Without doubt, the most serious mistake individual investors make is trying to time the market. Neither individual nor professional investors are able to make consistently accurate calls on the direction of market prices. In fact, I have never known anyone who knows anyone who has consistently made accurate directional bets on either equity or bond prices.
When individual investors try to time the market they are much more likely to buy and sell at the worst times. Emotionally, investors suffer great pain when pessimism is rampant and stock prices fall. They are more likely to buy when everyone is optimistic and prices are near or at their peak. Behavioral considerations cause investors all too often to shoot themselves in the foot.
Investors are still their own worst enemy.
The evidence is remarkably strong that the behavioral biases described above influence investor behavior. The chart below superimposes data on the flow of monies into and out of equity mutual funds (the shaded histograms) on the 12-month returns of the Standard and Poor’s 500 index (the solid line). (The source of the flow data is the Investment Company Institute.)
Note that when prices are high and returns are good, money tends to flow into equity mutual funds; when prices are low, investors make net withdrawals of funds. In the first quarter of 2000, which coincided with the top of the Internet bubble, more new money was invested in equity mutual funds than ever before. Then in the fourth quarter of 2002, which turned out to be the market bottom after a sharp decline in stock prices, investors pulled large amounts of money out of equity mutual funds. Then, in the third quarter of 2008, during the worst of the recent financial crises when stocks made decade lows, investors redeemed unprecedented amounts of equity mutual funds. Our emotions lead us to sell at bottoms and buy at tops.
Several empirical studies have tried to measure the cost of bad timing decisions. They all agree that investors tend to do much worse than a buy and hold investor who avoided market timing altogether. A well-known study of the so-called “behavior gap” by Dalbar Associates estimates that it may be as large as 5 to 6 percentage points annually over the past 20 years. Other studies have estimated somewhat smaller gaps, but all of the studies agree that harmful investor behavior is extremely costly.
tout d’abord, personne n’est en mesure de prédire si les marchés vont continuer à dégringoler ces prochaines semaines ou s’ils vont rebondir.
Toutefois, dans une démarches d’investissement à long terme, il peut faire sens d’entrer maintenant, après la baisse que nous venons de connaitre.
A mon humble avis, si vous avez une grosse somme à placer, vous pourriez en mettre 25-50% maintenant et lisser les 50-75% restants sur les 12-18 prochains mois. Ou alors vous pouvez verser la totalité progressivement sur les 12-18 prochains mois.
De manière générale, plus vous investissez sur un profil prudent, plus vous pouvez vous permettre d’investir la totalité de la somme maintenant. En revanche, si vous investissez sur un profil dynamique ou agressif, vous seriez bien avisé de lisser votre investissement sur plusieurs mois/années.
Pour terminer, je cite Paul Merriman: 22 things to know about Bear Markets.
"1. What is a bear market? The term is sometimes thrown around loosely. But there’s a real definition that’s generally agreed on: A bear market is a downturn of 20% or more, lasting at least 60 days, in any broad equity index such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500, or the Nasdaq. (Figures cited in this column apply to the S&P 500.)
If the 20%-plus downturn lasts less than two months, it’s considered a correction instead of a bear market. (This doesn’t mean it hurts less, but the pain starts easing up sooner.)
A bear market is triggered when investors lose faith in the market as a whole — decreasing the demand for stocks. This tends to happen when the economy enters a recession, unemployment is high and inflation is rising.
Bear markets are normal, but not predominant. Over the past 200 years, the stock market has risen more than it has declined. The bear accounts for only a minority of the history of the market — but that minority is pretty unpleasant.
Like earthquakes, bear markets are hard to predict, but especially hazardous to those who fail to prepare. Since 1929, the U.S. stock market has experienced 25 bear markets, an average of one every 3.4 years.
Statistically, we are overdue. The most recent bear market ended in March 2009 — more than six years ago.
Also like earthquakes, bear markets don’t last forever. Those 25 bear markets lasted, on average, for 10 months.
Also like earthquakes, bear markets can be relatively mild or quite harsh. The average bear-market loss was 35%. The smallest loss was 21% in 1949; the worst was a drop of 62% from November 1931 to June 1932.
Many of today’s investors have lived through two fairly nasty bears: a decline of 58% from 2000 to 2002 and a 57% plunge from 2007 to 2009.
Bear markets spook investors who aren’t prepared for them. Millions of investors are still nervously on the sidelines following the market rout of 2008. By remaining in cash, they have missed out on a strong, sustained recovery
The history of the markets isn’t entirely bad. The 25 bull markets since 1929 have lasted an average of 31 months — three times as long as the average bear market. Also encouraging: The average of these bull markets sent stocks up 107%.
