Why are some long term investors so concerned about their entry price?
It has got to do with the irrationality of humans.  The so called long term investor is in it for the long term, they are not worried about market fluctuations nor timing the market. But yet they will aim to try to get a bargain when they buy in.  It is contradictory in a way. Think about it; if I buy a stock and it drops by 30% I am not worried because I am in it for the long term, but I am worried about getting 1% off when I buy it.  They usually tend to buy when the stock starts falling. However, what they don’t realise is when a stock starts falling there is no telling when it will stop. So even if they get a bargain for that day, it is usually quickly wiped out a few days later. Instead, of waiting for the price to find support and start recovering, they are eager to buy what they think is a bargain. I think this type of long term investing is very risky, and the main reason is because the investor has no plan. They just try to buy so called bargain stocks and hold them until they need the money (usually in retirement). But what happens if the stock price is lower when they want to retire than when they bought it? I hope no long term investor was trying to retire in 2008. If they simply had a plan to indicate when they would buy and under what conditions they would sell, and have a risk management plan in place, then maybe they could reduce their risk somewhat and conserve their capital. A good article to read on this is What's Wrong With Long-Term Investing. This is not hypothetical, this is an accurate story. I am a long-term investor. I have a bunch of money that I'd like to invest and I plan on spreading it out over five or six mutual funds and ETFs, roughly according to the Canadian Couch Potato model portfolio (that is, passive mutual funds and ETFs rather than specific stocks). I am concerned that if I invest the full amount and the stock market crashes 30% next month, I will have paid more than I had to. As I am investing for the long term, I expect to more than regain my investment, but I still wouldn't be thrilled with paying 30% more than I had to. Instead, I am investing my money in three stages. I invested the first third earlier this month. I'll invest the next third in a few months, and the final third a few months after that. If the stock market climbs, as I expect is more likely the case, I will have lost out on some potential upside. However, if the stock market crashes next month, I will end up paying a lower average cost as two of my three purchases will occur after the crash. On average, as a long-term investor, I expect the stock market to go up. In the short term, I expect much more fluctuation. Statistically speaking, I'd do better to invest all the money at once as most of the time, the trend is upward. However, I am willing to trade some potential upside for a somewhat reduced risk of downside over the course of the next few months. If we were talking a price difference of 1% as mentioned in the question, I wouldn't care. I expect to see average annual returns far above this. But stock market crashes can cause the loss of 20 to 30% or more, and those are numbers I care about. I'd much rather buy in at 30% less than the current price, after all. Because buying at discount provides a considerable safety of margin -- it increases the likelihood of profiting. The margin serves to cushion future adverse price movement. Why is so much effort made to get a small percentage off an   investment, if one is then willing to let the investment drop another   20% or more with the reason of being in it for the long term? Nobody can predict the stock price. Now if a long term investor happens to buy some stocks and the market crashes the next day, he could afford to wait for the stock prices to bounce back. Why should he sells immediately to incur a definite loss, should he has confidence in the underlying companies to recover eventually? One can choose to buy wisely, but the market fluctuation is out of his/her control. Wouldn't you agree that he/she should spend much efforts on something that can be controlled? I'm not sure who specifically you are talking about. Those are some pretty broad generalizations. Where do you draw the line about what is too much concern about entry price? On what basis do you make the assertion that they are overly concerned with it? For those that do: Probably because when you are buying anything, a lower price is preferable in general. Why WOULDN'T you want to get the best deal possible? I think you are making assumptions (about whom I don't know) that people always invest based on cold hard logic. This is not often the case. If you think of it in terms of trying to get an annual return on your investment over the long haul, you can do a simple net present value analysis to decide your buy price.  If you're playing conservative with the investments and taking safety over returns, you will still have some kind of expectation of that return will be.  Paying slightly more will drag down your returns, perhaps less than what you want to get.  If you really want to get your desired X%, then stick to your guns and don't go down the slippery slope of reaching.  If 1% off isn't bad, then 2% off isn't all that bad, and maybe 3% is OK too for the right situation, etc.  Gotta have rules and stick to them.  You never know what opportunities will be around tomorrow.  The possible drops in value should be built into your return expectations.
