They may not even know themselves, not in such definite terms anyway.

A friend of a friend is an investment advisor who *buys* and *holds* for his own account as well. No need to pay for that kind of advice.

I wonder what your relatives’ excuse will be in 5-10 years if they’re still in the same place. People who invested 10 years ago are either flat or losing right now. That’s some real evidence all of us can relate to.

The research papers tell you what your investment banker won’t; buy and hold doesn’t work. I am always faced with a friend or relative who tells me market timing doesn’t work and that you have to be in it for the long run. When I ask them if they are up or down, it doesn’t matter b/c they are brainwashed into thinking that 5 or 10 years from now it will be better.

With Estrada & Lebeau’s work you have empirical data to support the market timing argument. More importantly, it will help keep your portfolio nicely in the black.

Nipped in the bud, but I’m keeping this research – summarized so nicely. Thank you, TSS.

Javier Estrada’s paper covered 107 years of work:

“The data presented in this study begins on December 31, 1899 and ends on December 31, 2006. In total the study encompasses 29,190 trading days.”

Charles Lebeau’s work covered 1 decades worth of material:

“I recently directed a ten-year study of the stocks in the S&P500 Index.”

What I actually wrote:

“//My very brief thoughts are that the original study by Estrada looked over 100 years of data.
That would have included the panic of 07, 29, the 70’s, the 87 panic & the 2000 crash along with all of the other bumps along the way.
Lebeau’s paper only covered the last decade and only the tech crash of 00 – 02.
I’m not sure how significant that is, if at all//”

My mistake was not clearly stating that the only bubble during Lebeau’s study was the tech bubble as opposed to the numerous panics and bubbles during Estrada’s study. I simply thought a parallel would be drawn in the readers mind.

This isn’t my blog, so I’ll simply say it was my pleasure to bring you the data from both studies. I find it unfortunate that you chose a wrongly pointed ad hominem argument rather than discuss the merits of the study itself.

Good trading.

TSS

1899 to 2006 is not exactly a decade. it’s 107 years, or about ten decade and 7 years 🙂

“Lebeau’s paper only covered the last decade and only the tech crash of 00 – 02. I’m not sure how significant that is, if at all”

good job !