Like bear markets, bull markets come in all sizes. The smallest bull-market gain was 21%; the largest was (hang onto your hat) 582%, from 1987 to 2000. That prolonged bull market started right after a sudden correction (widely regarded at the time as a crash) in which the market lost 22% in just one day.
The bear’s bite isn’t quite as bad as these numbers make it seem. For technical reasons, the returns cited here were computed without taking reinvested dividends into account. That means the losses were actually slightly less, and the gains slightly more, than the numbers would indicate.
Just as a bear market can scare off investors, a prolonged bull market can lead investors to think that market risk is nothing but an outmoded concept. Early in 2000, after nearly 13 years of a bull, millions of investors were stunned when a serious downturn began in the spring.
Bear markets don’t last forever. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but it hasn’t happened yet. Perhaps the main reason is that broad market indexes are made up of so many stocks.
I know of one guaranteed way to absolutely protect yourself from a bear market: Don’t ever invest in equities. However, this guaranteed protection has a high cost: You’ll never obtain the gains from bull markets.
A better way to protect your assets is to diversify among many equity asset classes. This worked very well from 2000 to 2002: while the S&P 500 dropped more than 50%, my recommended equity portfolio fell only about 14%.
A third (and very effective) way to protect your portfolio from a bear market: Add bond funds. Over the past 45 years, the worst calendar-year performance for a combination of 40% diversified equities and 60% bonds was a loss of 14.9%, in the devastating year of 2008.
Better than either 17 or 18: Do them both.
Young people should welcome the bear. This sounds counterintuitive, I know. But young investors are blessed with lots of time. They need the long-term growth that results from buying stocks when they are less expensive so they can (eventually) sell them when they’re worth much more. A bear market makes stocks (temporarily) less expensive; this is when young investors should be buying all they can.
New retirees, on the other hand, should be particularly wary of the bear. If you retire just before the start of a bear market, the decline will rob you not only of a big chunk of your life savings after you have lost much of your ability to replace them. It may also rob you of the confidence to remain invested in equities, which retirees need to stay ahead of inflation.
Bull markets and bear markets look pretty dramatic when you see them in a graph. This article, though it’s a couple of years old, contains a chart that does a wonderful job of showing what I mean."
« 20. Young people should welcome the bear. This sounds counterintuitive, I know. But young investors are blessed with lots of time. They need the long-term growth that results from buying stocks when they are less expensive so they can (eventually) sell them when they’re worth much more. A bear market makes stocks (temporarily) less expensive; this is when young investors should be buying all they can. »
Vous essayez de faire du market timing et à ce petit jeu de spéculation de court terme, vous allez malheureusement vous prendre la porte de saloon dans les dents…
Pourquoi ne pas conserver vos titres/Sicav pour les 5-10 prochaines années et ne les vendre quand dans 5 ou 10 ans, quand vous aurez besoin de cet argent ?
Cheers.
Et quel est votre historique de performance en comparaison avec une gestion buy and hold type morningstar dynamique ou avec 60% MSCI World, 40% MSCI Bonds ?
Ces assurances ont un prix et ne permettent pas de capter l’intégralité des rebonds souvent tout aussi violents et imprévisibles.
Regardez la performance pitoyable de Carmignac Patrimoine ces dernières années… toutes ces couvertures coûtent chère et dégradent la performance in fine bien plus qu’elles ne l’améliore.
« Since 1994, Dalbar’s Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior (QAIB) has been measuring the effects of investor decisions to buy, sell and switch into and out of mutual funds over both short and long-term time frames. The results consistently show that the average investor earns less – in many cases, much less – than mutual fund performance reports would suggest. »
"Investment results are more dependent on investor behavior than on fund performance. Mutual fund investors who hold on to their investments are more successful than those who try to time the market. "
Ca ne peut pas être plus clair ?
Il est donc sain que les gestions pilotées de Lazard, Morningstar ou de Rothschild conservent longtemps les titres/sicav qu’ils ont acheté une fois le profile de risque et l’allocation cible définie.
C’est sur une durée de 3 à 5 ans que l’on peut apprécier la qualité d’un fonds action, pas avant.
On voulant spéculer sur les marchés et en essayant de faire du market timing, vous êtes sûrs de perdre à tous les coups.
Le seul point sur lequel je vous rejoint c’est la surcharge en frais de certains fonds maison de Rotshchild ou Lazard.
Bonjour Fallout,
si les fonds que vous avez en portefeuille ont des frais courants compris entre 1.5 et 3% alors vous êtes sur de la gestion active.
En revanche si les frais des fonds indiciels que vous avez en portefeuille sont compris entre 0.1 et 0.6%, vous êtes sur de la gestion indicielle passive.
