|
bzw posted:From this, why even bother holding bonds? On a long enough time frame, they would be an insignificant portion of your portfolio. If I had a 10/50/40 spread initially to establish the risk I was comfortable with, and in 2 years it was 5/52/43, I'm now holding a portfolio that has a different risk profile. Is rebalancing not mainly about managing your risk? By your measure, in 30 years, I will be left with an extremely aggressive profile at the point I would wish for a more conservative one. This is an honest question, as my knowledge on the matter is not borne of intense study. Well, there are a couple of questions to answer here. First, I'm not advocating never re-balancing your portfolio, I just don't think you should re-balance every year. 4-5 years is fine. My concern with yearly re-balances is two fold. First, you're going to be constantly over-weighting the lower return assets in your portfolio, which will drag down your returns relative to the risk you're accepting. Secondly, if there's any market volatility that affects only a portion of your portfolio the effects will be abnormally large because there's no time to take advantage of any gains that would even partially normalize those losses. In this way, SR strategies can actually increase, not decrease the risk you face in the short term. As to your question about Bonds, well, they have a place. If your investment goals have a relatively short time frame or you are significantly risk adverse, Bonds will generally give more consistent but lower returns. For example, if you are retired and dependent on your investments for income (because God help you if you are dependent on CPP/OAS/GIS) then any market volatility at all can have seriously adverse effects on your standard of living. In this case it makes sense to have a large portion of your assets in Bonds or other debt instruments. Or, for example, you have a big goal coming up in 2-3 years (say sending a kid to college), you might want to start moving some assets away from pure equity and in to Bond or Balanced funds to stabilize the returns and maintain capital.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Actually, here's a second question: Why are you focusing so much on risk tolerance to the exclusion of time horizon and returns?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
grack posted:Actually, here's a second question: Why are you focusing so much on risk tolerance to the exclusion of time horizon and returns? Against my better judgment, I'll bite: How do you factor in returns when determining an allocation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
Jan posted:Against my better judgment, I'll bite: How do you factor in returns when determining an allocation? Seriously? Set a goal, figure out your time horizon and calculate what rate of return would be required to meet your goals based on your ability to invest. Examine what asset allocation profile would best fit your returns goals and if you're comfortable with the risk, you have a solution. If you're not comfortable with the risk, something will have to be adjusted, either time horizon, overall goal or investment amount. How do YOU determine your required rate of return? grack fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
grack posted:Seriously? Set a goal, figure out your time horizon and calculate what rate of return would be required to meet your goals based on your ability to invest. Examine what asset allocation profile would best fit your returns goals and if you're comfortable with the risk, you have a solution. If you're not comfortable with the risk, something will have to be adjusted, either time horizon, overall goal or investment amount. And you calculate this future "rate of return" based on what? Past performance? Market timing? Estimations? A Ouija board? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Jan posted:And you calculate this future "rate of return" based on what? Past performance? Market timing? Estimations? A Ouija board? Goal: When I turn 65 years old, I will require $1,600,000 to comfortably fund my retirement Time Horizon: I have 30 years until retirement Ability to Invest: I can invest $20,000 per year Current Savings: I have no current savings Question: If the above is true, what rate of return would I require to meet my savings goals? Answer: I would require an annualized rate of return of approximately 6%, compounded monthly. What asset allocation profile would be most likely to provide me with the return I require? -The best fit seems to be Asset Allocation Profile X Am I comfortable with risk associated with Asset Allocation Profile X? -Yes Good, make investment. Five years from now: In the last five years, has Asset Allocation Profile X provided me with the requisite rate of return? If yes -Rebalance existing funds in to same AAP, repeat if necessary If no -Do I need to consider another AAP that would better suit my needs? This is all Investment 101. I have no idea why you're being so damned hostile. Or do you not believe in goal based investing? grack fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
You know what, I think I get the problem. You seem to have this view that the market is completely random and can change at any moment, and thus past performance can't provide useful information. Well, this isn't the case. Over a long enough term broad patterns exist in the market based on underlying financial realities. The BoC isn't going to suddenly increase the overnight rate by 5% and throw the market in to chaos. I mean, you believe half of it already - different asset classes (and thus asset allocations) have a fairly predictable level of risk when examined over the long term. Why is it so staggeringly difficult to believe that patterns of returns are similar? This isn't timing the market, this isn't a crystal ball. It's quite literally the exact same extrapolations you're taking on expected risk and applying them to expected returns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
