Fool Answers: Is Buy-and-Hold Dead?

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

Got questions? We've got answers. So fire away via email (at, in the comments box below, or on the discussion boards (if you're into more immediate gratification).

Q: Is buy-and-hold an outdated strategy?
The buy-and-hold investing philosophy makes sense in "normal times." But is it really the best approach now that we may be in a recession of unprecedented magnitude? -- Signed, Itchy Trigger Finger

A: Stop me if you've heard this one before: Since 1926, a whole lot of bad things have happened -- the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, racial tensions, assassinations, presidential impeachments, oil embargoes, and now this: WTF 2.0* (as I like to call it until the news networks officially come up with a name). Since that time, the stock market has delivered a compound average annual return between 9% and 10%.

That's the standard reply that financial writers, advisors and massage therapists are obliged to give. With that out of the way -- and likely providing a lot less comfort than a Snuggie and a stiff drink -- let's dig deeper and ask the obvious question: If not buy-and-hold, then what?

Market timing, that's what!
The only real alternative to buy-and-hold is market timing -- timing your purchases based on the short-term movements of the market (or of a specific stock). The goal is to buy at the bottom when prices are cheap, sell at the peak, and take your profit -- getting in, getting out, getting in and out, ad infinitum.

You want to know how well has that strategy works in real life? Paint me unimpressed.

Our resident research junkie, Rule Your Retirement's Robert Brokamp, cited a study in this month's issue that reveals the best-case-scenario for market timing:

A 2005 study titled "A Comparison and Evaluation of Market Timing Strategies" found that before transaction costs, all but one of the strategies studied beat a buy-and-hold strategy. "In pure return terms," wrote the authors, "the best rule, based on the difference between the earnings-price ratio and short-term Treasury yields, earns average returns of 0.96% per month (12.1% annualized), compared with 0.94% [11.9% annualized] for buying and holding the equity index." I don't know about you, but a strategy that beats the market by 0.2% a year before transaction costs and taxes doesn't sound too impressive to me -- and that's the best one.

I'm with you, Robert: If I'm going to switch to an investing strategy that requires full-time babysitting and 24-7 shackles to the computer and CNBC, a zero-point-something-percent advantage just doesn't cut it. That brings us back to buy-and-hold drawing board.

Why the best subscribe to buy-and-hold
From Benjamin Graham to Warren Buffett to Peter Lynch to the investing icons with names my spell check doesn't recognize, the truly great investors are marked by their long-term commitments to their investments.

No wonder. For quality-of-life reasons alone, taking a long-term view frees you up to:

  • Concentrate on what you love. Look for solid companies through old-fashioned fundamental research, then find the ones you want to go into business with as stockholders.
  • Keep your wits about you during temporary setbacks. Too many investors get shaken out of a great investment -- and robbed of enormous gains -- when they get the jitters.
  • Save money on commissions and taxes. That money can be put to use in other promising investments, instead of penalizing the returns of those who trade in and out of stocks.

Not just anyone can be a buy-and-hold investor, either. It's a critical edge that small investors have over big institutions, according to Aswath Damodaran, an award-winning professor of finance at New York University. Here's what he said in an interview with our Motley Fool Hidden Gems newsletter service in 2005:

A Fidelity or a State Street can't afford to hold onto stocks for five years. They have too many competitive pressures forcing them to be much more short term. You or I own our own portfolios. We can buy and hold with two constraints. One is liquidity. The other is you have got to get your spouse to agree to whatever you bought. And those are surmountable, right?

Consider the institutional ownership of these top-tier companies (as of last quarter):


Institutional Ownership

Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL  )


Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ  )


McDonald's (NYSE: MCD  )


Merck (NYSE: MRK  )


Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG  )


PepsiCo (NYSE: PEP  )


ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM  )


Source: Yahoo! Finance.

You get the gist, right? The little guy (that's us!) can make a mint feeding off of their castoffs and reap the rewards that come from the ability to hold on to our shares in good times and bad.

A strategy that's better than buy-and-hold
Despite being an easier sell to your spouse, and statistically a safer bet, we do concede that the whole buy-and-hold mantra is not perfect. "Buy and hold" oversimplifies the underlying philosophy: Too many people misinterpret it as "buy-and-hold-on-no-matter-what" -- the kind of thinking that leads to holding on to the losers in your portfolio for way too long. (See "Why You Should Sell" if that describes you.) That's why we have a slightly different spin on that crusty old buy-and-hold approach.

"Buy TO hold" better reflects the true intention of the founding fathers of long-term investing. When you buy to hold, you commit to sticking it out for as long as it takes your investing thesis to fully play out. Hopefully, that's at least three or five years, or longer. Anything less tends to lead to ulcers. (For those with a decade to spare and a bent toward income-producing stocks, here are 10 dividend stock ideas to consider.)

However, if something happens to upend your original thesis, bought-and-sold is the way to go.

When to switch to the bought-and-sold strategy
"Sell" is not a four-letter word in Fooldom. If we make a mistake in our business analysis, or if the company moves in an altogether different direction than we expected (and not a good one), we sell.