C’est l’allocation de votre portefeuille qui va générer la performance sur longue durée, pas la sélection souvent veine de tel ou tel titre.
Cheers,
j’ai comme l’impression que Yomoni s’est fortement inspiré du All Weather Allocation Portfolio que le richissime Hedge Fund manager Ray Dalio a concocté pour Tony Robbins :
30% Stocks
40% Long-Term Bonds
15% Intermediate-Term Bonds
7.5% Gold
7.5% Commodities
Bonjour Patrick,
Morningstar et Lazard ont tout à fait raison de ne rien changer à leurs allocations d’actifs.
Toutes les études (Dalbar) ont montré que le nombre d’arbitrage était inversement proportionnel à la performance du portefeuille.
C’est avant tout l’allocation d’actif choisie au départ avec une grande diversification qui va produire de la performance, pas le market timing, car personne ne peut vraiment prévoir l’avenir ni comment chaque classe d’actif va se comporter.
Une fois que le profil de risque est déterminé et donc que le % d’actions vs. obligation est choisi, il n’y a plus qu’à verser des petites sommes tous les mois, et laisser fructifier au gré des marées à la hausse comme à la baisse.
Une fois par an un ré-équilibrage (rebalancing) sera nécessaire pour vendre les gagnants de l’année et acheter les perdants de l’année afin de conserver l’allocation cible initiale, de plus c’est le meilleur moyen de « buy low and sell high ».
Tout le reste n’est que bruit et futilité.
Donc merci à Morningstar et Lazard de ne pas céder aux cirènes des médias et de « l’infortainment » en conservant leurs allocations cibles.
Il me semble qu’il ne faut pas jeter le bébé avec l’eau du bain mais que cela enfonce simplement une porte ouverte : les gagnants du jour ne sont pas forcément ceux d’hier ou de demain d’ou des performances sur longue période mauvaises. Tout cela milite pour une gestion active des fonds voilà tout.
Le poids croissant des ETF et de la gestion indicielle pose d’ailleurs un certain nombre de problèmes , peut-être aussi des opportunités. Par exemple, la vente d’un ETF entraîne la vente indistincte de tous ses composants sans discernement. D’ou le constant de plus en plus évident qu’en séance « massacre », toutes les valeurs chutent, quelles que soient leur valeur individuelle, ce qui crée des opportunités pour les contrariants.
Comment savoir si la gestion pilotée est bien active sur son contrat. Je commence à avoir des doutes pour moi.
En effet depuis un arbitrage automatique 30 jours après la souscription, aucun arbitrage depuis et ça fait 5 mois.
C’est comme ça chez vous aussi ?
Vu qu’en plus la gestion pilotée ne met rien sur le fond opportunité, j’ai maintenant de gros doutes sur la plus-value d’une telle option.
Le principe de buy and hold ne me gêne pas en soi.
Ce qui me gêne c’est la plus-valu de cette gestion pilotée. Elle coute 0,20% de frais de gestion en plus (même si gratuit en 2015) et pire selon moi la part fond en euro est mise sur suravenir rendement et rien sur suravenir opportunités pour juste appliquer la gestion conseillée gratuite.
Si j’avais su ça, jamais je n’aurai souscrit à la gestion pilotée.
Maintenant je me pose la question de repasser en gestion libre mais j’ai déjà perdu la possibilité de mettre mon versement initial sur le fond opportunités.
Je viens de renseigner la performance de mormingstar.
Si vous avez les reporting avec les performances de chaque, je vous invite à les renseigner afin de pourvoir analyser les résultats de chaque gestionnaire
Les colonnes R S T U correspond à la performance de chaque année
Les performances de 3 an correspond à la somme de 2013, 2014 et 2015
Si vous avez des idées pour améliorer la présentation de ce fichier, je suis preneur
Vous trouverez ci-joint le reporting de la gestion profilé ODDO de GENERALI VIE
La répartition des fonds est la suivante (Dernier arbitrage le 25/11):
Support(s) Répartition
Eurossima 10,34%
MAGELLAN 7,79%
ODDO Actions Japon A 7,98%
ODDO Vision A 4,00%
ODDO Actions Usa A 4,98%
EDR Europe Synergy A 6,00%
US Fundamental Grw A D 9,87%
ODDO Convertibles A 2,98%
ODDO Active Equities 5,06%
ALLIANZ Us Equity At H Eur 7,98%
ALLIANZ Gif Euroeq Grw Ateur 3,05%
ODDO Us Mid Cap 3Dec 6,94%
ODDO Avenir Europe Cr- Eur 5,04%
LAZARD Objectif Alpha Euro R 6,04%
METROPOLE Euro A 5,01%
SG Oblig Convertibles 4,96%
ODDO Tres.3-6M.A 3D 1,98%