3 Ways To Lose Money In 2010

Published in Investing Strategy on 13 January 2010

Follow the crowd and you'll end up on the financial scrap heap.

If you frequent any kind of investment or finance-related websites, you've no doubt run across a multitude of articles telling you how to invest in the new year. Of course, we've been guilty of that too.

So, there is no shortage of sources telling you where the next big money-maker in the market will be. But I'm here to tell you how to do just the opposite -- and lose big in 2010. Not everyone can be a huge investment loser, but if you follow these few simple tips, you'll be on the fast track to wallowing in red ink before you know it!

1. Blindly follow trends, just because everyone else is

When it comes to investing, nothing gets you behind the pack quicker than following the herd. Don't think about what makes sense for your portfolio or about current valuations -- just take your Uncle John's stock tips to heart.

For example, investors seem to have reacted to 2008's market swoon by rediscovering their love for bonds. In the US, according to Morningstar data, up to November of last year, bond funds saw inflows of $320 billion of new assets, while equity fund inflows remained relatively flat. It's a similar story in the UK.

While a flight to perceived safety is understandable in light of what the global economy is going through, bond investors are going to miss any further rebound by shifting assets out of the stock market too late.

In addition, interest rates will likely start rising sometime this year, which means bond prices really have nowhere to go but down. Moving significant portions of your portfolio into bonds right now seems like a sure-fire way to lag the market in the long run.

Likewise, make sure you jump head-first into the gold rush. Concerns over future inflation and general economic uncertainty have driven gold prices up tremendously in recently years.

Every man and his two dogs are talking about gold. Some of the more unsavoury ads are urging people to sell their gold jewellery and get on board the gold train -- a sure sign that gold is entering a speculative phase.

Perhaps gold prices have further to rise, but the truth is that over the long run, gold simply hasn't produced returns that are competitive with shares. There are some solid gold-related mining companies like Randgold Resources (LSE: RRS) and Hochschild Mining (LSE: HOC) that might be worth owning, but making sensible investments is a sucker's game.

People who want to lose money know they need to jump on whatever bandwagon is now leaving the station and ride it as long as the general public tells them it's a good idea.

2. Invest in whatever has been doing well lately

The stock market rally that started in March 2009 has been primarily focused on lower-quality companies and troubled names, including beaten-down financials such as Royal Bank of Scotland (LSE: RBS) and Lloyds Banking Group (LSE: LLOY).

But a rally can't be sustained indefinitely on the backs of companies with less stable financial conditions. I'm betting that higher-quality, blue-chip names are likely to be the next market leaders.

For example, top-tier pharmaceutical names like GlaxoSmithKline (LSE: GSK) and Astrazeneca (LSE: AZN) are reasonably priced options that are likely to benefit tremendously from impending health-care reform legislation in the US.

So if you're looking to lose money, that means that you should stay far away from shares like that and instead stick to higher-risk, small-cap names with shaky balance sheets.

After all, that's what's been doing well lately, and it's hard to shun a stock or area of the market that's doubled in the space of less than a year. So don't do the hard work of figuring out what sector or stocks are more attractive -- just extrapolate past performance into the future.

3. Be very afraid of the stock market

Investors have a notorious "buy high, sell low" mentality. After the market dropped in 2008-2009, suddenly cash was all the rage. Savings accounts attracted cash like never before as investors let their fear of the market take over.

Of course, most of the market drop was over by the time people moved to cash, underscoring the rear-view mirror approach to investing so many employ. Never mind that because the last decade was so pathetic for shares, the next 10 years are likely to be above-average years.

Just let your fears control you, and remind yourself that the market can't possibly do well over the long run. Stuff your money under the mattress and wait out the next decade on the sidelines.

No one knows exactly what the new year will bring for the economy or for the stock market, but if you want to enter 2011 with less money than you have now, following trends and chasing market performance are the surest ways to get the job done. It's up to you to decide whether you follow this path or step away from the herd and blaze your own trail in 2010.

More on the economy and the markets:

> We won't be making any of these mistakes with our £50,000 real-money portfolio at Champion Shares PRO. This service has been shut to new members since October but will shortly be opening for a strictly limited period of time. Leave your details here to ensure you don't miss out on the chance to apply. 

