Gyroscopic Investing

I notice a distinct absence of threads bemoaning the PP's poor performance now that things are going well. Everyone happy again?

Yes and no.

Yes because my current PP investments are doing well.  No because I have more money I'd like to move into the PP, but not thrilled about doing it at near-highs for the assets :/

(clearly I'll never be happy)

humming along
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGEgY1c9d9M

Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

Pointedstick wrote: Everyone happy again?

Could you throw in a toaster?

Pointedstick wrote: I notice a distinct absence of threads bemoaning the PP's poor performance now that things are going well. Everyone happy again?

No, because I only look in January. I'll get back to you then.

curlew wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I notice a distinct absence of threads bemoaning the PP's poor performance now that things are going well. Everyone happy again?

No, because I only look in January. I'll get back to you then.

Now that's willpower!

drumminj wrote: Yes and no.

Yes because my current PP investments are doing well.  No because I have more money I'd like to move into the PP, but not thrilled about doing it at near-highs for the assets :/

(clearly I'll never be happy)

I had the same reservations to adding additional capital with the portfolio doing so promising YTD.
Decided to follow Sophie's lead and invested equally across all assets.
If you ascribe to the PP philosophy, this is the correct way to proceed.

Good for you, Budd.  If only I took my own advice!  I put in limit orders a few days ago for equal amounts of stocks, bonds and gold in a Roth account.  Guess which asset purchase went through, and which are still sitting there because the assets took off skyward and left my limit order in the dust.

Argh!!!

Next time I'll just put in market orders and call it a day.

Isn August decided that I was going to put 100% of my money in the PP over the next year, so I split it into 4 purchases. Bought in mid august and again in January. I still have two more purchases to go. In hindsight I'd had been better buying all at once as is suggested by HB.
But I'm very happy! 6% gain on 50% of my net worth is way more than the amounts I was getting trying to play the market. More time to focus on business and life too.

Matthew19 wrote: Isn August decided that I was going to put 100% of my money in the PP over the next year, so I split it into 4 purchases. Bought in mid august and again in January. I still have two more purchases to go. In hindsight I'd had been better buying all at once as is suggested by HB.
But I'm very happy! 6% gain on 50% of my net worth is way more than the amounts I was getting trying to play the market. More time to focus on business and life too.

I don't think HB was suggesting you invest your entire nest egg at once (lump sum or dollar cost average).
What's more important is you purchase all 4 assets at once and not leg into the portfolio.
Its a classic example of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
That's what was going through my mind at the time. Sophie provided the inspiration, now just has to act upon it next time!

sophie wrote: Good for you, Budd.  If only I took my own advice!  I put in limit orders a few days ago for equal amounts of stocks, bonds and gold in a Roth account.  Guess which asset purchase went through, and which are still sitting there because the assets took off skyward and left my limit order in the dust.

Argh!!!

Next time I'll just put in market orders and call it a day.

I never put in market orders because I'm concerned about a flash crash (or the opposite), or just a really slow market where someone has a "stink bid" in far from the current price.

Instead, I put in a limit order slightly above the market price when buying and one slightly below the market price when selling. If things are normal, I get that price or better; otherwise I try again shortly afterwards.

Libertarian666 wrote: Instead, I put in a limit order slightly above the market price when buying and one slightly below the market price when selling. If things are normal, I get that price or better; otherwise I try again shortly afterwards.

I understand why you added, "If things are normal." I remember ~1999 something weird happened with a limit order. I called the brokerage house and was told that my limit price was only the trigger, but that the trade would still execute "at market."  Normally, that doesn't matter, but things can get screwy.

Libertarian666 wrote: I never put in market orders because I'm concerned about a flash crash (or the opposite), or just a really slow market where someone has a "stink bid" in far from the current price.

Instead, I put in a limit order slightly above the market price when buying and one slightly below the market price when selling. If things are normal, I get that price or better; otherwise I try again shortly afterwards.

That's exactly what I did.  It's not the first time it's backfired.  I have never put in a market order because the price fluctuations can be a bit unpredictable, but this was probably no worse than the occasional flash crash would be.

dualstow wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Instead, I put in a limit order slightly above the market price when buying and one slightly below the market price when selling. If things are normal, I get that price or better; otherwise I try again shortly afterwards.

