Tuesday, August 23, 2011

How To Avoid Becoming a Victim of Investment Fraud Of Investment Fraud "Secrets"

Asset Allocation and Cognitive Biases

A perfect example of how cognitive biases can negatively impact investment decisions is a common misperception involving asset allocation. When you mention asset allocation or diversification to most investors, they think in terms of quantity rather than quality. Consequently, a large percentage of investors have portfolios that are diversified in terms of types and numbers of holdings within the portfolio, but the portfolios are not "effectively" diversified due to the high correlation of returns, or overlap, between the investments.

Portfolios that are not "effectively" diversified are sometimes referred to as being "pseudo" diversified since they appear to be diversified, but they do not actually provide an investor with the benefits of a truly diversified portfolio. The high correlation between the investments results in an investor having less downside protection than they would have with a truly diversified portfolio.

As an example, most people would consider a portfolio consisting of a large cap fund (IWB - iShares Russell 100 Index), a small cap fund (IWM - i Shares Russell 2000 Index), an international equity fund (EFA - iShares MSCI EAFE Index) and a bond fund (AGG - iShares Barclay Aggregate Bond Index), to be diversified since it consists of four different types of funds. A review of a correlation of returns matrix for a portfolio of the four exchange traded funds (ETFs) representing the four categories over the time period 8/31/2003 to 8/31/2011 tells a different story.

IWB/IWM - 0.93 IWB/EFA - 0.91 IWB/AGG - 0.05

IWM/EFA - 0.81 IWM/EFA - (0.03) EFA/AGG - 0.11

Analyzing rolling periods of returns often provides a better picture of trends and the persistence of trends. An analysis of rolling five year periods of returns for the referenced ETFs provides the following information:

2010-06

IWB/IWM - 0.966 IWB/EFA - 0.970 IWB/AGG - (0.308)

IWM/EFA - 0.896 IWM/AGG - (0.325) EFA/AGG - (0.432)

2009-05

IWB/IWM - 0.985 IWB/EFA - 0.991 IWB/AGG - (0.282)

IWM/EFA - 0.977 IWM/AGG - (0.338) EFA/AGG - (0.340)

2008-04

IWB/IWM - 0.967 IWB/EFA - 0.999 IWB/AGG - (0.445)

IWM/EFA - 0.973 IWM/AGG - (0.518) EFA/AGG - (0.4650

The higher the matrix number, the higher the correlation of returns and performance. A negative matrix number indicates a negative correlation of returns, which means that the two investments behave differently during various market conditions.

The matrix clearly shows a high correlation of returns between the large cap and the small cap ETF, and a high, albeit varying, correlation of returns between the international ETF and the large and small cap ETFs. The matrix clearly shows a low correlation of returns between the bond ETF and the other three ETFs. An argument can be made that a portfolio consisting only of the large cap ETF (IWB) and the bond ETF (AGG) would produce similar results.

Since fees and expenses are relatively low for most ETFs, cost is not that much an issue with a portfolio of ETFs. Since many financial advisers do not use index funds or ETFs in making recommendations, the negative impact of "pseudo" diversification can be seen in a portfolio of load-based mutual funds, again representing the four asset categories used in the ETF portfolio. The mutual funds represented are American Funds Growth Fund of America (large cap equity), Oppenheimer Discovery (small cap equity), Fidelity Worldwide (international) and PIMCO Total Return (bond).

2010-06

Am/Opp - 0.922 Am/Fid - 0.981 Am/PIMCO - 0.705

Opp/Fid - 0.948 Opp/PIMCO - 0.688 Fid/PIMCO - 0.597

2009-05

Am/Opp - 0.922 Am/Fid - 0.981 Am/PIMCO - 0.519

Opp/Fid - 0.948 Opp/PIMCO - 0.636 Fid/PIMCO - 0.451

2008-04

Am/Opp - 0.893 Am/Fid - 0.989 Am/PIMCO - 0.052

Opp/Fid - 0.935 Opp/PIMCO - 0.482 Fid/PIMCO - 0.148

The data shows the correlation of returns over rolling five-year periods in order to show not only the correlation of returns, but also the trend in correlation of returns. Once again, we see the same high correlation of returns between the equity-based mutual funds, with a lower correlation of returns between the bond fund and the equity-based funds that we saw with the ETF portfolio. The results are consistent with studies that have shown an increase in correlation of returns between equity-based investments over the past decade, especially during periods of increased volatility in the markets.