grack posted:What asset allocation profile would be most likely to provide me with the return I require? Except you can't guarantee in the slightest that said allocation profile would yield that return. Those "profiles" are simply risk control, and you just have to accept whatever returns you get from the risks you take. We're basically saying the same thing, you're just extrapolating from risk management a bit to estimate a "return rate" which is inevitably going to be based on past performance and the state of the market at that time. I think it's not possible nor reasonable to make any such estimation, so I am sticking to risk estimates. As in, I am willing to take a lot more risk right now because retirement is so far away, therefore I am equity heavy. And whatever yields I get from this are out of my hands nor do I pretend otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
So you think it's perfectly reasonable to make estimations based on historical data for one factor, but not another? You realize that this makes precisely zero sense, right? I mean you're already doing this implicitly when you make the decision to purchase equities over bonds so I'm not sure what the mental block is here. I mean, what goes in to the choice of purchasing a higher risk instrument if you don't also expect higher returns? If you're not considering returns, how do you know that you're on track for retirement, or whatever other financial goal you have in mind? Do you just not have goals at all? That's not financial planning, that's "buy and pray". grack fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Looking for some suggestions on good, small work RSP plans/companies. 5-20 employee range type. Sounds like the odd investment plan I have at work may be coming to an end. We're a small branch office of an American company. For example, last year if I put 10K into an RSP, I'd submit the receipt showing that, and they'd send back a check for 48% of that. The limit for matching was up to a 25K personal contribution, giving a match of 12K from the company. My manager is suggesting we move to a more traditional group RSP plan, potentially through Sun life who handles our medical benefits. He thinks our head office might push this on us before long, and figures we'd have more control if we switch now. It would still be a similar system, just contributions would be deducted each paycheck, and our tax deductions reduced to account for it. End of the year, it would again get a contribution from the company for 48% of that years total. I'm really not impressed by Sun Life's plans though. MER range from 1.3% for a money market, and 1.7-2.1 for the standard bond/equity funds. Ideally I'd prefer someplace that offers some of the vanguard/blackrock funds, and the low management fees that go with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
grack posted:So you think it's perfectly reasonable to make estimations based on historical data for one factor, but not another? You realize that this makes precisely zero sense, right? I mean you're already doing this implicitly when you make the decision to purchase equities over bonds so I'm not sure what the mental block is here. I mean, what goes in to the choice of purchasing a higher risk instrument if you don't also expect higher returns? Ok, I'll bite here. Not an expert. Here's how I see it. Us passive investors have been told we just want to ride with the market. We should set our equity asset allocation based on the world's economy: Canada 4%, US 40%, etc. And then we were told that bonds are a decent instrument for reducing risk, so based on our risk tolerance, bonds should be somewhere between 10 and 40 percent of our portfolio. We've been told that once we choose our allocation, we will want to re-balance our portfolio annually (or through regular contributions) to maintain this allocation. Re-balancing helps us to maintain the risk profile we have chosen (percentage of bonds in portfolio), and it aligns with our goal of staying true to the world's market (allocation of equities). We may also capture the peaks and valleys in the market in a favourable way in the process. We've read that the basis for this method is based on a century of historical data. We've been told not to worry about what has happened in the past 5 minutes, 5 months, 5 years, or 5 decades. And don't worry what Jim Cramer says about what will happen in the future. I feel this is the basis for passive investing. Then you come along and tell us we should worry about what has happened in the past 20 years with interest rates. To that I say, fair enough, you're probably right; maybe we should. But it goes against the core of what most of us consider to be passive investing. To add some credibility to my statements, I am not a fiercely loyal passive investor. I hold 3% of my portfolio in weed stocks for god sakes. I also hold very little bonds. Probably only 5% of total at the moment. Rick Rickshaw fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Golluk posted:Looking for some suggestions on good, small work RSP plans/companies. 