Timing is everything

12 Mar. 2017
Author
Roberto Plaja

So is luck; now what?

So is luck; now what?

So is luck; now what?

“Timing is everything” is a close relative of “luck is everything”. While it may be true that “the harder I work the luckier I get,” it’s clear that if you are not given the chance you simply won’t get it done – whatever “it” may be. For example, the journalist who took this picture perhaps was working harder than the fellow aiming his zoom in the other direction; still he needed to be there and no amount of work could have accomplished that:
“Timing is everything” is a close relative of “luck is everything”. While it may be true that “the harder I work the luckier I get,” it’s clear that if you are not given the chance you simply won’t get it done – whatever “it” may be. For example, the journalist who took this picture perhaps was working harder than the fellow aiming his zoom in the other direction; still he needed to be there and no amount of work could have accomplished that:
If timing is a bit like luck, it follows that it should be handled in an analogous manner. This concept eludes the world of investing where most participants spend a lot of time attempting to time the stock market. As a synopsis for other studies, here’s a picture of what getting in and out of the market means to investors’ pockets:
If timing is a bit like luck, it follows that it should be handled in an analogous manner. This concept eludes the world of investing where most participants spend a lot of time attempting to time the stock market. As a synopsis for other studies, here’s a picture of what getting in and out of the market means to investors’ pockets:
The differential between time-weighted returns (buy-and-hold) and dollar-weighted ones (in-and-out) is huge. Other things could perhaps partly explain the differential but most of it is attributed to failed market timing. Peter Lynch was right when he said: “Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in the corrections themselves.”

So why do people do it? Maybe it helps if we ask the question in a slightly different manner: if the cost of attempting to time the market is so large, then what are long-term investors being compensated for and do they understand that? I think the answer is time: if you are a true long-term investor (as you should be when you are talking about equities), then you must realize you are getting paid to absorb the volatility of the market. That’s where the difference between roughly 7% and 4% comes from. If you can’t do that – because you want to make a major purchase in 6 months, or because you need to live by dipping unpredictably into your savings, or perhaps simply because you’re fidgety – then don’t invest. Keep the cash and continue serenely with your life.

Can the volatility be smoothed? There are a few things one can do. Despite this will sound a lot like “timing” (which it technically is), the trick is in finding the right indicators, the ones that represent demonstrably persistent phenomena which have shown up over more than a century of data. These indicators will typically involve time frames which are quite longer than the ones used for standard in-and-out activity. One of them is valuation (using parameters which eliminate the impact of the business cycle); another is momentum. Both methodologies require knowhow and patience, characteristics that are in short supply of course.

Basically, the question for most investors then is not “how do I get the timing right?” but “can I afford to do away with timing?” You’ll need a plan and the discipline in following it, which in turn means defining your investment horizon and, hence, your capacity to absorb volatility.

Simple.
The differential between time-weighted returns (buy-and-hold) and dollar-weighted ones (in-and-out) is huge. Other things could perhaps partly explain the differential but most of it is attributed to failed market timing. Peter Lynch was right when he said: “Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in the corrections themselves.”

So why do people do it? Maybe it helps if we ask the question in a slightly different manner: if the cost of attempting to time the market is so large, then what are long-term investors being compensated for and do they understand that? I think the answer is time: if you are a true long-term investor (as you should be when you are talking about equities), then you must realize you are getting paid to absorb the volatility of the market. That’s where the difference between roughly 7% and 4% comes from. If you can’t do that – because you want to make a major purchase in 6 months, or because you need to live by dipping unpredictably into your savings, or perhaps simply because you’re fidgety – then don’t invest. Keep the cash and continue serenely with your life.

Can the volatility be smoothed? There are a few things one can do. Despite this will sound a lot like “timing” (which it technically is), the trick is in finding the right indicators, the ones that represent demonstrably persistent phenomena which have shown up over more than a century of data. These indicators will typically involve time frames which are quite longer than the ones used for standard in-and-out activity. One of them is valuation (using parameters which eliminate the impact of the business cycle); another is momentum. Both methodologies require knowhow and patience, characteristics that are in short supply of course.

Basically, the question for most investors then is not “how do I get the timing right?” but “can I afford to do away with timing?” You’ll need a plan and the discipline in following it, which in turn means defining your investment horizon and, hence, your capacity to absorb volatility.

Simple.
The differential between time-weighted returns (buy-and-hold) and dollar-weighted ones (in-and-out) is huge. Other things could perhaps partly explain the differential but most of it is attributed to failed market timing. Peter Lynch was right when he said: “Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in the corrections themselves.”

