Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, quite simply because it's easy to fall quickly when you're very high, and conversely to rise very quickly when you're very low.
With markets at very high levels like we are experiencing at the moment, there are fewer and fewer new buyers and less and less cash to invest. Everyone is already in the market. The market is rising less and less quickly, it is settling down, then people start to feel nervous. There are fixed stops that are triggered, there are other smart guys who start to think that it is becoming interesting to play on the downside and the machine goes wild. All the guys who arrived last, the suckers who don't know much about the stock market, panic. They bought high, they have just lost 10% in a week and they are starting to sell at a loss. Since there are many in this situation, it creates a mass effect. And it continues until, much later, more savvy investors, opportunity seekers, arrive to buy at a good price. Then the market can start to rise again very strongly.
But you're right, markets fall much faster than they rise. Apparently man panics faster than he becomes greedy...I think they are partly wrong. It is true that in the long term stocks yield the most and that it is very easy to miss big bullish moments if you stay partly on the sidelines of the market. But on the other hand I think that you should always keep some cash aside, especially when the markets become overbought as is the case at the moment (and the current correction does not change anything). You have to keep some ammunition to pull the trigger when stocks become interesting again, as was the case in 2003 or 2009. Otherwise you really end up stupid…
in truth I especially like companies that distribute an average dividend… not too much (because it is not sustainable and because of the tax) and still a little, to have income
the best is a distribution ratio between 30 and 60%
I don't like buying/selling for capital gains because it's too much work :)
and then the courses, it's still very often linked to the collective hysteria of the moment, a little too volatile for my taste, unlike dividends
I also prefer to keep the companies to increase my return on purchase cost
on the other hand I am still thinking about a slightly different approach, a 5th strategy, which would not rely on dividends at all! and which would not require too much work either once it is in place 🙂
news in a few weeks or months, because it will take me a bit of work to develop this ideaHi
Thank you for all these compliments !!!!! It's too much 🙂
In fact I have some titles that partially match what you say, in my 2nd "Ex-US" strategy, such as:
– EMMN
– BELL
– WKB
– JFN
– PAXNThese are small companies, but they are not startups or tech companies either. I do not close the door to small caps. When I find interesting ones, I take them. But on the other hand, I do not really like tech companies or, in general, companies with too high a growth rate because they have an unfortunate tendency to be affected by fashion effects... they fall back very quickly from their peak.
The 3rd pillar is obviously a crappy return since it is managed by a bank or an insurance company, so management fees and investment in assets that don't bring in much.
The only advantage is that you can deduct the amount invested from your taxable income from a tax point of view.
So if you can afford it, do both, growing dividends for income and capital appreciation, 3rd pillar for taxes.Hi Djoff
Glad to see we're attracting artists here too.
Welcome to you and all the best for your investments!And thank you for your compliments.
ah ah!
welcome to you
There are many Valaisans or exiles who live in Valais here
it is certainly linked to the climate or the mentality of the inhabitants of the Old Country 🙂in addition to information at Postfinance, you just need to have assets greater than 25,000.- all accounts combined (current account, savings, trading including share value), to have free access to all their basic services, including debit card, with withdrawals without any fees from ATMs worldwide and deposit fees
Of course, you still have to pay the transaction costs for buying/selling securitiesHello and welcome to you
for the virtual wallet, personally I use the one from ft.com: http://portfolio.ft.com
I think it's great and it has everything you want.
for swissquote, no management fees, but beware of custody fees… unlike postfinance
the purchase and sale costs are the same
the rate is per complete transactiongood start to you!
topic already covered: http://www.dividendes.ch/forum-2/dividendes/fiscalite-dividendes/
zero added value
15% US non-recoverable tax
15% Swiss tax recoverable (withholding tax)I don't know the French specificity. What I do know is that it is always clearly preferable to manage your assets yourself.
Insurance companies have very expensive operating costs, due to the mass of assets and customers they have to manage.
In addition, their investments are standardized and will never really match your investor profile.
In short, you are never better served than by yourself.For me, REITs are only useful as a complement to growing dividends, to diversify your portfolio. They have the double advantage of being partially decorrelated from the stock market and self-protecting against the variation of their currency, the dollar (they vary in the opposite direction, like oil companies). I also clearly prefer growing dividends of course. To date, I only have 3 REITs in my entire portfolio (37 positions in total). So 8% in terms of positions, 5% in terms of value.
Yes, it's true that some technologies can gently move into the ranks of cash cows.
you are right to talk about MSFT and AAPL
we can also think of INTC
It reminds me a bit of IBM at the time.
Be careful, however, it can happen that giants like this, due to a few bad strategic decisions, miss a technological turning point.
These companies, due to their preferred sector, are much more subject to this type of error than more traditional companies, for example in food or cosmetics.
IBM, for example, has already had to completely reinvent itself twice, otherwise it would have disappeared.
We can also think of the case of Kodak... no one could have imagined that this giant, a former member of the Dow Jones, would become what it is.
Let's also think of Nokia, the leader in mobile phones not so long ago!
in our paradigm today, it is difficult to imagine a "life" in AAPL or MSFT, yet who knows maybe in 10 years they will have disappeared or almost... all it takes is one failed technological shift and bye bye... that is the magic of technology, it goes very quickly in one direction as in the other
