Most Shares Are Losers

The 75% rubbish shares? That'll be my portfolio. Who can tell the good from the bad? If it were simply a matter of learning how to read a balance sheet all accountants would be rich and would not be grubbing round working as trustees for bankrupts, or doing minicab drivers' accounts.
Some traders have done ok because they 'knew' something but for the rest of us the only thing that makes sense, in my 10 years' experience, is using charts. You at least can generate some criteria, finding support and resistance, and adapting when a new development takes place.
The debate about stops was made here recently, but it is the one big loser in the portfolio that negates profits.
You simply have to cut losses.
I failed to see Barclays as a buy, as it made no sense that it had fallen so far, it's still a good business, but we are in a new era.

So where does this leave me. I am 62 years old and have just over £100,000 in my SIPP. There would have been more, but previous spells with Scottish Widows and Standard Life, have seen to at least £20,000.

My SIPP provider only gives a miserly return on my funds, and expects me to invest in the equities and bond market to get a better return. I do not want to wait to retire before the market picks up.

To Pedro105:

£100,000 is a huge pension fund by most people's standards. SIPPs are a highly specialised form of pension wrapper and are not suitable for everyone. It's natural that they would expect you to invest in some real assets, as the SIPP bank account will only pay a rate of interest that is in line with the currently puny base rate.

If you're wary of equities, there are lots of SIPP eligible investments that are much less volatile but will still give you a good return. What about government bonds? Structured Products? For someone at age 62, there is no way you should be putting all the fund, or even half the fund in equities.

You sometimes see this on television when someone five years from retirement claims that they had lost a quarter of their pension fund, but then admits that they were 100% invested in equities. You need to make your fund increasingly defensively positioned as you move closer to retirement.

Jbat001

I can't see how £100K is a big pension fund!

At age 62 it would only given an index linked pension of £4,000! If 25% were taken out upon retirement, £3,000.

So, imagine retiring at 65: this would give a pension of £3,200 plus a state pension of £4,940, or combined £8,140. Without any pension provision i.e someone who had never worked, the minimum would be £6,760.

Hardly seems worth providing for does it? Especially as you probably own your own house too, & someone who'd never worked would still be able to claim £6,000 rent.

If you're not in a FS scheme, you are screwed.Another thing they dodn't close for those B*stard banks.

Pedro105 - work as long as you can, because any money may be tough to come by in the next 10 years - as the golden aged of debt fuelled stupidity will only result in hardship inflation & probably war like every other collapse has. Commodities like oil, gas,gold, silver & arable land will be the most secure sectors.

The only advantage of creating your own fund is that you have some financial independence. Pension credits etc are at the whim of the government. I do agree though that if you can't create a fund worth at least £200K it may not be worth bothering at all. How depressing...

Hate to be a pedant, but 75% of the market giving an annualised loss of 2.1% does not support the title "Most Shares Are Losers", however catchy that might be. For the latter to be true then (rather obviously) >50% of shares all need to lose. These two statements are patently not the same thing.

The only thing I find extraordinary about the finding of the research is that people find it extraordinary that most businesses are losers. That's the nature of competition, a few winners (one in each market sector) and the rest losers. Which is why, using the example of the commercial property market, I think landlords that are helping to bail out troubled retailers by allowing them rent concessions and so on are interfering with market forces.

The thing about companies that have been up with the leaders but may now be falling behind is that where they were did not mean that was their rightful place. Too many businesses are run on borrowed money which if not managed properly can destroy shareholder value.

What the private investor suffers from is a lack of uninformed long-term and critical thinking. There is too much not wanting to hurt the feelings of hype. The way to be a winner is to have foresight, to anticipate change and act accordingly, so as to never come unstuck. Too many CEOs are only there for the ride and the perks and when the going gets tough they get going somewhere else.

The finance services industry excels at hype. In my opinion, when you read between the lines and listen to what is not being said, you want a positive feeling. Anything else is investment based on wishful-thinking.

At times like these the first question I am asking myself when considering what shares to invest in is: 'Where's the growth going to come from?'

That means that the current oil bubble is out for the moment for example and that banks might ironically be one of the answers.