PAUL B. FARRELL Lazy Portfolios vote for a winning 2009 Upbeat new year ahead after beating S&P 500 by 3-18 points in 2008 ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- OK, here's the good news. Here's what the guys who created our winning Lazy Portfolios have to say about what's ahead. They beat the S&P 500 every year since we started tracking them in the 2002 bear-recession. They're beating the index in 2008. And they'll do it again in 2009. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={E146D4D1-E04D-4EEF-BF15-8F5FCB69DA83} His "winning" returns: http://www.marketwatch.com/lazyportfolio His Cramer bashing: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...5-27f6-4116-ab8e-70364a92b0d1}&dist=lazy_main
I love how wallstreet has brainwashed mainstreet into thinking... if you lose less than the S&P 500 when the S&P takes a hit, you are coming out ontop. Losing is still losing. Why be long here for investment purposes?
If you go to the Marketwatch front page his headline says "Making Money the Lazy Way". I read the article and my first thought was, all the portfolios lost money and have done so annually for 3 years, how is that making money? Their 5 year growth rate is less than impressive as well. Check out their returns here: http://www.marketwatch.com/lazyportfolio
You can do a whole lot better putting the money in the bank than following this douche. P.S. MarketWatch is like the online equivalent to CNBC TV these days. It has nothing but noise.
Another MarketWatch moron with a 10-bagger "pick". Why do they pick journalism if they want to run money? http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={D82F39D6-90CC-442A-AECF-FC1C7CE9BD1C}
I had lunch with a friend of mine last week who has a fair amount of money in his 401k and has lost around 35-40% in his index fund this year. He said it is only a "paper loss" and it really isn't a loss until you sell. I tried to argue that a loss is a loss and it is real but he says he isn't worried as it is a "paper loss" and he has several decades until retirement. I'm not sure what it would take for him to sell and sit on cash, he would ride it to zero would be my guess.
Market watch makes the basic assumption that all traders are jerks and will listen to their superior advice. They have no idea what a decent trading return is.
Funny, I never heard a gambler say he's good cause he lost less than the other clown. Oh, I forgot, Wall St doesnt gamble.
First off, just because he is down 35-40% on the year, doesn't necessarily mean that he is down overall in his 401k. If he has several decades before retirement, and he continues to "dollar cost average" into his 401k ( which might also be "matched" by his employer ) he's probably got a good shot at being up significantly by the time he retires.