So why do people do it? Maybe it helps if we ask the question in a slightly different manner: if the cost of attempting to time the market is so large, then what are long-term investors being compensated for and do they understand that? I think the answer is time: if you are a true long-term investor (as you should be when you are talking about equities), then you must realize you are getting paid to absorb the volatility of the market. That’s where the difference between roughly 7% and 4% comes from. If you can’t do that – because you want to make a major purchase in 6 months, or because you need to live by dipping unpredictably into your savings, or perhaps simply because you’re fidgety – then don’t invest. Keep the cash and continue serenely with your life.

Can the volatility be smoothed? There are a few things one can do. Despite this will sound a lot like “timing” (which it technically is), the trick is in finding the right indicators, the ones that represent demonstrably persistent phenomena which have shown up over more than a century of data. These indicators will typically involve time frames which are quite longer than the ones used for standard in-and-out activity. One of them is valuation (using parameters which eliminate the impact of the business cycle); another is momentum. Both methodologies require knowhow and patience, characteristics that are in short supply of course.

Basically, the question for most investors then is not “how do I get the timing right?” but “can I afford to do away with timing?” You’ll need a plan and the discipline in following it, which in turn means defining your investment horizon and, hence, your capacity to absorb volatility.

Simple.
The differential between time-weighted returns (buy-and-hold) and dollar-weighted ones (in-and-out) is huge. Other things could perhaps partly explain the differential but most of it is attributed to failed market timing. Peter Lynch was right when he said: “Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in the corrections themselves.”

So why do people do it? Maybe it helps if we ask the question in a slightly different manner: if the cost of attempting to time the market is so large, then what are long-term investors being compensated for and do they understand that? I think the answer is time: if you are a true long-term investor (as you should be when you are talking about equities), then you must realize you are getting paid to absorb the volatility of the market. That’s where the difference between roughly 7% and 4% comes from. If you can’t do that – because you want to make a major purchase in 6 months, or because you need to live by dipping unpredictably into your savings, or perhaps simply because you’re fidgety – then don’t invest. Keep the cash and continue serenely with your life.

Can the volatility be smoothed? There are a few things one can do. Despite this will sound a lot like “timing” (which it technically is), the trick is in finding the right indicators, the ones that represent demonstrably persistent phenomena which have shown up over more than a century of data. These indicators will typically involve time frames which are quite longer than the ones used for standard in-and-out activity. One of them is valuation (using parameters which eliminate the impact of the business cycle); another is momentum. Both methodologies require knowhow and patience, characteristics that are in short supply of course.

Basically, the question for most investors then is not “how do I get the timing right?” but “can I afford to do away with timing?” You’ll need a plan and the discipline in following it, which in turn means defining your investment horizon and, hence, your capacity to absorb volatility.

Simple.
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
Autorisation
Social Media
Navigation
Documents
Language
Switzerland
© SIMPLEWEALTH AG 2015 — 2022.
MADE WITH ❤️ IN BEAUTIFUL
Investing implies your capital is at risk. The value of your account depends on market movements and you may get back less than you invest.
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Unless otherwise specified, all return figures shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not actual customer or model returns. Actual returns will vary greatly and depend on personal and market conditions.
Simplewealth AG is a Swiss-based advisory service, designed to assist clients in achieving discrete financial goals. We are not intended to provide comprehensive tax advice or financial planning with respect to every aspect of a client's financial situation and do not incorporate specific investments that clients hold elsewhere.
Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives and Simplewealth AG charges and expenses.
Client securities accounts at Interactive Brokers LLC are protected by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") for a maximum coverage of $500,000 (with a cash sublimit of $250,000) and under Interactive Brokers LLC's excess SIPC policy with certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London 1 for up to an additional $30 million (with a cash sublimit of $900,000) subject to an aggregate limit of $150 million. Futures and options on futures are not covered. As with all securities firms, this coverage provides protection against failure of a broker-dealer, not against loss of market value of securities. For the purpose of determining an Interactive Brokers LLC client account, accounts with like names and titles (e.g. John and Jane Smith and Jane and John Smith) are combined, but accounts with different titles are not (e.g. Individual/John Smith and IRA/John Smith). SIPC is a non-profit, membership corporation funded by broker-dealers that are members of SIPC.
All your investments are insured. Up to USD 500k
2
Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives and Simplewealth AG charge sand expenses.
How your assets can grow?
1