CI Market Dashboard

We have put together a collection of market indicators and track them to help you gauge the direction of the market.


CI Analysis Worksheets

Interactive analysis templates covering DuPont analysis (return on equity), valuing stocks the Warren Buffett way, and more to come.


CI Blog Feed

Mac OS X 10.10 Yosemite Available Today
posted 2 hours ago by Wayne Thorp

Apple’s Third Quarter Tops Estimates
posted 13 hours ago by Wayne Thorp

Nokia Hurts Microsoft’s Earnings
posted 14 hours ago by Wayne Thorp

WSJ: Ukrainian Conflict Hurting Tech Sector
posted 1 day ago by Wayne Thorp

Report: Apple Readying Production of iPhone 6
posted 1 day ago by Wayne Thorp



Computerized Investing > September 2009

Beating the Market With Charles Kirkpatrick

PRINT | | | | COMMENTS (5) | A A   Reset

by Wayne A. Thorp, CFA

The market downturn over the last year or so has been a nightmare for many investors. On one end of the spectrum are the “buy and hold” investors who saw their portfolios battered by the broad-based decline in equities. On the opposite end are those who abandoned the equity market completely after taking large losses and who are still sitting on the sidelines. For those needing their money in the next five to seven years, such a move makes perfect sense. However, those with a longer time horizon are probably kicking themselves now that the Wilshire 5000 is up over 40% since its lows of early March. Others are paralyzed by the prospects of a “double-dip” market decline.

Charles Kirkpatrick’s book, “Beat the Market: Invest by Knowing What Stocks to Buy and What Stocks to Sell” (FT Press, 2008), seems to have been written exactly with this scenario in mind. Kirkpatrick believes that the stock market is still the best investment vehicle available, but also thinks it is impossible to predict the market, or the economy. He outlines stockpicking and portfolio management strategies that he believes individual investors can follow to outperform the market while reducing the risk of capital loss.

...To continue reading this article you must be a Computerized Investing Subscriber.

Gain exclusive access to this article and all of the benefits and investment education a Computerized Investing subscription offers.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY for just $24.
Log in
Already a CI subscriber? Login to read the rest of this article.

Subscribe
A subscription to Computerized Investing includes a monthly email and access to the CI Website, all of which aim to benefit your investing skills with respect to computers and the Internet.

  


Discussion

Mark from MD posted over 2 years ago:

I am reading (and posting) this in January of 2012 - nearly three years after the column was written. But it took me until about halfway through the piece to realize that, and put it in a temporal context.

I really wish AAII would briefly note in their "Computerized Investing" emails that they are linking you to an old article because they have nothing new to send along. Many or most of the principles may still be useful, but it's jarring and confusing to have something presented as implied "new" when it is actually rehashed from the previous decade.


Jw from UT posted over 2 years ago:

Mark-- I agree with you. I have noticed the same thing. I think if there are no new articles, they should just say so. Recycling the old ones is not cool unless maybe they add a section called "Old Articles" or something so I can maybe skip it. Is AAII reading these comments?


Wayne from IL posted over 2 years ago:

Thank you for your comments. The original publication date of each article we link to is provided at the top of the article. In this case, September 2009. As Mark noted, we link to old articles because the concepts themselves are timeless. We also do this to make readers aware of the deep archive of articles they have at their disposal. Wayne A. Thorp, CFA, editor, Computerized Investing.


James from WA posted over 2 years ago:

Wayne: FOr me, it would add some value if AAII added some updated information. e.g., a simple Editor's note or other reference to a recent Mark Hulbert or similar study that proves or disproves or otherwise addressess the article's thesis. This article screams for a Mark Hulbert type validation - yet the original article and this republished version do not mention such outside objective conclusions.


John from NY posted over 2 years ago:

LIke the other comments I feel that the article date should appear in the email prior to hitting the link where the article is shown. The email says nothing about when the piece was written.

This email is just a re-run of a re-run which could be certainly be informative but to me is frustrating when I thought I was accessing updated material. I didn't realize it until I was half way through it.


You need to log in as a registered AAII user before commenting.
Create an account

Log In