The correlation of returns matrix exposes the false illusion of diversification created by the bias of assessing diversification on the quantity of funds or types of funds alone. This bias is sometimes difficult to remove, as diversification based on quantity and type seems to make sense. Unfortunately, that is exactly what unscrupulous financial advisers are relying on, as they try to exploit the "truth" and "authority " biases.


If you are like most people, your initial reaction to the question posed by the title to this white paper is "no." However, for many investors, the answer is "yes." With all of the investment options available today, many investors are intimidated, confused and frustrated by the investment process. Recent studies also support the suggestion that many investors are perfect targets for investment fraud or already are victims of investment fraud. For instance,

  • A recent study by Schwab Institutional found that 75% of investor portfolios were unsuitable for investors given their financial situation and goals;
  • A recent study by CEG Worldwide concluded that over 94% of those holding themselves out as wealth managers were more product salesman than wealth manager;
  • The 2010 IPT Elder Investor Fraud Survey reported that investment fraud is the number crime against the elderly, affecting an estimated 7.3 million older Americans, or one out of every five senior citizens. Since that number only counts the instances of fraud actually reported, the number of victims is undoubtedly higher.

One of the problems with avoiding investment fraud is the difficulty in detecting some types of fraud due to the subtleness or complexity of the fraud itself. Another problem with detecting fraud is the personal biases and beliefs that each investor has regarding investing. The purpose of this article is to alert investors to some of the more common elements of investment fraud so that investors can prevent unnecessary investment risk and financial loss due to investment fraud.

Fraud and Cognitive Biases

The common response to investment fraud is to call for greater investor education programs. However, a recent law review article in The Elder Law Journal suggests that investor education programs may be largely ineffective due to cognitive issues such as cognitive biases and/or cognitive deficits of investors. Cognitive biases are personal beliefs that impact our decisions. Cognitive deficits are impairments in mental ability, including impairments due to aging.

In the article, "Deception, Decisions and Investor Education," the author, suggests a model of fraud victimization, which she refers to as the "deception/decision cycle."1 As investors are provided with investment information, they filter the information through their personal beliefs, beliefs based upon a combination of actual experience, education and first impressions. An Investor's beliefs, or biases, may or may not be accurate, but they can become so ingrained, or "anchored," within a person that the person resists any conflicting information.

These biases may be strengthened even further by what are known as "truth" and "authority" biases, a person's tendency to accept a statement as true, especially when the statement comes from someone with actual or perceived authority or expertise. The individual investor, whether because of issues such as cognitive biases/deficits, the complexity of the investment information of the sheer volume of such information, may fail to recognize the deception involved in the fraud.


Portfolio Optimization and Cognitive Biases

If you have had an asset allocation plan or portfolio optimization plan prepared by your financial adviser, look at the plan and see if there is anything in the plan that gives you the projected risk, return or correlation of return data on the actual investment portfolio the financial adviser recommended to you. Investors rarely see such an analysis using the investor's actual investments, primarily because the commercial asset allocation/ portfolio optimization programs used by most financial advisers are not designed to produce such a "real world" analysis. And yet, the calculations can be done using Microsoft Excel.

In many cases this failure to provide a "real world" portfolio analysis results in recommendation-implementation gaps, often leaving investors with portfolios significantly different from the asset allocation/portfolio optimization plan provided to them by their financial adviser, especially with regard to exposure to unnecessary investment risk.