"Note that we do not comment on specific stocks here, and have no place doing so. If your question is only about that specific stock then it is off topic. I have not tried to answer that part below. The key to valuation is predicting the net present value of all of a company's cash flows; i.e. of their future profits and losses. Through a number of methods to long to explain here investment banks and hedge funds work out what they expect the company's cash flows to be and trade so that these future profits, losses etc. are priced into the stock price. Since future cash flows, profits or whatever you want to call them are priced in, the price of a stock shouldn't move at all on an earnings statement. This begs the question ""why do some stock prices move violently when they announce earnings?"" The models that the institutional investors use are not perfect and cannot take into account everything. An unexpected craze for a product or a supply chain agreement breaking down on not being as good as it seems will not be factored into this pricing and so the price will move based on the degree to which expectation is missed or exceeded. Since penny socks are speculative their value is based far more on the long term expected cash flows and less on the short run cash flows. This goes a long way to explaining why some of the highest market capitalisation penny stocks are those making consistent losses. This means that they can be far less susceptible to price movements after an earnings announcement even if it is well out of the consensus range. Higher (potential) future value comes with the higher risks of penny stocks which discounts current value. In the end if people's expectation of the company's performance reflects reality then the profitability is priced in and there will be no price movement. If the actuality is outside of the expected range then there will be a price movement." Do all/most unit trusts have equalisation policy? It is really that some value of the fund is given to the investor, so the fund value goes down by that much per unit. It depends on the type of mutual funds. For example, there are growth type mutual funds that do not give any dividend and the total value of the fund is reflected in its price. Do the companies whose stocks we owned directly apply equalisation policy on their dividends as well? Why not? As far a stock price is concerned, it usually decrease by the same amount of the dividend payout at ex-date, so in effect, the market in a way does the equalization, the company directly does not do it. If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands).  Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market.  3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news.  I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are]. You’ve really got three or four questions going here… and it’s clear that a gap in understanding one component of how bonds work (pricing) is having a ripple effect across the other facets of your question. The reality is that everybody’s answers so far touch on various pieces of your general question, but maybe I can help by integrating. So, let’s start by nailing down what your actual questions are:  1. Why do mortgage rates (tend to) increase when the published treasury bond rate increases? I’m going to come back to this, because it requires a lot of building blocks. 2. What’s the math behind a bond yield increasing (price falling?)  This gets complicated, fast. Especially when you start talking about selling the bond in the middle of its time period. Many people that trade in bonds use financial calculators, Excel, or pre-calculated tables to simplify or even just approximate the value of a bond. But here’s a simple example that shows the math.  Let’s say we’ve got a bond that is issued by… Dell for $10,000. The company will pay it back in 5 years, and it is offering an 8% rate. Interest payments will only be paid annually. Remember that the amount Dell has promised to pay in interest is fixed for the life of the bond, and is called the ‘coupon’ rate. We can think about the way the payouts will be paid in the following table:   As I’m sure you know, the value of a bond (its yield) comes from two sources: the interest payments, and the return of the principal. But, if you as an investor paid $14,000 for this bond, you would usually be wrong. You need to ‘discount’ those amounts to take into account the ‘time value of money’. This is why when you are dealing in bonds it is important to know the ‘coupon rate’ (what is Dell paying each period?). But it is also important to know your sellers’/buyers’ own personal discount rates. This will vary from person to person and institution to institution, but it is what actually sets the PRICE you would buy this bond for.  There are three general cases for the discount rate (or the MARKET rate). First, where the market rate == the coupon rate. This is known as “par” in bond parlance. Second, where the market rate < the coupon rate. This is known as “premium” in bond parlance. Third, where the market rate > coupon rate. This is known as a ‘discount’ bond.  But before we get into those in too much depth, how does discounting work? The idea behind discounting is that you need to account for the idea that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. (It’s usually worth ‘more’ tomorrow.) You discount a lump sum, like the return of the principal, differently than you do a series of equal cash flows, like the stream of $800 interest payments. The formula for discounting a lump sum is:  Present Value=Future Value* (1/(1+interest rate))^((# of periods)) The formula for discounting a stream of equal payments is:  Present Value=(Single Payment)* (〖1-(1+i)〗^((-n))/i) (i = interest rate and n = number of periods) **cite investopedia So let’s look at how this would look in pricing the pretend Dell bond as a par bond. First, we discount the return of the $10,000 principal as (10,000 * (1 / 1.08)^5). That equals $6,807.82.  