5-20 employee range type. Poke around more in sunlife, my father's rrsp from work is through them, and the target fund he's invested in have an MER of 0.1% so low MER funds do exist there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Bajaha posted:Poke around more in sunlife, my father's rrsp from work is through them, and the target fund he's invested in have an MER of 0.1% so low MER funds do exist there. Sounds like another option is to transfer it out to my own RSP every year or two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Rick Rickshaw posted:We've been told that once we choose our allocation, we will want to re-balance our portfolio annually (or through regular contributions) to maintain this allocation. Re-balancing helps us to maintain the risk profile we have chosen (percentage of bonds in portfolio), and it aligns with our goal of staying true to the world's market (allocation of equities). We may also capture the peaks and valleys in the market in a favourable way in the process. I've mentioned my reasons before but I'll mention them again: 1. SR strategies do not increase returns. They became popular during a 20 year market aberration of historically high bond returns that will likely never recur. If you say you want to base investing on 100 years of historical data, from a returns standpoint SR strategies are the exact opposite of what you should be doing. Re-balancing every year can also incur fees/commissions, which will further decrease your returns. 2. SR strategies may decrease risk in the long term (if you aren't re-balancing your portfolio anyways) but they actually increase risk in the short term. Why? If you re-balance too often you over-weight your lower return assets and decrease your overall returns. You are, in effect, taking more risk in the short term to earn a desired gain than you might otherwise. 3. SR strategies place too great a focus on a single factor in investment to the exclusion of others. Yes, risk tolerance is important but it shouldn't be your only focus. Your goal, after all, isn't to maintain the exact same asset allocation portfolio for 30 years. The goal is to build enough assets to retire/buy a car/go on a trip/send kids to college/etc. 4. I have never said, and I will never say that you shouldn't rebalance your portfolio. You should, and my suggestion is every 4-5 years. And I'll add one last point - you cannot be a 100% passive investor. You must re-examine your finances every once in a while, even if it's only once every 5 years. If you don't do so, how are you going to know if you're on track to meet your financial goals? This is not trying to time the market, and I am not suggesting that you slavishly follow the market 24/7. I'm saying that every once in a while you should sit down and say "Am I doing everything that I need to do?" Now, all that said, is examining your finances once every 4-5 years truly that onerous of a task? It's much more likely that you'll be forced to re-examine them more often anyways due to a change in lifestyle/circumstances (new job, get married, have kids, buy house, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
While it isn't likely, it's certainly possible for interest rates to get slightly lower. While at a certain negative rate it putting pallets of cash in a vault provides a better return (well, less loss in nominal value), transporting and storing billions of dollars in cash is pretty expensive. Security and insurance alone would be a killer. So it's possible but unlikely that rates could go as low as negative one or two percent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
That's like saying Donald Trump could to turn in to a hardcore Socialist tomorrow. It is certainly within the realm of possibility, but I wouldn't plan my investment strategy around it either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
So I made a TD waterhouse account and made a couple of orders for eseries index funds. How long does it take for these orders to go through?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Mine typically go through at the end of the next business day if I've placed the order in the afternoon. If I manage to get it in early morning it goes through at the end of that business day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
grack posted:2. SR strategies may decrease risk in the long term (if you aren't re-balancing your portfolio anyways) but they actually increase risk in the short term. Why? If you re-balance too often you over-weight your lower return assets and decrease your overall returns. You are, in effect, taking more risk in the short term to earn a desired gain than you might otherwise. I think the reason the couch potato and rebalancing promoters in this thread are taking issue is that this statement smells like market timing. "Oh gee, I was comfortable with a 40% allocation in foreign securities, and now due to positive returns, my portfolio is at 52% foreign. I better not rebalance to 40%, instead I should let my higher performing portion of my portfolio ride, because this trend may continue and I don't want to 'cut the legs off' my overperforming assets." What I'm getting from your argument is the same. If you think your comfortable asset allocation is 20% bond, with 40% US securities and 40% foreign securities, you'd buy up your assets to create that allocation. This is step 1 of building a portfolio and most people here agree on the method. In step 2, at say, year end, you review your assets and see foreign markets have over performed and you are now at 19% bond, 29% US and 52% foreign. SR proponents say, either use your current additional contributions (best), or sell foreign and repurchase other assets (less best) to buy up more US and bond