The calculations required to calculate the projected risk, return and correlation of returns statistics for an investor's actual investment portfolio are complex. Consequently, most investors are unable to calculate the actual portfolio's statistics themselves or to otherwise detect an investment adviser's fraudulent behavior.

Too often an investor falls prey to the "trust" bias or the "authority" bias and just accepts the plan given to them without questioning the accuracy of the plan or the failure to provide a "real world" analysis of the actual investment portfolio that their financial adviser recommended. But you should question your financial adviser and ignore any "trust" or "authority" biases, especially since the portfolio optimizers often produce recommendations that are counterintuitive and/or contrary to existing legal standards.

Some examples may help to prove my point. Two of the most important factors in constructing a suitable investment portfolio are the investor's risk tolerance level and the investor's investment time horizon. With that in mind, an experiment with two popular online asset allocation calculators provides some interesting results.

The first asset allocation calculator asked about risk tolerance, but did not even ask about investment time horizon. The regulators take the basic position that anyone with an investment time horizon less than five years should generally avoid equity-based investments since they might not have enough time to recover any losses suffered in the market. With the first calculator, we ran the same set of personal investment parameters, with the only exception being that we varied the risk tolerance level in each scenario. The results are shown in Appendix A.

Two clear issues emerge regarding investor protection. First, regardless of the investor's risk tolerance level, the calculator recommends a portfolio consisting of approximately 60% equities and 40% bonds/cash. Second, the calculator completely ignores the "low" risk tolerance entry, exposing the risk averse investor to an undesired level of investment risk due to recommended equity allocations.

With the second asset allocation calculator, information was requested on both the investor's risk tolerance level and the investor's investment time horizon. Once again, the same set of personal investment parameters are used in each analysis, changing only the risk tolerance level and/or the investment time horizon. The results are shown in Appendix B.

If you accept the regulators' position regarding a minimum five-year investment time horizon for equity investments, then the second calculator's equity allocation for the 3-5 year time horizon is questionable, as it recommends a 30% allocation to equities for the low risk investor and a 45% allocation to equities for a moderate risk investor.

Expanding the time horizon out to 5-10 years, the low risk investor get the same portfolio recommendations that the 3-5 year time horizon/moderate risk investor got, which obviously raises questions. Strangely, the moderate risk investor with the 5-10 year time horizon receives a recommendation that increases the bond allocation to 65% and lowers the equity allocation to only 45%.

Increasing the investment time horizon to 10-20 years produces basically the same recommendation for both the low risk and moderate risk investor, with the recommended equity allocation only varying by 5 percentage points. The calculator appears to overweight the investment time horizon and basically ignore the low risk investor's preference to avoid investment risk.

The last example is just further evidence that most asset allocation/portfolio optimization software programs are highly unstable and susceptible to mistakes, so much so that they have been criticized as "estimation-error maximizers" by industry expert Richard Michaud. Investors who wish to protect their financial security would do well to replace any "truth" and/or "authority" biases with a healthy dose of skepticism and a willingness to question their financial advisers.

Investment Fees and Expenses and Cognitive Biases

Investors look to their financial advisers for advice and generally defer to any recommendations provided by their adviser. Again, this is often the results of both the "truth" and the "authority" biases. Many financial advisers limit their investment recommendations to actively managed, commission-based products, which may not be in an investor's best interests.

The negative impact of biases grows even deeper once the impact of fees and expenses is considered. Fees and expenses on index funds and ETFs are usually low since there is little or no active management of such investments. Fees and expenses on actively managed mutual funds can vary, with some even assessing annual fees and expenses in excess of 1.0% per year. Fees and expenses are important to investors since they reduce an investor's return.

Assume that we have two funds, Fund A and Fund B, both with relatively similar performance returns. Fund A is an index fund/ETF. Fund B is an actively managed fund that has an R-squared rating of 93, which means that approximately 93% of Fund B's return can be attributed to the performance of a benchmark index, in this case the index represented by Fund A. However, Fund B's annual fees and expenses are 1.0% per year, while those of Fund A are 0.25% per year.