Next we discount the 5 equal payments of $800 as (800* (3.9902)). I just plugged and chugged but you can do that yourself. That equals $3,192.18. You may get slightly different numbers with rounding.  So you add the two together, and it says that you would be willing to pay ($6,807.82 + $3,192.18) = $10,000. Surprise! When the bond is a par bond you’re basically being compensated for the time value of money with the interest payments. You purchase the bond at the ‘face value’, which is the principal that will be returned at the end.  If you worked through the math for a 6% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, you would see that it’s “premium”, because you would pay more than the principal that is returned to obtain the bond [10,842.87 vs 10,000]. Similarly, if you work through the math for a 10% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, it’s a ‘discount’ bond because you will pay less than the principal that is returned for the bond [9,241.84 vs 10,000].  It’s easy to see how an investor could hold our imaginary Dell bond for one year, collect the first interest payment, and then sell the bond on to another investor. The mechanics of the calculations are the same, except that one less interest payment is available, and the principal will be returned one year sooner… so N=4 in both formulae.  Still with me? Now that we’re on the same page about how a bond is priced, we can talk about “Yield To Maturity”, which is at the heart of your main question.  Bond “yields” like the ones you can access on CNBC or Yahoo!Finance or wherever you may be looking are actually taking the reverse approach to this. In these cases the prices are ‘fixed’ in that the sellers have listed the bonds for sale, and specified the price. Since the coupon values are fixed already by whatever organization issued the bond, the rate of return can be imputed from those values.  To do that, you just do a bit of algebra and swap “present value” and “future value” in our two equations.  Let’s say that Dell has gone private, had an awesome year, and figured out how to make robot unicorns that do wonderful things for all mankind. You decide that now would be a great time to sell your bond after holding it for one year… and collecting that $800 interest payment. You think you’d like to sell it for $10,500. (Since the principal return is fixed (+10,000); the number of periods is fixed (4); and the interest payments are fixed ($800); but you’ve changed the price... something else has to adjust and that is the discount rate.) It’s kind of tricky to actually use those equations to solve for this by hand… you end up with two equations… one unknown, and set them equal. So, the easiest way to solve for this rate is actually in Excel, using the function =RATE(NPER, PMT, PV, FV). NPER = 4, PMT = 800, PV=-10500, and FV=10000. Hint to make sure that you catch the minus sign in front of the present value… buyer pays now for the positive return of 10,000 in the future.  That shows 6.54% as the effective discount rate (or rate of return) for the investor. That is the same thing as the yield to maturity. It specifies the return that a bond investor would see if he or she purchased the bond today and held it to maturity.  3. What factors (in terms of supply and demand) drive changes in the bond market? I hope it’s clear now how the tradeoff works between yields going UP when prices go DOWN, and vice versa. It happens because the COUPON rate, the number of periods, and the return of principal for a bond are fixed. So when someone sells a bond in the middle of its term, the only things that can change are the price and corresponding yield/discount rate.  Other commenters… including you… have touched on some of the reasons why the prices go up and down. Generally speaking, it’s because of the basics of supply and demand… higher level of bonds for sale to be purchased by same level of demand will mean prices go down. But it’s not ‘just because interest rates are going up and down’. It has a lot more to do with the expectations for 1) risk, 2) return and 3) future inflation. Sometimes it is action by the Fed, as Joe Taxpayer has pointed out. If they sell a lot of bonds, then the basics of higher supply for a set level of demand imply that the prices should go down. Prices going down on a bond imply that yields will go up. (I really hope that’s clear by now). This is a common monetary lever that the government uses to ‘remove money’ from the system, in that they receive payments from an investor up front when the investor buys the bond from the Fed, and then the Fed gradually return that cash back into the system over time.  Sometimes it is due to uncertainty about the future. If investors at large believe that inflation is coming, then bonds become a less attractive investment, as the dollars received for future payments will be less valuable. This could lead to a sell-off in the bond markets, because investors want to cash out their bonds and transfer that capital to something that will preserve their value under inflation. Here again an increase in supply of bonds for sale will lead to decreased prices and higher yields.  At the end of the day it is really hard to predict exactly which direction bond markets will be moving, and more importantly WHY. If you figure it out, move to New York or Chicago or London and work as a trader in the bond markets. You’ll make a killing, and if you’d like I will be glad to drive your cars for you.  4. How does the availability of money supply for banks drive changes in other lending rates?  When any investment organization forms, it builds its portfolio to try to deliver a set return at the lowest risk possible. As a corollary to that, it tries to deliver the maximum return possible for a given level of risk.  