based on different holding periods:

But Buffett may have escaped the worst of the damage, as he sold nearly all of his Verizon stock over the past year, and owned just a tiny $ 43,000 stake as of Berkshire Hathaway's latest holdings disclosure.

There's no pain - in - the - neck need for him or her to buy and then sell the stock (or, worse still, hold on to it and become a grousing minority shareholder).

Stock values would not have held up if investors believed the worst - case scenario — failed negotiations that trigger an effective Greek default — would lead to mass panic.

Holding a bond ladder that you can liquidate when the market is down provides the alternative to selling stocks at the worst possible times, and allows you to wait until the stock market recovers.

Those stocks would get crushed, we're buying stocks that are have huge cash flows, people have low expectations for them that's why we're getting them so cheap and so we know pay for high expectations in the long book, so when the low — bad news comes in, we didn't pay for high expectations so our longs tend to hold up better, our shorts are getting killed, great spreads and bad markets.

IAK has a similar allocation to Attractive - or - better stocks, but also holds 30 % Unattractive - or - worse rated stocks vs. 20 % for KIE.

My worst time for holding on to a stock too long was Nortel!

Therefore, investors should be sure that they assess the holdings of any Financial sector ETF to ensure it is not too heavily weighted in Neutral - or - worse - rated stocks.

Ron also looks at Markel, and why the double - edged sword of a rising interest rate environment will hold more good news for the company than bad, and he closes by telling investors why PotashCorp (NYSE: POT) and Titan International (NYSE: TWI) are two companies he has as interesting stocks on his radar today.

It's had this sort of terrible trajectory straight into the ground and it's basically halved over two years and now it's one of those stocks that everybody hates because it's one of those stocks that everybody held a couple of years ago and I remember how badly they've all been burnt on the reason for buying two years ago was that it had this kind of stellar earnings growth that fat toad and the earnings have basically been falling since then that looks like they got to continue to fall for another 12 months two years.

If stocks enter into a new bear market in 2015, it would obviously bad news for traditional «buy and hold» investors who must hope and pray that stocks continue on an upward trajectory forever (hint: they don't).

In fact, portfolios holding alternative investments have been shown to do worse during a stock market recovery.

They might know more than you do and you don't want to be left holding the stock when you find out the bad news.

Yet some individual stocks found themselves in greater difficulty, and Michael Kors Holdings (NYSE: KORS), Snap (NYSE: SNAP), and Blue Apron (NYSE: APRN) were among the worst performers on the day.

It was more than just a bad investment outcome, since they actually had already paid taxes on the stock they held.

The ideas presented are credible things that you could actually finding yourself buying and holding for long periods of time, and each of the stocks mentioned remained profitable during the worst of The Great Recession.

So, why do investors feel so bad when they buy a net - net and it is «dead money» in the sense it only returns 8 % to 10 % a year over the 5 or more years while they hold the stock?

With value stocks trailing the market badly so far this year and large - cap growth names leading the way, our best performers have been strategies focused on momentum and models with significant holdings in International stocks.

The Writers criticism of supporters waving WENGER OUT BANNERS is wrong.Supporters have every right to show their contempt of this man who has now made himself the point of ridicule and a laughing stock within the football world.Im talking opposition supporters, tv and press as well as the ever increasing majority of the Arsenal Fanbase.Who ever wrote this article has misjudged the mood of the support and is badly mistaken if he feels his comments will carry any credibility.How many WENGER IN banners are held up each match?The only chants for Wenger to stay are from our opponents fans.Of course they want him to stay.Why wouldn't they?

People have trouble cutting their losses: They hold on to losing stocks too long, they stay in bad relationships, and they continue to eat large restaurant meals even when they're full.

My grandfather admitted that he held too many stocks for his age, which made the blow worse.

And for that reason when a big company fails, there may be collapse on stock exchange because many other companies hold shares and their stock price is significantly affected by the «bad investment».

That's what I did in my worst period 6/2002 -9 / 2002, and the stocks that I held at the end were ideally positioned for the turn in the market.

Over a short period of time, the worst - case scenario would have been quite bad if you held a lot of stocks.

And the entire historical stock record shows that Buy - and - Hold is the worst strategy possible for the long - term investor.

Though it dropped quickly to about half its value, it has since made a very big comeback and is one of the most successful stocks over the past few years — I guess buying and holding the FB wouldn't have been a bad move.