assents to return to a 20/40/40 allocation. grack says, since you now have 52% allocation of higher performing assets, that must be good, so stay the course and/or purchase additional assets in the same 19/29/52 allocation as you have now to end up with that as your proportion even with additional funds added. SR proponents will adjust contributions or buy/sell to keep that number annually or maybe semi-annually to whatever they think currently provides the risk profile they want. grack would try to harness the uptick in his performing assets by leaving the allocation for 4-5 years. Then rebalance to whatever he thinks currently provides the performance trend he wants. The question I have for grack is, if your system of measuring historical performance allows you to determine your performance-matched allocation, why would you ever need to rebalance? You're apparently able to predict performance, so you'd never be in a situation where your allocation would skew. Based on your analytic ability, you'd have the gains you expected in each asset class and your allocation would be fairly steady. Or do I misunderstand? edit to add another way of saying this: I think when grack hears 'rebalance' he is hearing 'buy more of your underperforming assets', which seems foolish to him. SR proponents say, 'buy more of X-risk level assets to maintain risk exposure because no one knows what will happen tomorrow'. mr.belowaverage fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
mr.belowaverage posted:The question I have for grack is, if your system of measuring historical performance allows you to determine your performance-matched allocation, why would you ever need to rebalance? You're apparently able to predict performance, so you'd never be in a situation where your allocation would skew. Based on your analytic ability, you'd have the gains you expected in each asset class and your allocation would be fairly steady. You misunderstand completely. My concern is that SR strategies place a massive focus on a single component of investing (risk tolerance) to the exclusion of others (returns, time horizon, goals, etc.). Again, what's your goal? Is it to maintain the exact same asset allocation until you die or is it to retire comfortably? Before you reply, please consider the following question: If risk tolerance is all you care about and you're convinced that historical returns data is worthless, why are you buying literally anything other than risk-free rate of return instruments? I mean if controlling risk is the only factor you're considering, shouldn't you take steps to minimize it? Bonds carry inherent risk, balanced funds carry inherent risk, even money market funds can carry a measure of risk. Shouldn't you only buy guaranteed investements like GICs, GIAs or Treasury Bills? More to the point, how do you think Asset Allocation profiles are developed in the first case, magic? Zettace posted:So I made a TD waterhouse account and made a couple of orders for eseries index funds. How long does it take for these orders to go through? It should be same business day if possible, next business day only if absolutely necessary. That said, when you actually see the funds in your account depends on how fast TD processes everything. grack fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
grack posted:If risk tolerance is all you care about and you're convinced that historical returns data is worthless, why are you buying literally anything other than risk-free rate of return instruments? Because you are lucky if those even beat inflation nowadays. Sure, if I already had all the savings I need for my retirement, "beating inflation" would be a sufficient target. Yes, statistically speaking, risk assessments are obviously based on previous data. To put it simply, that data is shaped into an average annualized return and a standard deviation. You choose to look at the annualized return and say, "this is about what I need to meet this goal". I choose to look at the deviation and say, "this is as much risk as I'm willing to stomach right now" and take whatever returns this gives me. Both approaches are an interpretation of previous results, but the latter one is more suited to my needs. Because let's face it -- we can talk all we want about investment returns, but in the end, the most important part of having sufficient savings in the end is to contribute to that goal regularly. My goal being retirement, and being still very far from that milestone, the odds are that my allocation isn't changing in the 4-5 years, let alone the next year. If by some fluke or massive effort I manage to reach "comfortable retirement savings", then yes, I am going to update my allocation, not just blindly rebalance. But until then, the best I can do is unfortunately to "buy and pray", as you've termed it yourself. That said, I will admit that I did a bit of research on some things you said, and I'm not very positive about the outlook of bond funds in a rising interest rate situation. It seems like bond funds have none of the security that holding an actual bond does, since the fund will "normalize" itself by losing values as previous bonds correspondingly lose value. One way or another, this doesn't much look like a saver's market, and going 100% equity is definitely not something I'm willing to do even if my retirement goal is 20+ years away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
The thing is you really should sit down and figure out some goals, even if it's only in a very basic form. If nothing else it'll help reinforce what you're saving towards, and not focus so much on any one part.