Since most of the return of Fund B can be attributed to an index rather than the contributions of active management, why would an investor pay three times more in annual fees and expenses for Fund B? Before investing in Fund B, it is useful to see just how beneficial the active management has been and exactly what the active management is effectively costing the investor.

One commonly used method for making such assessments is known as the active expense ratio. The active expense ratio was introduced by Professor Ross Miller, a finance professor at the State University of New York at Albany. Professor Miller basically compares a fund's R-squared rating with the excess annual fees charged by the fund to determine a fund's "effective" annual fees and expenses.

In our example, the active expense ratio calculates to an effective annual active expense ratio fee of 3.02% for the active management of the fund, a little over 200% higher than the stated fees and expenses. For the four mutual funds in our sample portfolio, the active expense ratios were as follows.

American Funds Growth

R-Squared - 98.34

Stated Expense Ratio - 0.69%

Active Expense Ratio - 4.44%

Oppenheimer Discovery

R-Squared - 93.43

Stated Expense Ratio - 1.34%

Active Expense Ratio - 4.63%

Fidelity Worldwide

R-Squared - 97.58

Stated Expense Ratio - 0.71%

Active Expense Ratio - 3.06%

PIMCO Total Return

R-Squared - 68.43

Stated Expense Ratio - 0.56%

Active Expense Ratio - 0.53%

There are those who may argue that the active expense ratio is misleading. However, when an actively managed fund derives most of its performance from an index and an investor can obtain that same index's performance at a much lower cost, one has to question the wisdom of reducing one's investment returns by paying "money for nothing" and reducing one's investment returns. Why pay three times more for essentially the same results?

And yet investors do it every day, impacted by "truth" and "authority" biases they may not even be aware of. Some investors have no choice, as their company's retirement plan may only offer actively managed, commissioned-based investment options as a result of their plan's fiduciary being influenced by their own "truth" and "authority" biases. Armed with the knowledge of both these biases and active expense ratios, it would not be surprising to see both plan participants and plan fiduciaries act to provide more meaningful investment options within retirement plans.

Wealth Management and Cognitive Biases

"Anchoring" is one of the strongest cognitive biases and, with regard to investing and wealth management, one of the most potentially destructive influences on wealth preservation. Anchoring can be defined as a reluctance to retreat from existing beliefs and decisions and a resistance to even consider new or opposing information.

The difficulty with addressing anchoring bias can summed up with the observation from noted economist John Maynard Keynes that "the difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from the old ones" and that "worldly wisdom teaches us that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally." Beliefs often become truths, regardless of whether such beliefs are valid, often resulting in unnecessary risk and financial loss.

A perfect example of the potential negative impact of anchoring can be seen in investors that adopt a buy-and-hold approach to wealth management, or, as buy-and-hold critics often refer to the strategy, the "buy, forget and regret" approach. It is interesting to note that the buy-and hold approach to wealth management is apparently derived from an ongoing misinterpretation of a famous financial study.

A 1986 study, commonly known as the Brinson-Hood-Beebower (BHB) study, concluded that approximately 94% of the variability of a portfolio's returns was attributable to the portfolio's asset allocation mix. The study made no representations whatsoever regarding the impact of asset allocation on a portfolio's actual returns, only on the variability of a portfolio's returns.

Nevertheless, financial advisers and investment companies misrepresent the study's findings to support their buy-and-hold argument, claiming that all an investor has to do for investment success is to set up an appropriate initial asset allocation and maintain that allocation since the BHB study proved that asset allocation determines 94% of an investor's returns. The problem is that many investors have read or heard this mantra so often that they have fallen prey to the "truth" and "authority" biases and the misrepresentations are now firmly anchored into their personal beliefs.