In the buy and hold portion of my portfolio (half each in equities and fixed income) I totally ignore all the bad news as it would create anxiety to be sitting on a bunch of stocks when the evidence indicates there is a greater risk of loss than gain.

The downside of ETFs is that their holdings are static and the investor loses if those holdings are in underperforming or worse stocks.

He had a bad 2011, but he is up around 35 % or so in 2012, thanks in large part to the performance of his top 3 holdings: AIG, SHLD, and BAC... three stocks that Berkowitz has become almost synonymous with over the last couple years.

The more stocks you hold, the smaller the impact of your decisions, both good and bad.

Your portfolio held 0 of the top 25 performers in the S&P 500, your largest single holding in your portfolio is an intermediate bond fund, which was down 3.14 % for the year and you held the 5th worst stock in the S&P 500 in the month of June.

We intentionally focus on stocks here to highlight the investment that typically stands to lose the most during bad times, and thus, the holding that usually makes investors the most nervous.

In terms of how this relates to asset allocation in retirement, if you are comfortable with any given 5 year period being slightly below breakeven on a worst case basis, you could consider having about 5 years» worth of expenses in more liquid and safe assets and have comfort that the rest of your portfolio in stocks will at least hold their value pretty well.

I personally prefer direct holding in US stocks because (a) they are cheaper (b) hedging has debatable benefits but certain costs including bad tracking error.

If you hold on to bad stocks, two things will happen.

Stock market crashes always seem to result in a bad day for everyone, especially those with large holdings of shares.

This bad boy holds a bunch of gold and mining stocks and then writes covered calls against them (I went over covered calls here if you're not sure what they are).

e.g. on a universe of all liquid stocks with pretty generous liquidity filters (price > $ 1, mcap > $ 100 million, on the market for at least 1 year, inflation - adjusted daily dollar volume in the last 63 days > $ 100,000), before friction, and hold for 5 days (no other sell rule), tested on all start dates Sept 2, 1997 forward to Aug 18, 2015 and then averaged CAGR, leaving an average of 3360 stocks in the universe to then test: a. 17.6 % cagr bottom 5 % of stocks left by bad 4 day return (requiring price > ma200 was slightly worse than this at 17.4 %; but requiring price < ma5 was better at 18.1 %) b. 16.0 % cagr bottom 5 % of stocks left by bad 5 day return c. 14.6 % cagr bottom 5 % by rsi (2) d. 14.7 % cagr for rsi (2) < 5 I have tested longer backtests on simpler liquidity filters (since my tests can't use all of the above filters on very long tests) and this still holds true: bad return in the last 4 or 5 days beats low rsi (2) for 1 week holds.

The ideas presented are credible things that you could actually finding yourself buying and holding for long periods of time, and each of the stocks mentioned remained profitable during the worst of The Great Recession.

Stock Amounts — Even assuming perfectly bad - luck timing and less aggressive dividend reinvestment, holding stocks for 10 years guards against all but the very worst historical stock catastroStock Amounts — Even assuming perfectly bad - luck timing and less aggressive dividend reinvestment, holding stocks for 10 years guards against all but the very worst historical stock catastrostock catastrophes.

The value of stocks held in the Fund will fluctuate in response to factors that may affect a single company, industry, market cap, country or region and may perform worse than the market.

Should the fundamentals of a current holding change for the worse our Robo will keep you on top of things and immediately suggest three replacement stocks in order to improve performance.

Most of my best purchases have suffered some form of setback while holding them — were they bad stocks?

Just as hedge funds have a hard time holding onto good employees when performance goes bad, so it is for tech companies when financing dries up, and the stock price craters.

However, the best stocks with dividends like to ratchet their dividends upward over time — holding them steady in a bad year, and raising them in... Read More

@Writer's Coin — You are right, the stocks that I continued to hold on to, performed as badly as the rest of the market.

No because he purposefully concentrated on the undervalued tranch of stocks that provide asymmetric outcomes: good luck in the fortunes of his holdings helped his portfolio disproportionately on the upside, and bad luck didn't hurt his portfolio much on the downside.

This move prompted me to trim my TRIB stake to 7.4 % — no bad reflection on the stock, just some top - slicing, and it remains my 2nd largest portfolio holding.

I feel like a lot of that could have been avoided if I had put some kind of «hold» on the 401 (k) during the weeks where the stock market performed really badly.