Time to Get Greedy

I won't sugarcoat it. Investors are nuts.

And not just the wise guys on Wall Street. I mean you and me. We're all nuts. I'll prove it.

If you liked it at $81 ...
We know the shtick. "If you liked Lucent at $81, you gotta love it at $50." I heard that New Year's Day 2001. Two years later, we were down another 90%. But let's not pick on Lucent.

It was much the same story for JDS Uniphase (Nasdaq: JDSU  ) and mighty Cisco Systems, too. Ouch. Could the exact same thing happen to today's highfliers? Sure. Will it happen? Who knows?

Either way, we'd be nuts to ignore the harsh lessons we learned from the last market crash, right? Not so fast. Here's why I'm getting greedy instead.

You probably should own stocks
I have to own stocks. I'm as likely to hold bonds and money markets as I am to take up competitive bridge -- at least for the next 20 years or so. To get where I want to go, I need capital gains.

And here's the catch: If we want to own stocks, we have to buy stocks. That is, unless you borrowed a ton of cash and gorged at the market bottom in 2003. Otherwise, stock investors like us have to keep buying. It's that simple.

Of course, we could sit on our hands for a while instead. But what exactly are we waiting for? The next market crash? So we can pay more later? That's nutty. The fact is, we simply can't know how today's prices will look one year from now -- just that over the long haul the trend is higher.

How to catch a falling knife
OK, it's time I showed a table. But before I do, I warn you -- it's scary. Scary enough to prevent you from having gotten burned in 2001? Yes, but it's even scarier for another reason.

Company

Peak

January 2001

Fall From January 2001 to Bottom

JDSU

$1,172

$314

(96%)

Cisco Systems

$80

$33

(73%)

Sun Microsystems (NASDAQ:JAVA)

$258

$102

(90%)

Oracle (NASDAQ:ORCL)

$45

$26

(69%)

Prices are split-adjusted.

You read that right. Even after their stomach-turning initial plunges, every one of those former highfliers fell an additional 69% to 96% between January 2001 and their respective bottoms somewhere in 2002 or early 2003. I told you it was grim.

Now it gets really scary
A glimpse of that table in March 2000 might have spared you some pain. But what about when the market plunged 39% in 12 days in October 1987? Or when Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) and JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM  ) "cratered" in 1991 ... or earlier this month ... or any other time stocks pulled back 10% or more? You see where I'm going with this, right?

Not only would that one little table have kept you from picking up some terrific bargains, but it also could have kept you on the sidelines, looking on as everybody around you got wealthy. And you'd probably still be out of the market now. If you ask me, that's worse than trying to catch a thousand falling knives.

So, where are we now?
I honestly don't know. Housing is grim. Oil is killing us. Credit is tight, and Ben Bernanke is walking on eggshells. And, yes, I'm hearing sporadic predictions that this time it really is different, and stocks aren't coming back. But I'm not buying it. This is not even March 2000.

Remember, every stock in the table we just saw had run up 10-fold before heading south. We didn't know for certain we were in a bubble then, but we did know that stocks, especially tech stocks, were more expensive than they'd ever been before. Is that the case today? I don't think so.

Not even for strong businesses like the small caps that my colleague Bill Mann is sharing with his Motley Fool Hidden Gems subscribers. True, more than a dozen of those picks have doubled since Bill and his team found them. But that's just strong performance. Many of the best small caps have since pulled back.

Living well is the best revenge
That's why I'll continue to buy on weakness. I've been nibbling on casual diner Buffalo Wild Wings (Nasdaq: BWLD  ) , one of the stocks I mentioned that had doubled for Hidden Gems members before recently pulling back. I might buy more. In fact, I have my eye on the Hidden Gems scorecard top to bottom.

But that doesn't mean stocks can't go lower from here. A lot of folks think they will. Then again, a lot of folks always think stocks are going lower. Which is strange, given that the long-term trend has always been up. That's why I say we have to own stocks.

Moreover, even if I can't predict where the markets are headed near-term, it's almost certain that America's top companies will head higher over the long haul -- no matter what happens to "the market." For the life of me, I can't see how we can avoid buying them.

Finally, a word of warning
That table I showed you earlier is real, and a lot of investors got hurt. The lesson, however, isn't that you should avoid stocks. It's that you have to be selective and patient. When it comes to small caps, there's certainly no shame in buying a low-cost exchange-traded fund -- I own two myself. But I also know something better.

Bill and his team are bargain-hunting, too. This month in Hidden Gems, in addition to his two new picks, Bill ranks his five favorite small-cap stocks for new money right now. All five are listed for you in the new issue and online.

You can check it out, plus see every past pick and read all back issues, in about five minutes -- at no cost and with no pressure to subscribe. To see how easy it is, click here.

This article was originally published on July 19, 2006. It has been updated.

Fool writer Paul Elliott owns shares of Buffalo Wild Wings. The Motley Fool owns shares of Buffalo Wild Wings, too. As of this morning, Hidden Gems picks are up on average 29.2%, versus 5.9% for the S&P 500. You can see them all immediately with your 30-day free trial. Buffalo Wild Wings is a Hidden Gems pick. JPMorgan Chase is an Income Investor recommendation. The Motley Fool is investors writing for investors.


Read/Post Comments (5) | Recommend This Article (11)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On April 04, 2008, at 9:57 AM, milbarb wrote:

    Wouldn't be nice if all these newsletters took a number like $10000 and invested in each of their top picks each month for a year. We keep hearing about the great gains in their winners. Lets look at the whole picture. I have seen big losses with the Motley Fool and I think the above suggestion would show everyone what the net gains or losses would be for the year. Let the year begin in January and end in Dec. We would then see who the real stock pickers are.

  • Report this Comment On April 04, 2008, at 1:11 PM, hobbitmage wrote:

    milbarb,

    I think you've missed the point of the Motley Fool philosophy. 1 year would be a short-term investment according to their definitions. According to their definitions, they are not short-term investors but long term investors. They propose holding for a 3 - 5 year period as a minimum.

    If you do not hold with these definitions, then their philosophy doesn't work for you.

    Best Wishes

  • Report this Comment On April 04, 2008, at 1:26 PM, michlav1 wrote:

    Doing what you suggest misses the whole point. The Motley Fool is in it for the long haul, not just buying stocks and then selling them after 1 year.

    The long haul is at least 3-5 years and even decades for buy-and-hold investors, which is what the Fool teaches.

  • Report this Comment On April 04, 2008, at 2:48 PM, michlav1 wrote:

    I wasn't riding your coattails there hobbitmage I just had the window open to my post for half an hour before posting.

    Guess I should have refreshed!

  • Report this Comment On April 04, 2008, at 5:17 PM, bridgeboy0 wrote:

    Don't be knocking competitive bridge...

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 609663, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/25/2014 9:53:34 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement