I believe the main issue in perception of value is based on a misconception of the definition. Often when I discuss this issue with less experienced investors they consider equities such as P&G, KO etc. as value stocks. Basically many people say value stocks but actually mean low-beta / low volatility mature companies. They don't mean value as you or I would describe it.
I find it amazing on how many CZcams presenters that are so dividend focused. They think it is the best thing ever. I have dividend paying investments, but I don't care about the dividend payout. I care only about total return and good market diversification. That includes investments in dividend rich sectors. My guess is either they don't know better or they are doing it for the clicks and revenue. CZcamsr Rob Berger has the right idea on this and also presents it in a friendly manner. Also, Eric Balchunas just published a book about Jack Bogle. He would make a good guest on RR.
to be fair, dividend irrelevance theory is only one school of thought. There is also the dividend relevance theory. IMO this is just people subscribing to different philosophies.
The funniest thing about Wealth simple, Is how they went from "passive investing is best and we DO NOT recommend stocks" but now its "Crypto + GME YOLO!!!!!!!!!!!"
I suppose Fama was the goal at 200 as we had the joy of French at 100. Have listened to that episode already a number of times. The quality we get here is just phenominal. So I‘ll say it again, thank you very much! Would love to have Dimensional products here in Switzerland, so I could implement what I learned through you guys.
34:03 Ben when you do end up discussing this topic, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the benefits and drawbacks of different forms of leverage: borrowing money vs. call options vs. leveraged ETFs. That could be an episode all on its own!
It has gotten to the point you can measure time by the frequency Wealthsimple Invest changes their portfolio allocation. I moved the last of my money there at the end of 2020 to go fully self directed.
Thanks for your honesty and clarity guys. Keep up the good work ! Personally I’m investing 50% in XEQT and 50% in XINC maintaining 60/40 portfolio that way. I figure this is a better approach than holding 100% in XBAL, because it gives me an opportunity to rebalance my portfolio in case of a market dip and get a better return over time than holding XBAL alone.
I think there is a problem on the definition of what is a value stock, which explains a lot. lot of people think about a value stock like the blue chips
Hmm, I think the issue is that "value" mean different things to different people. I usually think in "value investing" as the Buffet/Lynch strategies, but I have noticed that most value indices are far from that and usually include stocks that are cheap from companies that are not growing. So far the only indices that I have found that do something closer to the Buffer/Lynch approach are the RAFI Fundamental Indices.
my question for Gene: Many news articles say that all time high valuations and high expected inflation can predict not only lower returns, but negative returns for bonds and equity going forward. Can expected returns for bonds or equity theoretically be negative?
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
7:50 Cameron & Ben's Recommendations
22:01 News Stories of the Week
32:37 Common Misconceptions Among Beginner Investors
This is by far and away the best podcast on finance and investment. Brilliant work fellas.
Great episode as always but the announcement of Professor Fama coming on episode 200 had me too excited to totally absorb this episode. LOL.
Always thought value was less risky and boring. Thank you for the clarification.
I believe the main issue in perception of value is based on a misconception of the definition. Often when I discuss this issue with less experienced investors they consider equities such as P&G, KO etc. as value stocks. Basically many people say value stocks but actually mean low-beta / low volatility mature companies. They don't mean value as you or I would describe it.
I find it amazing on how many CZcams presenters that are so dividend focused. They think it is the best thing ever. I have dividend paying investments, but I don't care about the dividend payout. I care only about total return and good market diversification. That includes investments in dividend rich sectors.
My guess is either they don't know better or they are doing it for the clicks and revenue.
CZcamsr Rob Berger has the right idea on this and also presents it in a friendly manner.
Also, Eric Balchunas just published a book about Jack Bogle. He would make a good guest on RR.
to be fair, dividend irrelevance theory is only one school of thought. There is also the dividend relevance theory. IMO this is just people subscribing to different philosophies.
Misconception segment is a good idea.
The funniest thing about Wealth simple, Is how they went from "passive investing is best and we DO NOT recommend stocks" but now its "Crypto + GME YOLO!!!!!!!!!!!"
They will offer options and leverage the second they can. I don't know if they are scummy enough for forex.
I suppose Fama was the goal at 200 as we had the joy of French at 100. Have listened to that episode already a number of times. The quality we get here is just phenominal. So I‘ll say it again, thank you very much! Would love to have Dimensional products here in Switzerland, so I could implement what I learned through you guys.
34:03 Ben when you do end up discussing this topic, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the benefits and drawbacks of different forms of leverage: borrowing money vs. call options vs. leveraged ETFs. That could be an episode all on its own!
It has gotten to the point you can measure time by the frequency Wealthsimple Invest changes their portfolio allocation. I moved the last of my money there at the end of 2020 to go fully self directed.
Thanks for your honesty and clarity guys. Keep up the good work ! Personally I’m investing 50% in XEQT and 50% in XINC maintaining 60/40 portfolio that way. I figure this is a better approach than holding 100% in XBAL, because it gives me an opportunity to rebalance my portfolio in case of a market dip and get a better return over time than holding XBAL alone.
I think there is a problem on the definition of what is a value stock, which explains a lot. lot of people think about a value stock like the blue chips
30:09
30:11 “i said ‘aboot’ so hard there” -Ben
i didn’t notice until Ben mentioned it haha
Hmm, I think the issue is that "value" mean different things to different people. I usually think in "value investing" as the Buffet/Lynch strategies, but I have noticed that most value indices are far from that and usually include stocks that are cheap from companies that are not growing. So far the only indices that I have found that do something closer to the Buffer/Lynch approach are the RAFI Fundamental Indices.
Loving Ben’s Robo humour
my question for Gene:
Many news articles say that all time high valuations and high expected inflation can predict not only lower returns, but negative returns for bonds and equity going forward.
Can expected returns for bonds or equity theoretically be negative?
Super excited or the phama episode a legend 😍
Thabks for all you do
-american dude in florida
I know you guys are aiming towards Canadians, but do you mind talking about I series bonds? (Inflation adjusted)
What asset manager mean by “value” is not what you mean.
Read the paper “Characteristics of Mutual Fund Portfolios: Where Are the Value Funds?”
Did Ben write about these 12 small-cap value ETFs anywhere?
realy a goldmine. i felt a little bit loney with my analytical based approach and the contradicting evidence i found versus the common perception
Are they maybe looking exclusively at large cap value stocks?
Still the same issue. Maybe large value is less risky than small, but value is riskier than growth.
Hit the 100th like 😉
Only Dividends matters!