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.
Just reading your comment more it is so far off topic. Investor rationality is so far off topic. The outside  investor made a decision to invest already. The owner is being forced make investment decisions. Noting in the article is talking about taking those choices away.  There should be a separate sub for people like who want to make off topic challenges of capitalism. It's disruptive. I can't make a comment with debating every assumption endlessly. not sure if serious, read on if you don't think the previous comment is sarcasm.  No, they don't. The point of investing is to buy a stake in something that will become more valuable in the future. Other things don't have to devalue for your investment to gain value. This is possible because the net value of everything is increasing over time (compare the value of all the world's private property today to its value in 1900). It could be an endless number of reasons for it.  It could simply just be a break through a long term resistance causing technical traders to jump in.  It could be an analyst putting out a buy recommendation.  If fundamentals have not changed then maybe the technicals have changed. Momentum could have reached an oversold position causing new buyers to enter the market. Without knowing the actual stock, its fundamentals and its technicals, no one will ever know exactly why. 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 Their problem is that the overwhelming majority of their stock is owned by pension funds, hedge funds and other funds who have no interest in long term financing. They are only interested in quarterly profits.   Once a company goes public, the only way to get it out of the stock market zoo is for a single investor to acquire over 50% of the stock. The companies that you mentioned are way too big for that to happen. "I've alway thought that it was strange, but the ""price"" that gets quoted on a stock exchange is just the price of the last transaction. The irony of this definition of price is that there may not actually be any more shares available on the market at that price. It's also strange to me that the price isn't adjusted at all for the size of the transaction. A transaction of just 1 share will post a new price even if just seconds earlier 100,000 shares traded for a different price. (Ok, unrealistic example, but you get my point.) I've always believed this is an odd way to describe the price. Anyway, my diatribe here is supposed to illustrate the point that the fluctuations you see in price don't really reflect changing valuations by the stock-owning public. Each post in the exchange maintains a book of orders, with unmatched buy orders on one side and unmatched sell orders on the other side. If you go to your broker and tell him, ""fill my order for 50,000 shares at market price"", then the broker won't fill you 50,000 shares at .20. Instead, he'll buy the 50 @ .22, then 80 @ .23, then 100 @ .30, etc. Because your order is so large compared to the unmatched orders, your market order will get matched a bunch of the unmatched orders on the sell side, and each match will notch the posted price up a bit. If instead you asked the broker, ""open a limit order to buy 50000 shares at .20"", then the exchange will add your order to the book: In this case, your order likely won't get filled at all, since nobody at the moment wants to sell at .20 and historically speaking it's unlikely that such a seller will suddenly appear. Filling large orders is actually a common problem for institutional investors: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_16/b3929113_mz020.htm http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~mkearns/papers/vwap.pdf (Written by a professor I had in school!)" In fact markets are not efficient and participants are not rational. That is why we have booms and busts in markets. Emotions and psychology play a role when investors and/or traders make decisions, sometimes causing them to behave in unpredictable or irrational ways. That is why stocks can be undervalued or overvalued compared to their true value.  Also, different market participants may put a different true value on a stock (depending on their methods of analysis and the information they use to base their analysis on). This is why there are always many opportunities to profit (or lose your money) in liquid markets. Doing your research, homework, or analysis can be related to fundamental analysis, technical analysis, or a combination of the two. For example, you could use fundamental analysis to determine what to buy and then use technical analysis to determine when to buy. To me, doing your homework means to get yourself educated, to have a plan, to do your analysis (both FA and TA), to invest or trade according to your plan and to have a risk management strategy in place. Most people are too lazy to do their homework so will pay someone else to do it for them or they will just speculate (on the latest hot tip) and lose most of their money. "What most of these answers here seem to be missing is that a stock ""price"" is not exactly what we typically expect a price to be--for example, when we go in to the supermarket and see that the price of a gallon of milk is $2.00, we know that when we go to the cash register that is exactly how much we will pay.  This is not, however, the case for stocks. For stocks, when most people talk about the price or quote, they are really referring to the last price at which that stock traded--which unlike for a gallon of milk at the supermarket, is no guarantee of what the next stock price will be.  Relatively speaking, most stocks are extremely liquid, so they will react to any information which the ""market"" believes has a bearing on the value of their underlying asset almost (if not) immediately.  As an extreme example, if allegations of accounting fraud for a particular company whose stock is trading at $40 come out mid-session, there will not be a gradual decline in the price ($40 -> $39.99 -> $39.97, etc.)-- instead, the price will jump from $40 to say, $20.  In the time between the the $40 trade and the $20 trade, even though we may say the price of the stock was $40, that quote was actually a terrible estimate of the stock's current (post-fraud announcement) price. Considering that the ""price"" of a stock typically does not remain constant even in the span of a few seconds to a few minutes, it should not be hard to believe that this price will not remain constant over the 17.5 hour period from the previous day's close to the current day's open.  Don't forget that as Americans go to bed, the Asian markets are just opening, and by the time US markets have opened, it is already past 2PM in London.  In addition to the information (and therefore new knowledge) gained from these foreign markets' movements, macro factors can also play an important part in a security's price-- perhaps the ECB makes a morning statement that is interpreted as negative news for the markets or a foreign government before the US markets open.  