Sell criteria should not be based solely on what the market is doing at any point in time. It's all about each company in your portfolio and your long-term investment thesis. Buy-to-hold investors are concerned with game-changing events -- things that wipe out a company's competitive advantage or stress out a company's underlying financials beyond repair.

Game-changing events happen in good times and bad. Perhaps a failed drug trial halves a pharmaceutical company's share price, or a rumor about a new technology drives up a company's share price to unsustainable heights.

While your aim should be to sell as rarely as possible, ultimately, buy-to-hold simply means doing your homework, finding great businesses you want to stick with for a while, and checking in regularly to revisit your investment thesis or rebalance.

Get real answers: Got a pressing financial question? Simply type your question in the comments field below, or email us at We cannot respond to every question we get, particularly ones about specific investments (our lawyers make us say that). So to increase your chances of getting your question answered on, keep it fairly broad and relevant. And sign it with a funny name.

*WTF 2.0: We're Traumatized Forever. What did you think it stood for?

Despite some lingering commitment issues (and perhaps simply due to laziness), Dayana Yochim has held most of her investments for more than 10 years. She owns none of the companies mentioned in this article. Johnson & Johnson, Pepsico, and Procter & Gamble are Motley Fool Income Investor selections. Apple is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor recommendation. The Fool owns shares of Procter & Gamble. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Read/Post Comments (6) | Recommend This Article (23)

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 March 20, 2009, at 12:18 PM, pondee619 wrote:

    world tennis federation

  • Report this Comment On March 20, 2009, at 12:20 PM, G880nions wrote:

    More Buffett quotes This must be the Buffett Fool....3 articles....all about what Buffett thinks...amazing...

  • Report this Comment On March 20, 2009, at 2:30 PM, dudemonkey wrote:

    Thank you for this article! I have been seeing a lot of "buy and hold is dead" sentiment when this is ta good time to be buying shares of solid companies that have outstanding balance sheets. The best part is that it's even easier to tell which companies have been "swimming naked" to extend the Buffett quotes.

  • Report this Comment On March 20, 2009, at 3:21 PM, maxhoffa wrote:

    i think you have to mix and match your strategy to the market and the sector and the individual company . . . clearly some companies are buy and hold in this environment: either you think they'll be here in another 5 years at triple the share price, paying dividends, or you don't. who cares where they're at a month from now? but on the other hand, the wild market swings provide a great opportunity to capitalize on the shorter plays.

    buy and hold, or buy to hold, whatever, as a stand-alone investment strategy . . . i'll pass. but as part of an overall investment strategy to capitalize on long term upside along with short term volatility (day trading) . . . sure.

  • Report this Comment On March 20, 2009, at 3:40 PM, rupneu1 wrote:

    The buy and hold strategy is good for strong companies with strong balance sheet, and future earning potentials. And with buy and hold strategy, you still need to go through quarterly and annual reports to make sure you are still holding strong companies. If you find out that the company is not doing well, then you have to sell them, you can't hold a loosing company and hope them to recover (unless if it's a quarter or 2 and they still have overall sound future). It's not that if you buy and hold any company, you'll make money. And if you buy and hold at the wrong time, you are not gonna do well in the long run. The key is to keep buying strong companies, so that averages out your cost as well. take a look at some companies that I am holding for the long run at

  • Report this Comment On March 20, 2009, at 3:51 PM, icuryy4me wrote:

    Just a minute...

    Readers need to be aware that the study referenced was conducted over a 50 year period (January 1927–January 2003, or 920 months), when the S&P500 went steadily up until 2000. I would call it the Golden Age of the USA.

    It would be interesting to see if the conclusions held for the period 1 Jan 1999 to 31 Dec 2008. in that period the markets went down 25% so buy and hold was a bad idea then. Stick-your-money-in-a-drawer strategy would have worked better. The markets have gone down even further from then and we are facing a future quite unlike the 50 years of the study where the wealth of the county has been squandered and manufacturing is in serious decline.

    As we all have heard, past performance is no guide to future returns.

    Does anyone have the definitive answer? I'm no TA or timing fan and still a "buy and hold" guy but I'm having my doubts in this climate. I saved since I started working and suddenly my funds are half what the used to be and I have no confidence that this mess will be fixed in ten years time. Many doubt it.

    TMF, I have to ask, are you quite certain that this is the right strategy at this point in time? Are you willing to bet my life on it? I really need to know and so I think do others.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

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: 856646, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/24/2016 7:57:59 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...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,223.03 77.32 0.43%
S&P 500 2,151.33 10.17 0.47%
NASD 5,309.83 52.43 1.00%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

10/24/2016 4:00 PM
AAPL $117.65 Up +1.05 +0.90%
Apple CAPS Rating: ****
JNJ $113.61 Up +0.17 +0.15%
Johnson and Johnso… CAPS Rating: ****
MCD $113.57 Down -0.36 -0.32%
McDonald's CAPS Rating: ***
MRK $60.75 Down -0.45 -0.74%
Merck and Co. CAPS Rating: ****
PEP $107.31 Up +1.69 +1.60%
PepsiCo CAPS Rating: ****
PG $84.10 Down -0.23 -0.27%
Procter and Gamble CAPS Rating: ****
XOM $86.91 Up +0.29 +0.33%
ExxonMobil CAPS Rating: ****