It is interesting to note that the buy-and-hold approach is not derived from the works of the early pioneers of wealth management, Nobel laureates Dr. Harry Markowitz, the father of Modern Portfolio Theory, and Dr. William Sharpe. In fact, Dr, Sharpe has recently stated that investors should change their asset allocation in response to changes in market values. A recent study by asset allocation expert Roger Ibbotson has rebuffed the buy-and-hold strategy, stating that active management and asset allocation have about the same impact on a portfolio's performance.

There are many investment professionals who would argue that the buy-and-hold approach is fundamentally sound and does not constitute investment fraud. These professionals usually claim that anything other than a buy-and-hold approach, with an occasional rebalancing to restore the original asset allocation parameters, constitutes market timing, which is both costly and ineffective.

From a legal perspective, what buy-and-hold advocates fail to realize is that the buy-and-hold approach completely ignores the proven cyclical nature of the market and t the Prudent Investor Act, whose guidelines which are often used by regulatory bodies and the courts in determining questions of fraud and prudent fiduciary conduct. The Prudent Investor Act clearly states that a fiduciary should make changes in an investment portfolio when changes in the market or economy dictate such changes are necessary in order to protect the portfolio against unnecessary risk and losses.

The classic definition of market timing involves having all of one's assets either in the market or out of the market. The potential tax implications and the difficulty in perfectly timing the stock make such a strategy practically impossible. Reallocating some of one's resources to reduce risk exposure is not market timing, but smart, defensive investing.

Smart investors would do well to heed the advice of noted investor Ben Graham, who warned that "the essence of investment management is the management of risks, not the management of returns. Well managed portfolios start with this precept." Various studies support Graham's postion, with such studies documenting the fact that avoiding losses has a much greater impact than missing potential returns.

Many investors suffered unnecessary investment losses during the recent 2000-2002 and 2008 bear markets due to their cognitive biases regarding the buy-and-hold approach to investing and their refusal to objectively consider other investment approaches. Unfortunately, these same investors will likely continue to suffer unnecessary investment losses unless and until they recognize their cognitive biases and objectively examine their investment strategy. As George Santayana pointed out, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Conclusion

Investment fraud is a pervasive problem. While various statistics are often cited as evidence of the problem, the truth is that such numbers are only a small percentage of the actual cases of investment fraud, as many cases go unreported and many victims of investment fraud are unaware that they are victims due to the subtlety or complexity of the fraud itself.

An emerging theory of investment fraud is that investors are susceptible to investment fraud due to cognitive biases and/or cognitive deficits that impair their ability to properly analyze investment situations and the recommendations of their financial advisers. It is imperative that investors become aware of and overcome potentially harmful personal biases, such as "truth" bias, "authority" bias and anchoring, in order to properly analyze investment options and better protect their financial security.

© Copyright 2011, InvestSense, LLC. All rights reserved.

This article is for informational purposes only, and is not designed or intended to provide legal, investment, or other professional advice since such advice always requires consideration of individual circumstances. If legal, investment, or other professional assistance is needed, the services of an attorney or other professional adviser should be sought.

Notes

1. Jayne W. Barnard, "Deceptions, Decisions and Investor Education," Elder Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2010), 201.

APPENDIX A

Low Risk Portfolio

Investment Parameters > Age: 50 > Assets: $250,000 > Risk Tolerance: Low > Tax Bracket: 25% > Economic Outlook: Moderate > Income Needs: 4%

Recommended Allocation > Large Cap Equity - 23%, Midcap Equity - 13%, Small Cap Equity - 9%, Foreign Equity - 14%, Bonds - 23%, Municipal Bonds - 18%, Cash - 13%

Moderate Risk Portfolio

Investment Parameters > Age: 50 > Assets: $250,000 > Risk Tolerance: Moderate > Tax Bracket: 25% > Economic Outlook: Moderate > Income Needs: 4%

Recommended Allocation > Large Cap Equity - 21%, Midcap Equity - 14%, Small Cap Equity - 10%, Foreign Equity - 16%, Bonds - 26%, Municipal Bonds - 18%, Cash - 0%