Stock prices on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. won't be able to react until 9:30, but the $40 price of the last trade of a broad market ETF at 4PM yesterday probably isn't looking so hot at 6:30 this morning... don't forget either that most individual stocks are correlated with the movement of the broader market, so even news that is not specific to a given security will in all likelihood still have an impact on that security's price. The above are only a few of many examples of things that can impact a stock's valuation between close and open: all sorts of geopolitical events, announcements from large, multi-national companies, macroeconomic stats such as unemployment rates, etc. announced in foreign countries can all play a role in affecting a security's price overnight. As an aside, one of the answers mentioned after hours trading as a reason--in actuality this typically has very little (if any) impact on the next day's prices and is often referred to as ""amateur hour"", due to the fact that trading during this time typically consists of small-time investors.  Prices in AH are very poor predictors of a stock's price at open." Very likely this refers to trading/speculating on leverage, not investing. Of course, as soon as you put leverage into the equation this perfectly makes sense.  2007-2009 for example, if one bought the $SPX at its highs in 2007 at ~$1560.00 - to the lows from 2009 at ~$683.00 - implicating that with only 2:1 leverage a $1560.00 account would have received a margin call. At least here in Europe I can trade index CFD's and other leveraged products. If i trade lets say >50:1 leverage it doesn’t take much to get a margin call and/or position closed by the broker. No doubt, depending on which investments you choose there’s always risk, but currency is a position too. TO answer the question, I find it very unlikely that >90% of investors (referring to stocks) lose money / purchasing power. Anyway, I would not deny that where speculators (not investors) use leverage or try to trade swings, news etc. have a very high risk of losing money (purchasing power). People are trying ideas like this, actually.  Though they generally aren't very public about it.  While keshlam ventures into hyperbole when mentioning Watson, he is certainly correct human language parsing is a extremely hard problem. While it is not always true that the big players will know before the news (sometimes that would qualify as insider trading).  The volume spike that you mention generally comes as the news arrives to the major (and minor) players.  So, if you have an algorithm run after the volume spike the price will likely have adjusted significantly already. You can try to avoid this by constantly scanning for news on a set of stocks however this becomes an even harder problem.  Or maybe by becoming more specific and parsing known important and specific news sources (farm report for instance) and trying to do so faster than anyone else.  These are some methods people use to not be too late. 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. I agree with this article entirely. There is tons of securities in the market that are trading wayyyy above book value because of future expectations of growth. Investors more than ever are overpaying for the possibility of something that might happen several years from now rather than a couple of years. Who can predict any numbers  accurately 3+ years from now? It's getting ridiculous. Then you have your Goldman Saxes that are trading under book value because of concerns about regulatory reform in the future. Investor sentiment and consumer expectations used to be a macroeconomic gauge, but not every single sector is singled out and over analyzed. Long gone are the days of being able to truly understand economic cycles. Thanks for the link.   The way I interpretet is like this:   IPOs are underpriced to make sure they will sell all the shares to the market, avoiding lose of face. (short term andslide 4)  But that doesn't mean it is a good investment in the long run, because these companies have their reasons to go public, and one of those reasons could be that they think the market is overpricing stocks (long term and slide 5)   There are of course other reasons, one of them to finance the business.  By the way, I think the data is heavily skewed because of the dotcom crash, but interesting nonetheless. "Ah I got ya. I partially agree with you, but it's far more complex. I think that is simplifying the debate a bit too much. When people go ""passive"" you are making the assumption that they are able to stay fully invested the full time period (say 30-40 years until retirement when you might change the asset allocation). This is not a fair assumption because many studies on behavioral finance have shown that people (90% plus) are not able to sit tight through a full market cycle and often sell out during a bear market. I'm not debating you're point that passive often outperforms due to the fees (although there are many managers that do outperform), but the main issue with self-managing and passive investing is people usually make emotional decisions, which then hurts their long-term performance. This would be the reason to hire an adviser. Assuming that people are able to stay passive the entire time and not make a single ""active"" decision is a very unfair assumption. There was a good study on this referenced in Forbes article below: https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2014/04/24/why-the-average-investors-investment-return-is-so-low/#5169be2b111a  Another issue is that there are a lot ""active managers"" that really just replicate their benchmarks and don't actually actively manage. If you look at active managers who really do have huge under-weights and over-weights relative to their benchmarks they actually tend to outperform them (look at the study below by martin cremers, he's one of the most highly respected researchers when it comes to investment performance research and the active vs passive debate)  http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/pdf/10.2469/faj.v73.n2.4  I guess what I'm trying to say is that for most people having an adviser (and paying them a 1% fee) is usually better than going it alone, where they are going to A. chase heat (I bet they always choose the hottest benchmark from the past few years) and B. make poor emotional decisions relating their finances." "It's a matter of social policy. The government wants people to make long term investments because that would lead to other long-term government goals: employment, manufacturing, economical growth in general. While speculative investments and day-trading are not in any way discouraged, investments that contribute to the economy as a whole and not just the investor are encouraged by the lower tax rates on the profits. While some people consider it to be a ""fig leaf"", I consider these people to be populists and dishonest. Claiming that long term social goals are somehow bad is hypocrisy. Claiming that short-term trading contributes to the economy as a whole is a plain lie."