When we’re talking about a bank, DumbCoder’s answer is dead on. Banks have various options to choose from, and a 10-year T-bond is broadly seen as one of the least risky investments. Thus, it is a benchmark for other investments.  5. So… now, why do mortgage rates tend to increase when the published treasury bond yield rate increases? The traditional, residential 30-year mortgage is VERY similar to a bond investment. There is a long-term investment horizon, with fixed cash payments over the term of the note. But the principal is returned incrementally during the life of the loan.  So, since mortgages are ‘more risky’ than the 10-year treasury bond, they will carry a certain premium that is tied to how much more risky an individual is as a borrower than the US government.  And here it is… no one actually directly changes the interest rate on 10-year treasuries. Not even the Fed. The Fed sets a price constraint that it will sell bonds at during its periodic auctions. Buyers bid for those, and the resulting prices imply the yield rate. If the yield rate for current 10-year bonds increases, then banks take it as a sign that everyone in the investment community sees some sign of increased risk in the future. This might be from inflation. This might be from uncertain economic performance. But whatever it is, they operate with some rule of thumb that their 30-year mortgage rate for excellent credit borrowers will be the 10-year plus 1.5% or something. And they publish their rates. Obviously there are good answers about the alternatives to the stock market in the referenced question.  HFT has been debated heavily over the past couple of years, and the Flash crash of May 6, 2010, has spurred regulators to rein in heavy automated trading. HFT takes advantage of churn and split second reactions to changing market trends, news and rumors. It is not wise for individual investors to fight the big boys in these games and you will likely lose money in day trading as a result. HFT's defender's may be right when they claim that it makes the market more liquid for you to get the listed price for a security, but the article points out that their actions more closely resemble the currently illegal practice of front-running than a negotiated trade where both parties feel that they've received a fair value. There are many factors including supply and demand which affect stock prices more than volume does. While market makers are generating the majority of volume with their HFT practices, volume is merely the number of shares bought and sold in a day. Volume shows how many shares people are interested in trading, not the actual underlying value of the security and its long term prospects. Extra volume doesn't affect most long term investments, so your long term investments aren't in any extra danger due to HFT. That said, the stock market is a risky place  whether panicked people or poorly written programs are trading out of control. Most people are better off investing rather than merely trading. Long term investors don't need to get the absolute lowest price or the highest sell. They move into and out of positions based on overall value and long term prospects. They're diversified so bad apples like Enron, etc. won't destroy their portfolio. Investors long term view allows them to ignore the effects of churn, while working like the tortoise to win the race while the hare eventually gets swallowed by a bad bet. There are a lot of worrying and stressful uncertainties in the global economy. If it's a question of wisdom, focus on sound investments and work politically (as a citizen and shareholder) to fix problems you see in the system. "Realize this is almost a year old, but I just wanted to comment on something in Dynas' answer above...  ""Whenever you trade always think about what the other guys is thinking. Sometimes we forget their is someone else on the other side of my trade that thinks essentially the exact opposite of me. Its a zero sum game."" From a market maker's perspective, their primary goal is not necessarily to make money by you being wrong, it is to make money on the bid-offer spread and hedging their book (and potentially interalize). That being said, the market maker would likely be quoting one side of the market away from top of the book if they don't want to take exposure in that direction (i.e. their bid will be lower than the highest bid available or their offer higher than the lowest offer available). This isn't really going to change anything if you're trading on an exchange, but important to consider if you can only see the prices your broker/dealer provides to you and they are your counterparty in the trade." In most markets, there are fixed fees known as commissions. For instance, with a retail broker in the stock market, you can expect every trade to cost you $7.00 as an example, it is $7.00 regardless of if you place a trade for $25 or $25,000. You will see that just opening the trade, with a smaller amount, will eat up all of your profits and a majority of your capital, but if you opened the trade with more capital through the investment group, then the $7.00 commission will be much less of a tax on your trade. Basically, the only advantage is that the tax of commissions will be less if you have a larger account, if the commission is a fixed dollar value, which is not always true either. regardless, at $25 per month, not many markets will be accessible. There is also the possible educational aspect of investing with a group of people, or it can simply be clashing ideals. This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today.  The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob