MSN Money – Why buy and hold is baloney
Well, I’ve been operating under a “buy and hold” strategy for my investments over the last year. It seems the easiest to do without a major time commitment, with a stable return which has historically proven to be good. Yes, I know that “past performance does not guarantee future results,” but over the course of 40 years, most people think it’s fair to say we’ll see the same kind of returns on the indices as a whole.
People have been saying otherwise lately. There is talk of a huge “market correction” based on the fact that economy in general has been overpriced, not just since the tech boom of 1999-2000, but since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Taking this further, according to some calculations, we’re due for a market correction with a duration of several centuries, as a result of the fall of the Holy Roman Empire in A.D. 476. I’m not sure if I believe the extreme way of thinking, but it doesn’t look too pretty for the world economy, if this is the case.
Back to the article. What this author is suggesting sounds like it would garner so much to be paid in fees, it’s just not worth it. Anyone have any thoughts?
Subscribe
