After a long time I am not writing the blog but now I am available with more analysis on stock and give you a crystal clear analysis of stocks with targets for short term and long term.
I read some books and I want to share with you some knowledge from the books that I read so that all of you can understand the some important point its related to 200 DMA.
Stocks are purchased when a broad
market benchmark is above its 200-day moving average, and stocks are sold when
the market benchmark falls below its 200-day moving average. Though there are
variations in the type of the moving average used, the basic premise is the
same: Own stocks when the market is above the indicator and sell stocks when the
market is below it.
In his new fifth edition of “Stocks for the Long
Run” (McGraw-Hill, 2014), Jeremy Siegel looked at whether this strategy is
beneficial. He ran the numbers from 1886 through 2012 using the Dow Jones
industrial average. He applied a 1% band, meaning the Dow had to be at least 1%
above its 200-day moving average to trigger a buy signal or at least 1% below
its 200-day moving average to trigger a sell signal. The band is important
because it reduced the number of transactions. Without it, an investor would be
frequently jumping in and out, driving up transaction costs in the process.
Siegel also assumed end-of-day prices were used.
Following the 200-day moving average timing strategy would have kept an
investor out of the worst market downturns. Specifically, the investor would
have avoided the large losses endured during both Black Tuesday (October 29,
1929) and Black Monday (October 19, 1987). The strategy would have also helped
the investor avoid the 2007-2009 bear market.
Commenting on the results,
Siegel observed, “The timing strategist participates in most bull markets and
avoids bear markets, but the losses suffered when the market fluctuates with
little trend are significant.” He added, “The timing strategy involves a large
number of small losses that come from moving in and out of the market.”
Jeremy’s calculations show the 1886-2012 annualized return from the
timing strategy dropping from 9.73% to 8.11% once transaction costs are factored
in. In contrast, the buy and hold strategy realized a 9.39% return. If the
1929-1932 crash is excluded, the buy and hold strategy looks even better: A
10.6% annualized return versus annualized returns of 9.92% and 8.38% for the
timing strategy (without and with transaction costs, respectively).
One
advantage the 200-day moving average timing strategy did have was reduced risk.
With the exception of 1990-2012, the timing strategy incurred less risk than the
buy and hold strategy for every period and subperiod studied. This is due to the
avoidance of the market’s big downward drops.
There is one consideration
not factored into Siegel’s analysis: investor psychology. If an investor lacked
cold-as-steel nerves and either failed to sell or buy stocks when triggered, the
timing strategy’s performance would be much worse. This is because by not acting
appropriately, the investor would have missed out on the benefits the strategy
was designed to provide.
This is the inherent problem with all trading
strategies. An investor who is psychologically unable to stick with them during
turbulent market conditions is always better off with a buy and hold strategy.
It does not matter how well a trading strategy has performed in the past; if an
investor cannot stick to it in all market conditions, his portfolio will suffer.
A simple formula to remember is portfolio return equals strategy performance
less transaction costs and behavioral errors. A sound strategy that incurs the
lowest combination of transaction costs and behavioral errors is the one that
will allow you personally to realize the largest long-term gains.
Hope this will helps you for the future.
Thanks,
Cheers
Chirag CM .
