SureTrader
Home > Boards > Free Zone > A.I.M. > A.I.M. Users Bulletin Board (AIMUSERS)

Is AIM better than alternatives such as yearly

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (1) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
ls7550 Member Profile
 
Followed By 12
Posts 2,328
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 01/05/04
160x600 placeholder
Dow Closes At 2-year Low, Dogged By Global Market Turmoil
Financials crumble; investors flock to gold, Treasurys The Dow industrials and S&P 500 rang up their fifth losing day in a row...
Top Equities Stories Of The Day
Boeing Shares Fall on Accounting Probe Report -- Update
Star Wars' Is the Force Behind Strong Hasbro Sales -- Update
Andreessen Horowitz Sells Some Lyft Shares to Prince Al-Waleed
J.P. Morgan CEO Buys 500,000 of Bank's Shares
U.S. Judge Questions Regulators on MetLife Designation
Panel Recommends FDA Approval of Remicade Knockoff
Morgan Stanley Shuffles Wealth-Management Ranks -- Street Moves
U.S. Treasury's Lew Challenges EU on Corporate Tax Investigations
ls7550   Wednesday, 05/02/12 08:15:44 AM
Re: Adam post# 35446
Post # of 40358 
Is AIM better than alternatives such as yearly rebalancing back to target weightings?

Overall my guess is they're much the same. A big difference however is that you're more likely to actually rebalance under AIM than you are if you're left to manually manage the holdings. With manual management you have the added risk that you'll find reasons not to reduce something that has been winning or add to something that has relatively lagged/declined.

AIM is also 60-40 or 50-50 or 75-25 stock/cash based, which can achieve similar rewards to 100% all in. With 100% all in you run the risk that whatever price you paid for that stock will reflect the longer term rewards achieved from holding that stock. If you paid a high price then long term rewards can be dismal. Buy at the right time and rewards can be great. With 50-50 or whatever, if you overpaid initially likely you'll buy some more later at a lower price and cost average down the average cost of stock. If you bought in at a bargain then likely you'll sell some (profit take) and some of those gains might help counter another holding that was bought at a relatively high price.

If there's 50-50 chance of overpaying or buying cheaply a single stock/holding, you might hold one that achieves a 10% real (after inflation) gain and another that achieves a 0% real gain. For a combined average of a 5% real gain (assuming similar amounts invested in both). In contrast with AIM you're more likely to cost average both stocks towards a 5% midway overall average real gain.

Whilst leveraged funds might not be great investments and hide other risks (counter party swap risk etc.), I suspect that if used wisely then can help with cost-averaging by reducing downside risk, improving upside potential when compared like for like with 1x (such as holding 25% in a 2x instead of 50% in a 1x).

SureTrader
Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last ReadPost New MsgReplies (1) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Follow Board Follow Board Keyboard Shortcuts Report TOS Violation
X
Current Price
Change
Volume
Detailed Quote - Discussion Board
Intraday Chart
+/- to Watchlist