Skip to main content

Sound Advice: February 8, 2023

Buys, Holds, and Sells

One of the fascinating things about the world of investing is the proliferation of stock recommendations.  Most come from brokerage firms, but more than a few come from the print and broadcast media.  Rarely does a day go by without seeing “10 Stocks To Buy Now” or “Five Funds To Hold Forever.”  My sympathies to those who take this stuff seriously.

In the good old days when stock commissions were hefty, as in $150 or more per ticket, big pay days were earned by institutional stock analysts who generated massive tomes of commentary and data about companies they considered outstanding investments.  That was prior to May 1, 1975, when the Securities & Exchange Commission ruled that brokerage firms had to negotiate commissions.  Before then, those reports often ran to dozens of pages in support of the thesis.  In most cases, their best use was as kindling in a fireplace.

Most of the recommendations were Buys and there were usually a few Holds from analysts who could not make up their minds about which way to go.  In rare cases, analysts prepared reports with the heading Sell.

The problem is the reality that both a Buy and a Sell are needed to complete a transaction.  That, in turn, requires a discipline underlying the decision to buy and a discipline underlying the decision to sell.

What’s wrong with this picture.  Everything.  Yet the bombardment of nonsense continues.

This embarrassing situation gets even worse when firms put forth Conviction Lists and when websites assign numerical values that are intended to underscore the likelihood of success for each of the issues that have been rated.  However these recommendations are presented, only those who are extraordinarily naïve would base their portfolio construction on this information.

During my years at Value Line, the well-known financial publication, our written recommendations always had to be consistent with the firm’s Timeliness Ranking system.  Indeed, the theoretical results of the system showed a distinct differentiation between the market performances of the stocks that were covered.  From 1 (Highest) to 5 (Lowest), the price changes over time seemed to validate the system’s output.  But to my knowledge, that theoretical approach was never successful in practical application.

It’s all . . . hogwash.

N. Russell Wayne, CFPÒ

www.soundasset.com

 

Any questions?  Please contact me at nrwayne@soundasset.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sound Advice: January 3, 2025

2025 Market Forecasts: Stupidity Taken To An Extreme   If you know anything about stock market performance, you can only gag at the nonsense “esteemed forecasters” are now putting forth about the prospective path of stocks in the year ahead.   Our cousins in the UK would call this rubbish.   I would not be as kind. Leading the Ship of Fools is the forecast from the Chief Investment Strategist at Oppenheimer who is looking for a year-end 2025 level for the Standard & Poor’s Index of 7,100, a whopping 21% increase from the most recent standing.   Indeed, most of these folks are looking for double-digit gains.   Only two expect stocks to weaken. In the last 30 years, the market has risen by more than 20% only 15 times.   The exceptional span during that time was 1996-1999, which accounted for four of those jumps.   What followed in 2000 through 2002 was the polar opposite: 2000:      -9.1% 2001:     -11.9% ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sound Advice: January 15, 2025

Why investors shouldn't pay attention to Wall Street forecasts   Investors shouldn't pay attention to Wall Street forecasts for several compelling reasons: Poor accuracy Wall Street forecasts have a terrible track record of accuracy. Studies show that their predictions are often no better than random chance, with accuracy rates as low as 47%   Some prominent analysts even perform worse, with accuracy ratings as low as 35% Consistent overestimation Analysts consistently overestimate earnings growth, predicting 10-12%                 annual growth when the reality is closer to 6%.   This overoptimism can                 lead investors to make overly aggressive bets in the market. Inability to predict unpredictable events The stock market is influenced by numerous unpredictable factors, including geopolitical events, technological changes, and company-specific news.   Anal...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sound Advice: July 16, 2025

Fixed annuities are poor investments Fixed annuities are often criticized as poor investments for several reasons, despite their reputation for providing stable, predictable income.  Here are the key drawbacks and concerns:   High Fees and Commissions Internal Fees:  Fixed annuities can carry a range of fees, including administrative charges, mortality expense risk fees, and rider fees. These can add up to 2%–4% per year, significantly eroding returns over time. Commissions:  Sales agents and financial advisors often receive high commissions for selling annuities—sometimes as much as 5%–8% of the invested amount. This creates a financial incentive for advisers to recommend them, even when they may not be the best fit for the client. Comparison to Other Investments:  Mutual funds and ETFs typically have much lower fees and commissions, making them more cost-effective for long-term growth. Limited Growth a...
Post a Comment
Read more