I understand why you added, "If things are normal." I remember ~1999 something weird happened with a limit order. I called the brokerage house and was told that my limit price was only the trigger, but that the trade would still execute "at market."  Normally, that doesn't matter, but things can get screwy.

I believe that you were told a lie. There is an order type like that, but it is called "market if touched", not "limit". A limit order should not be executed unless you get the limit price or better.

sophie wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I never put in market orders because I'm concerned about a flash crash (or the opposite), or just a really slow market where someone has a "stink bid" in far from the current price.

Instead, I put in a limit order slightly above the market price when buying and one slightly below the market price when selling. If things are normal, I get that price or better; otherwise I try again shortly afterwards.

That's exactly what I did.  It's not the first time it's backfired.  I have never put in a market order because the price fluctuations can be a bit unpredictable, but this was probably no worse than the occasional flash crash would be.

If you put a limit bid in slightly above the last price, it should have been executed. Was there a big gap?

Libertarian666 wrote: I believe that you were told a lie. There is an order type like that, but it is called "market if touched", not "limit". A limit order should not be executed unless you get the limit price or better.

That had always been my understanding, too.

Libertarian666 wrote:

sophie wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I never put in market orders because I'm concerned about a flash crash (or the opposite), or just a really slow market where someone has a "stink bid" in far from the current price.

Instead, I put in a limit order slightly above the market price when buying and one slightly below the market price when selling. If things are normal, I get that price or better; otherwise I try again shortly afterwards.

That's exactly what I did.  It's not the first time it's backfired.  I have never put in a market order because the price fluctuations can be a bit unpredictable, but this was probably no worse than the occasional flash crash would be.

If you put a limit bid in slightly above the last price, it should have been executed. Was there a big gap?

Fidelity doesn't let you put in limit bids to buy above the price at market close when it's after hours.  Not sure why.  So I always put it in for just under the current price.

sophie wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

sophie wrote: That's exactly what I did.  It's not the first time it's backfired.  I have never put in a market order because the price fluctuations can be a bit unpredictable, but this was probably no worse than the occasional flash crash would be.

If you put a limit bid in slightly above the last price, it should have been executed. Was there a big gap?

Fidelity doesn't let you put in limit bids to buy above the price at market close when it's after hours.  Not sure why.  So I always put it in for just under the current price.

Why would you put orders in after hours? You are asking to get a bad price.

Probably a lot of people have this issue if they're at work and unable to trade.

Libertarian666 wrote:

sophie wrote: Good for you, Budd.  If only I took my own advice!  I put in limit orders a few days ago for equal amounts of stocks, bonds and gold in a Roth account.  Guess which asset purchase went through, and which are still sitting there because the assets took off skyward and left my limit order in the dust.

Argh!!!

Next time I'll just put in market orders and call it a day.

I never put in market orders because I'm concerned about a flash crash (or the opposite), or just a really slow market where someone has a "stink bid" in far from the current price.

Instead, I put in a limit order slightly above the market price when buying and one slightly below the market price when selling. If things are normal, I get that price or better; otherwise I try again shortly afterwards.

I know little about the way the exchanges work, but I remember hearing something about limit orders being "visible" to counterparties making it somehow more likely that you get the exact limit price you set and not better... maybe something about your own own brokerage being allowed to execute on that limit price.  That said, it's a vague recollection and I still do the exact thing you all mention by setting a limit price slightly above/below the current market price.  If I'm not in a hurry I just use the current bid/ask.

dualstow wrote: Probably a lot of people have this issue if they're at work and unable to trade.

I'm actually running a free service these days to help people who have this problem. Just PM your brokerage login details to me, and the trades you want me to execute.  I'll handle it all for you!  No need to pay me, I'm just a really nice guy.

dragoncar,
Will you need my social? I don't usually give it out, but you seem harmless.

buddtholomew wrote:

Matthew19 wrote: I don't think HB was suggesting you invest your entire nest egg at once (lump sum or dollar cost average).

Harry suggested doing the PP with the money that you can't afford to lose. The rest can be variable portfolio, which for me is about 3%. The money that I could afford to lose was already lost 

dualstow wrote: Probably a lot of people have this issue if they're at work and unable to trade.

I think most people could use their smartphones to place a trade during lunch hours.

With a PP I'm not sure dollar cost averaging or spacing out purchases makes a whole lot of sense...it is a pretty good bet one of the three assets will be oinking and another flying...remember the assets are meaningless, it is the portfolio construction that matters.