grack fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Bajaha posted:Mine typically go through at the end of the next business day if I've placed the order in the afternoon. If I manage to get it in early morning it goes through at the end of that business day. It shows up in my list of orders but the status is "Open - $0.00 of $3000" and my account dashboard shows that 100% of my fund is still cash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
From my experience you'll see it on Monday, with the order having been priced at the closing prices on Friday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
I see no issue with rebalancing frequently, especially if there are significant capital inflows into the account, so you can rebalance with new money rather than sell off existing assets for that purpose. Generating a lot of taxable events just for the purpose of rebalancing is super undesirable and a pretty bad tradeoff. Generally agreed that 'letting your winners run' or similar rhetoric is just a form of market timing. If you believe this you should be buying even more of your winners. This is also effectively the opposite of what smart beta funds do -- though I personally don't hold any of those and am not fully convinced by their arguments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Market timing is making trades or purchase/sale decisions in hopes of taking advantage of future events. That's quite literally the opposite of buy and hold, which is what I'm suggesting you do. Christ almighty if you're going to throw the term around at least know what it means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
grack posted:Market timing is making trades or purchase/sale decisions in hopes of taking advantage of future events. That's quite literally the opposite of buy and hold, which is what I'm suggesting you do. They are not mutually exclusive or opposites at all. If you are buying and holding individual stocks you are generally doing this with the expectation that these stocks will outperform the market (or you would just buy an index fund). The future event you are planning on taking advantage of is the continued growth of your winners relative to the market as a whole (as evidenced by your decision not to rebalance them). The decision to buy those stocks and the decision to continue to hold them in the face of appreciation are both forms of market timing. If you are not buying individual stocks and rather just tracking indices, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to rebalance as often as possible. Hopefully you have arrived at some empirical decision that an allocation of A%/B%/C%/... is appropriate exposure to various equity/bond classes and barring some sort of significant market shift it doesn't seem like those particular values should change much. The one confounding factor is transaction costs and incurring capital gains due to selling -- and in many cases those considerations should tip you to rebalancing on a more infrequent scale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Asset allocation profiles or empirical stock mixes or whatever the hell else you call them are designed to balance risk and return over a certain period of time, with the expectation that some asset classes will be more volatile than others. There is a damned good reason why you include your time horizon when you develop your risk profile.blah_blah posted:The decision to buy those stocks and the decision to continue to hold them in the face of appreciation are both forms of market timing. By this definition, literally any type of investing/saving/sticking money under your mattress you do in any fashion would be considered "market timing" and thus the term is meaningless. Re-balance every year? Market timing because you expect future volatility and want to capture your gains immediately. Buy exclusively GICs? Market timing because you expect they'll out-perform the market in the long term. Buy a single stock and hold it for 30 years? Market timing because you expect it to outperform the rest of the market. Stick all your money under your mattress? Market timing because you expect the stock market to crash and investment returns will be meaningless. In contrast, here are actual examples of market timing: "I expect Company X to show lower than expected profit numbers for Q3 2016, so I'm going to short their stock and make a ton of money." "I expect Trump is going to massively de-regulate the healthcare industry so I'm going to buy a lot of Health stocks" "I expect China's economic growth to falter substantially over the next six months so I'm going to divest myself of Chinese stock" "I expect an explosive growth in marijuana companies over the next few years due to de-criminalization so I'm gonna buy a shitload of stock in medical marijuana startups" That is market timing. You're expecting a specific future event to occur and attempt to buy/sell/short/long/put/call to take financial advantage of that event. Continuously applying the term erroneously does nothing more than confuse you when researching information or deciding on alternatives for investment. grack fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Feb 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