High Risk Portfolio

Investment Parameters > Age: 50 > Assets: $250,000 > Risk Tolerance: High > Tax Bracket: 25% > Economic Outlook: Moderate > Income Needs: 4%

Recommended Allocation>Large Cap Equity - 20%, Midcap Equity - 16%, Small Cap Equity - 13%, Foreign Equity - 17%, Bonds - 24%, Municipal Bonds - 0%, Cash - 10%

APPENDIX B

3-5 Year Investment Time Horizon

Low Risk Tolerance: Bonds - 70%, Large Cap Equity - 15%, Small Cap Equity - 5%, Foreign Equity - 10%

Moderate Risk Tolerance: Bonds - 50%, Large Cap Equity - 25%, Small Cap Equity - 10%, Foreign Equity - 15%

High Risk Tolerance: Bonds - 60%, Large Cap Equity - 20%, Small Cap Equity - 10%, Foreign Equity - 10%

5-10 Year Investment Time Horizon

Low Risk Tolerance: Bonds - 50%, Large Cap Equity - 25%, Small Cap Equity - 10%, Foreign Equity - 15%

Moderate Risk Tolerance: Bonds - 65%, Large Cap Equity - 20%, Small Cap Equity - 5%, Foreign Equity - 10%

High Risk Tolerance: Bonds - 40%, Large Cap Equity - 30%, Small Cap Equity - ]15%, Foreign Equity - 15%

10-20 Year Investment Time Horizon

Low Risk Tolerance: Bonds - 30%, Large Cap Equity - 30%, Small Cap Equity - 20%, Foreign Equity - 20%

Moderate Risk Tolerance:Bonds - 25%, Large Cap Equity - 35%, Small Cap Equity - 20%, Foreign Equity - 20%

High Risk Tolerance: Bonds - 20%, Large Cap Equity - 40%, Small Cap Equity -20%, Foreign Equity - 20%


Thursday, August 11, 2011

Recommended to Get a Tutor For a Child

Parents who are thinking about getting a tutor for their child should make sure that they have concrete evidence that their child needs assistance. Four ways to see when a tutor is needed to help one's child include the following:

1. History of Learning Difficulties: If one's child has a history of learning difficulties in a certain subject, then it is very important to have a tutor available for him or her. A tutor can help one's child with building confidence, reviewing content, and making connections with new content so that the child can apply the content to their studies.

In addition, parents may want to have a tutor on-call when they discover that their child need assistance on a certain unit. While this strategy is recommended for homework help, this can also be effective when working with instructional or strategic tutors who specializes in a certain area and are available to help one's child with his or her learning needs.

2. Difficulties on Homework: Parents should not wait until the last week of the current grading term to find a tutor. Parents should monitor on a daily basis on whether their child is doing well on their homework. This will give parents an informal assessment that their child need assistance with a specific concept and a tutor should be called in to help their child.

Homework is critical in helping students learn and parents should make sure that they pay close attention to whether their child is completing their homework with little difficulty.

3. Lack of Interest In Work: Some parents often seek tutors when they discover their child's lack of interest in their work. It does not necessary mean that he or she is having issues with the content, but it may be that another issue is at hand. When children are not interested in their work, this could mean that they do not see a value in completing the homework assignment or the work may not be academically challenging for them.

Therefore, a tutor can help by bringing in an accelerated curriculum that can either be designed to work with what the child is learning in class or designed to work on advanced topics. In either case, the child would benefit because it will give them the challenge and confidence that they are seeking.

4. Teacher Recommendations: Teachers work with one's child on a daily basis and have the best advice about one's child in the classroom. In the event that a teacher recommends tutoring for one's child, then it would be a great idea to search around for a qualified tutor who can help him or her. Also, individuals should ask their child's teacher for recommendations as they will have a network of tutors who will be able to assist parents with their child's learning needs.

