by winston » Fri May 07, 2010 9:28 pm
How to Know Which Sectors Will Go Up Next By Dr. Steve Sjuggerud
Friday, May 7, 2010
When it comes to stocks, what's going up keeps going up.
You won't believe it… but it's true: Specifically, going back to the 1920s, if you'd simply invested in the sectors that were already going up, you'd have beaten "buy and hold." That's one of the basic conclusions of a recent academic paper by my friend Mebane Faber of Cambria Investments.
This is something we've done for years in my True Wealth newsletter… Our ideal investment has three characteristics: It's cheap, hated, and it's in an uptrend. It turns out, the uptrend is an incredibly useful indicator.
Meb tested a simple system of buying what's in an uptrend – what's already done well. He presented his results last week at our private conference on Maryland's Eastern Shore… He found that buying what's been going up outperformed "buy and hold" in "approximately 70% of all years, and returns are persistent over time."
Now, most investors believe this is foolishness… They don't believe you can simply buy what was already up and expect to make money. Most investors believe you have to deeply study an investment to determine if it's an undiscovered value before you buy it.
Me? All I care about is what works…
Prove to me that it works historically… and prove to me that the outperformance persisted in different timeframes… then I'm interested. And that's what Meb did.
Meb kindly kept it simple, too. He said he wanted to deliver "some simple methods that an everyday investor can use."
Meb tested 10 sectors going back to 1926. If you'd bought the sector with the best trailing 12-month performance, held it for one month, and then reevaluated after one month, your compound annual gain would have been more than 16% a year – beating the stock market's 10% compound annual gain.
Of course, a one-sector portfolio is risky. You can spread your risk out more…
If you'd bought the top two best-performing sectors over the last 12 months, and then rebalanced a month later, your risk would fall and your return would be 15% a year. You'd still have dramatically outperformed buy and hold.
If you'd bought the three best-performing sectors over the previous 12 months, once again your risk would fall significantly. Your return would be 14% a year: still way better than the market.
When I say 16% (or 15% or 14%) a year, it might not sound like much outperformance… but it is. At 10% a year, it takes more than seven years to double your money. But at 16% a year, it takes roughly four and a half years. When you start compounding that over decades, the outperformance becomes huge.
It's easy to set aside a bit of money to trade a system like this one. You can simply buy no-load mutual funds or ETFs, which keep your costs low.
In short, today's lesson is – when it comes to sectors of the stock market – what just went up tends to goes up.
This idea goes against conventional thinking, but it works. I like that…
Source: Daily Wealth
It's all about "how much you made when you were right" & "how little you lost when you were wrong"