grack posted:By this definition, literally any type of investing/saving/sticking money under your mattress you do in any fashion would be considered "market timing" and thus the term is meaningless. I realize you're going for a reductio ad absurdum here but I agree that the latter 2 are forms of market timing. Buying exclusively GICs is not necessarily market timing because it may be the appropriate choice for an individual's risk profile/personal utility function (it may be market timing if you do suddenly in response to some sort of macroeconomic event/if you are less than 85 years old). Rebalancing periodically is typically not market timing, though doing it in an adhoc way to capture gains or because you fear future events is. In general I would characterize market timing as any behavior that is indicative of a belief that markets are not efficient and is an attempt to exploit those apparent inefficiencies. Note that there is plenty of evidence that markets are not fully efficient (!) -- but it's far from clear that you, as a retail investor, can identify and capitalize on those opportunities, especially net of fees. blah_blah fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Feb 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:In general I would characterize market timing as any behavior that is indicative of a belief that markets are not efficient and is an attempt to exploit those apparent inefficiencies. Note that there is plenty of evidence that markets are not fully efficient (!) -- but it's far from clear that you, as a retail investor, can identify and capitalize on those opportunities, especially net of fees. This is not market timing. This is called arbitrage. The terms are very different and you are continuously misapplying them to your ultimate detriment. Market timing is attempting to use a known future event to realize a financial gain. NOTHING ELSE. It has nothing to do with market inefficiency. Confusing the two terms will lead you to misunderstand information on investing or savings. I'm absolutely flabbergasted that you got through my last post and came up with the conclusions that you did, so let me make this clear as humanly possible: The first four scenarios WERE NOT market timing The second four scenarios WERE market timing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
Dude, relax.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
grack posted:This is called arbitrage. This is really some Theory of Finance 101-type stuff. 'Known future events' are impossible in efficient markets, and the absence of arbitrage opportunities is what makes a market efficient. This should not be surprising, since the current price of a stock is more or less the net present expected value of the future dividends of a stock. As noted above I'm not an efficient markets zealot, but it's a useful concept and the distinction you're trying to draw doesn't really exist in the way you think it does. blah_blah fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Feb 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
For your point to be true you would have to assume that all investors are purely rational actors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
I'm an investor who decides to invest in a 50/50 mix of two investments. In one universe I invest today. A year from now I end up with a 60/40 mix. In another universe I invest a year from now. I have a 50/50 mix. How can both be correct?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:This should not be surprising, since the current price of a stock is more or less the net present expected value of the future dividends of a stock. That doesn't seem right, practically. Many stocks don't pay dividends, but still climb in price. Shouldn't GOOG be priced at $0, since there are no known plans for it to pay a dividend? Or does the NPEV in this case include some prediction that they will start to?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:That doesn't seem right, practically. Many stocks don't pay dividends, but still climb in price. Shouldn't GOOG be priced at $0, since there are no known plans for it to pay a dividend? Or does the NPEV in this case include some prediction that they will start to? Correct. It's NPV of all future cash flows (some of which is probabilistic), not dividends.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Correct. It's NPV of all future cash flows (some of which is probabilistic), not dividends. What other cash flows are expected from, e.g., GOOG?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:What other cash flows are expected from, e.g., GOOG? The cash received from selling the stock itself down the line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:The cash received from selling the stock itself down the line. Oh, of course!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Lexicon posted:The cash received from selling the stock itself down the line. This is a question coming from a place of extreme naivete here, but: a) How is this different from a Ponzi scheme? b) What happens when Google stops growing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 18:32
|
|
