Trying to Time the Market

Market timing is one of the all-time great myths of investing.

There is no strategy that consistenly tells you when to be in the market and when to be out of it, and anyone who says otherwise usually has a market-timing service to sell you.

Consider an interesting study in the February 2001 issue of Financial Analysts Journal, which looked at the difference between buy-and-hold and market-timing strategies from 1926 through 1999 using a very elegant method.

They compared the results of a buy-and-hold strategy with all of the possible market-timing strategies to see what percentage of the timing combinations produced a return greater than simply buying and holding.

The answer? About one-third of the possible monthly market-timing combinations beat the buy-and-hold strategy. You may be thinking, "I have a 33% chance of beating the market if I try to time it. I'll take those odds!" But before you run out and subscribe to some timing service, consider three issues:

1. The results in the paper cited previously OVERSTATE the benefits of timing because they looked at each year as a discrete period - which means they ignore the benefits of compounding (as long as you assume that the market will generally rise over long periods of time, that is).

2. Stock market returns are highly skewed - that is, the bulk of the returns (positve and negative) from any given year comes from relatively few days in that year. This means that the risk of NOT being in the market is high for anyone looking to build wealth over a long period of time.

3. Not a single one of the thousands of funds Morningstar has tracked over the past two decades has been able to consistently time the market. Sure, some funds have made the occasional great call, but none have posted any kind of superior track record by jumping frequently in and out of the market based on the signals generated by the quantitative model.

That's pretty powerful evidence that market timing is not a viable strategy because running a mutual fund is a very profitable business - if someone had figured out a way to reliably time the market, you can bet your life they'd have started a fund to do so.

I love to invest in good quality long-term profitable growth businesses available at reasonable or bargain prices. Yet, growth can be good and can also be bad. Let's take a look.

A framework for distinguishing good from bad growth is a crucial element in generating revenue growth.

Good growth:

not only increases revenues but improves profits,

is sustainable over time, and

does not use unacceptable levels of capital.

is also primarily organic (internally generated) and

based on differentiated products and services that fill new or unmet needs, creating value for customers.

The ability to generate internal growth separates leaders who build their businesses on a solid foundation of long-term profitable growth from those who, through acquisitions and financial engineering, increase revenues like crazy but who create that growth on shaky footings that ultimately crumble.

Many acquisitions provide a one-shot improvement, as duplicative costs are removed from the combined companies. But few, if any, demonstrate any significant improvement in the RATE of growth of revenues.