> A version of this article was originally published on Fool.com. It has been updated by Bruce Jackson, who has an interest in GlaxoSmithKline and Astrazeneca.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

YNOSITHE 14 Jan 2010 , 1:25pm

I think in 2010 Defensive stocks will outperform, but untill at least May the cyclicals will do well.
It isn't a complete dash for trash - interest rates are at 100 year lows, banks are slimmer, meaner as well as hoarding cash like there's no tomorrow.
O.K. the property market may be down, but does anyone expect it to stay down forever in light of how good an investment property has been since at least 1945.
In 1977 you could get a good house for £78,000 even with property devaluations, that house would be worth at least £250,000 +
I would also point out that the Chairman of Barclays Bank has a stake of over 3 million shares in Barclays at todays price - that stake is in excess of £26 MILLION POUNDS, I don't think he's expecting his company to do to badly !!!!!
It is also worth noting that directors have been aquiring shares in both Legal & General as well as Aviva, with NO DIRECTOR SELLS.
Directors have an excellant idea of how their business is doing and would not committ large sums of their hard earned cash if they followed public trends - these guys have a first hand insight into their own business.
I have not as yet checked the stats on Glaxo or AstraZeneca director sharedealing, but I think its a little early to dump the financials.
In the case of RBS that could be worth a dump as Chairman Stephen Hestor has made a few large director sells which are available to view.

tonygogo 14 Jan 2010 , 2:06pm

Is there no hope for the beaten-down financials RBS and Lloyds Bank? Their share prices are still relatively low, but is that a reason to avoid them? Surely the herd instinct at the moment is to avoid them, but are they long-term no-hopers? This is a genuine question - I bought both recently and cheaply for the long term. Was I foolish?

UpHillAllTheWay 14 Jan 2010 , 4:30pm

You say "bond investors are going to miss any further rebound" Can you really guarrantee there's going to be one? If there's a second dip to this recession, they'll also miss that.

You also said "Some of the more unsavoury ads are urging people to sell their gold jewellery and get on board the gold train". How do you get onto the gold train by selling gold?

YNOSITHE, when you say that in 1977 you could get a good house for £78,000, and that now, that house would be worth at least £250,000, (3.2 times) don't forget the cost of living. How much was the average salary in 1977? It all comes down to how many grocery baskets the house would have cost then and now. In fact, I think property is more expensive even in those terms now, but in terms of grocery baskets, it won't have appreciated 3.2 times.

UpHillAllTheWay 14 Jan 2010 , 4:41pm

Cntinuing from my post above, there are some grocery prices on http://cpsinsurance.com/annuity/client_handouts/Grocery%20Bag%20Index.pdf

They are in dollars, so it's American, but it's an indication all the same.

1961 - $2.54
1976 - $5.08
1999 - $9.91
2010 - $15.26

... so from 1976 (not '78) the cost of living for an average American family climbed 3 times.

RobinnBanks 14 Jan 2010 , 5:36pm

Can't say I like this 'negative' style of article, pointing out how thick we are, encouraging us to go with the herd. Give us some positive advice for good results - if you can!

bouleversee 14 Jan 2010 , 10:46pm

From my own experience, house prices have increased far, far more than the figure you gave. Having had bad luck with my husband's pension, we sold our house in May as we needed to increase our income and I wouldn't mind betting that it continues to increase at a faster rate over the long term than anything else we put the spare cash realised in.

Having read this article, I am still not clear as to what we are supposed to be investing in.

bouleversee 14 Jan 2010 , 10:50pm

P.S. Sorry, I should have said in May 2008, when prices had already dropped somewhat.

YNOSITHE 19 Jan 2010 , 1:54pm

I dont think theres anything wrong with Barclays or Lloyds Banking Group.
Barclays at 311p PE ratio of 5.4 and Lloyds at 57p PE ratio of 8.3 are undervalued.
Barclays bought Lehman Bros at a fraction of its value and is now amongst the top 5 deal making brokerages in the world.
With houseprices moving up, this will help reduce the right downs of both Lloyds and Barclays.
With people cutting back debt and repaying more of their loans, this will help the balance sheets of both banks.
You also have to give time for Barclays aquisition of Lehman Bros and Lloyds purchase of HBOS to filter through.
Both banks have cut staff and are lean mean machines, also Lloyds with the purchase of HBOS could cut staff numbers by 25% and overlapping branches by a similar number, thus increasing its profitability.
Drug stocks are considered good defensives, but patents on drugs run out - research, development, drug trials are expensive and by no means certain of getting FDA approval.

nogger 21 Jan 2010 , 7:12pm

I disagree strongly with the following comment

"Some of the more unsavoury ads are urging people to sell their gold jewellery and get on board the gold train -- a sure sign that gold is entering a speculative phase."

This belief shows that yet another supposed Fool has a 'foolish' attitude regarding gold (which by the way is in the early stages of a massive bull market)

As uphillalltheway suggested above, urging people to cash in on gold by selling now does not portend lower prices ahead. (Government officials in China for example are urging the people there to invest in the metal.)

It will merely serve to make above-ground gold more scare, and thus adding momentum to the bull market.

It bugs me how nobody at the Fool seems to understand the crucial role of gold in basic economics, and blindly follow Keynesian philosophies that are proving to be wrong.

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.