Even our new CPI measures (CPI-U, CPI-W) do not fully account for the
inherent biases (namely substitution, outlet/wholesale, new product,
and quality variance).

Should they account for outlet/wholesale? Rhetorical question, though
you are welcome to respond.

In retirement accounts
snip
a few months ago I switched to 100% cash because
I think I can afford the risk of trying to time the market.
If I fail, I will chalk it up to experience, otherwise, I
will have saved myself some losses.

In retirement accounts I used to be 100% S&P, then
switched to 80% S&P/20% EAFE, then to
60% S&P/20% EAFE/20% cash, each time thinking
that was a good long-term allocation. Most recently,
a few months ago I switched to 100% cash

Outside of retirement accounts things are worse.
I started buying stocks in 1999 (because that's only
when I started having money to do so) and then the market
tanked. So ever since then, I've been claiming the
max capital loss. I do occasionally buy stocks now, but I
sell almost immediately as soon I have a small gain
(5-10%). But that's just for playing; it's not an investment
strategy.

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
In article
750876df-1349-415c-822d-32c3e0ecb20f@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
anoop <ghanwani@gmail.com> wrote:


There are a few other things that bother me about the current
situation:
- The way unemployment data are reported has been changed. So
the unemployment (using historical methods) is actually much higher
than is being reported.
- The way inflation is computed has been changed. Again, it is
way higher if historical methods are used.
- Finally, banks have tons of assets whose worth is unknown (CDOs).

Unemployment is always under reported in the current system.
They don't count people who have given up, or have rolled off
of the end of the system.

rolled off the end of what system?

Xho

Here in Minnesota, you typically only get 6 months of unemployment
checks Once you are done, you drop off the system. After a year,
you no longer get updates from them, unless you go back and
register again. Most people who haven't found a job within a
year simply drop of the system after a year, and they are no
longer counted as unemployed.

In article
750876df-1349-415c-822d-32c3e0ecb20f@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
anoop <ghanwani@gmail.com> wrote:


There are a few other things that bother me about the current
situation:
- The way unemployment data are reported has been changed. So
the unemployment (using historical methods) is actually much higher
than is being reported.
- The way inflation is computed has been changed. Again, it is
way higher if historical methods are used.
- Finally, banks have tons of assets whose worth is unknown (CDOs).

Unemployment is always under reported in the current system.
They don't count people who have given up, or have rolled off
of the end of the system.

Eh, no.  At least not as it relates to the normal headline unemployment number.
The headline number is from the household survey taken by the Feds.  They
contact a random number of households and ask "Are you employed?" and "If not,
are you looking for work?"   A person is counted as unemployed if the answers
are "No" and "Yes" respectively.  

On Aug 12, 2:22 pm, Douglas Johnson <p...@classtech.com> wrote:


Eh, no.  At least not as it relates to the normal headline unemployment number.
The headline number is from the household survey taken by the Feds.  They
contact a random number of households and ask "Are you employed?" and "If not,
are you looking for work?"   A person is counted as unemployed if the answers
are "No" and "Yes" respectively.  

Eh, still no. Your correct that the BLS does a current population
survey (CPS) monthly to determine the unemployment rate. But the BLS
is adamant that they never directly ask whether someone is employed
nor are interviewees allowed to decide their own employment status.

In article <20080812124519.774$eW@newsreader.com>, xhoster@gmail.com
wrote:
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:

Unemployment is always under reported in the current system.
They don't count people who have given up, or have rolled off
of the end of the system.

rolled off the end of what system?

Xho

Here in Minnesota, you typically only get 6 months of unemployment
checks Once you are done, you drop off the system.

After a year,
you no longer get updates from them, unless you go back and
register again. Most people who haven't found a job within a
year simply drop of the system after a year, and they are no
longer counted as unemployed.

What was the timing of each of those switches? Something every investor
needs to be conscious of is the human tendency to chase performance,
with the possible outcome being returns much worse than the long-term
average returns on the underlying asset classes (or stocks, or houses,
or whatever).

A Boston-based financial services research firm, Dalbar, inc, concluded
that

"For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor
earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8
percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index."

On Aug 12, 4:22 pm, joetaxpayer <joetaxpa...@nospam.com> wrote:


A Boston-based financial services research firm, Dalbar, inc, concluded
that

"For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor
earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8
percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index."


Joe, having not personally read the study, did that 4.1% retun take
taxes into account?

Although not a certainty, market timing is more likely to result in
short term cap gains than buy-and-hold investing. It's possible that
not only did stock fund investors underperform the benchmark, but they
incurred greater taxes to boot.

On Aug 12, 4:22 pm, joetaxpayer <joetaxpa...@nospam.com> wrote:

A Boston-based financial services research firm, Dalbar, inc, concluded
that

"For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor
earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8
percent for the Standard & Poor¹s 500 index."

Although not a certainty, market timing is more likely to result in
short term cap gains than buy-and-hold investing. It's possible that
not only did stock fund investors underperform the benchmark, but they
incurred greater taxes to boot.

Most recently,
a few months ago I switched to 100% cash because
I think I can afford the risk of trying to time the market.
If I fail, I will chalk it up to experience, otherwise, I
will have saved myself some losses. I don't know when
I will jump back in, but I probably will if the market
drops another 10% or so.