These are four ways in which parents may begin to see that their child is in need of a tutor. Tutors are change agents who inspire to learn and serve others. Therefore, every child should have a tutor available to him or her when a learning need arises.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Stock Market Success Of Rosenberg's Eight Commandments

So with that introduction, let me give you Mr. Rosenberg's eight commandments on how to successfully invest.

#1 Do not be concerned with where a stock has already been - instead, be concerned with where it is going. The important thing is what lies ahead, not what has already transpired...

Focus on a company's future - its earning, growth potential. Then make a well-researched judgment on whether you're paying the right price today for its future earnings stream. If a stock is pricier than its future growth potential, do not buy it.

#2 Do not concern yourself as much with the market in general as with the outlook for your individual stocks---and this is key for today's market.

Most investors base their buying and selling on overall market sentiment. Mr. Rosenberg believes this is a fallacy. He believed in buying good value as it appears and do not let the general market sentiment alter your decision.

#3 Remember... the public is generally wrong. He said: The masses are not well informed about investments and the stock market. They have not disciplined themselves correctly to make the right choices in the right industries at the right prices. They are moved mainly by their emotions, and history has proved them to be wrong consistently.

#4 Do not make hasty, emotional decisions about buying and selling stocks.

In fact, if you've heard my commentaries on this show, you'll know that I keep insisting that you have peace of mind through all sorts of market gyrations, and always sleep well at night. It is very easy to get caught in the trap of emotions amidst media noise and peer pressure... build your discipline so you are emotionally detached from the market, and stay focused and attached to your long-term investment strategy, and you will do well.

#5 Stocks always look worst at the bottom of a bear market when everything is the most gloomy and always look best at the top of a bull market (when everybody is optimistic).

Again, as many of my listeners know, I recently said Bad Markets Make Good Friends, and this is exactly Mr. Rosenberg's point - the best time to buy is when markets are beaten up and no one else is buying. In the man's own words: Have strength and buy when things do look bleak and sell when they look too good to be true.

#6 Remember too, that you'll seldom-if ever-buy stocks right at the bottom or sell them right at the top.
Not words you want to hear, for sure, but there is a lot of experience, truth and wisdom in them. As I've said in the past, never try and overly finesse the market's every turn. Buy when stocks generally appear underpriced without looking for new bottoms, and sell when stocks reach or exceed your expectation of fair value.

#7 Beware of following stock market "fads." (biotech, internet, emerging markets)

As he says..."the stock market occasionally develops fads for certain industries. In almost all cases a sudden rush to buy the fad stocks pushes them to price levels which are totally unwarranted. When you buy at the height of popularity you almost always pay prices which have little relationship to value..." Most recently, Real Estate fit this description. Is it Gold the new fad of the day?

#8 Concentrate on quality.

Three simple words with a lot of depth. You've heard me say this too, many times; so this time, let's hear it from the master himself:

"While big profits are often made through buying and selling poor quality common stocks, your success in the stock market is far, far more assured if you emphasize quality in your stock selections. Too many investors shy away from the top-notch companies in search of rags-to-riches performers. These low-grade issues are certainly no foundation for a good portfolio; instead, the fine, well-managed companies should form the backbone.... fabulous fortunes have been made over the years in such high quality, non-speculative stocks as Carnation, Procter and Gamble, and others. "

Most of you have likely never heard of Claude Rosenberg but he certainly left his philosophical imprint on the investing world. Rosenberg founded money management firm Rosenberg Capital Management, grew assets under management to $40 billion, and made a fortune. Now, Mr. Rosenberg made a lot of money because he was a very disciplined investor and closely adhered to his investing philosophy through thick and thin.
In fact, as many of you know, I have a similar philosophy and, notwithstanding the risk of getting repetitive and boring - I will keep telling you to stay on the road through highs and lows, to ignore the noise, to not abandon stocks when they are down, and so on. I wanted to share Mr. Rosenberg's investing guidelines with you today, partly as a reminder on sound investing principals in confusing times such as these, and partly as a validation of everything we have been discussing over the years on my show and now my blog.