# Gillen Markets Yearly Subscription



## Dman35 (8 Dec 2011)

Hi Folks, 

I'm just looking to get some feedback from people who have used (or using) this service. 

How did you find it? 
Did you feel it was value for money?
Is there anyother similair service you would recommend? 

All feedback would be much appericated. 

Regards
Dman


----------



## Optimistic (8 Dec 2011)

I would also be interested in hearing from subscribers as seriously thinking of same. I think there is an offer at the moment of a trial period for one month, ending this week.Must check it out.


----------



## aristotle (8 Dec 2011)

I have used it. Gillen is good, he has a good track record.

He sends out detailed newsletters every week with analysis of various funds and stocks.

He outlines a number of investment approaches and does recommend what to buy and he tracks the progress week by week.

I am sure there are many other sources of info but Gillen does more than provide info. He, for example, recomends 10-12 stocks to buy as part of an ISEQ investment approach and he has similar recommendations for other indexes and investment strategies.

There of course is no gaurantee of him being right, but I would rather follow his recommendations based on is track record rather than guess it myself.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Dec 2011)

aristotle said:


> There of course is no gaurantee of him being right, but I would rather follow his recommendations based on is track record rather than guess it myself.



Hi Aristotle 

I have a lot of respect for Rory Gillen and he makes useful contributions here, but...

There is very little evidence that any stockpicker can beat the market consistently. To confirm that Rory, or anyone else, has a good track record, would require a major study over a long period of time by an independent statistician.


----------



## aristotle (8 Dec 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Aristotle
> 
> I have a lot of respect for Rory Gillen and he makes useful contributions here, but...
> 
> There is very little evidence that any stockpicker can beat the market consistently. To confirm that Rory, or anyone else, has a good track record, would require a major study over a long period of time by an independent statistician.


 
Well he shows the performance of his stock picks versus the market indexes and his results are generally higher. Its on his website.

He has outperformed the market for most of the years.


----------



## Dman35 (8 Dec 2011)

Hey Optimistic, 

I didn't know there was a trial period running at the moment? There is no mention of it on the site??


----------



## Marc (8 Dec 2011)

Hi 

I would echo Brendan's comments. It is extremely difficult to distinguish luck from skill over short periods of time. To identify statistical alpha ( ie returns in excess of the Market once we adjust for risk) we need many decades of returns.

Without this we cannot say for sure if someone is lucky or skillful.

Remember if i flick 5 heads in a row on a coin there is 3% chance that will happen just by luck. Everyone knows there is no skill in coin flipping.


----------



## rekhib (8 Dec 2011)

I think that service looks interesting if you put yourself in the category of an 'active trader'. For E149 per year plus, say, E20 per trade on 12 ISEQ equities, you would need to put in E40k to have your costs at 1% and you would only own 12 undiversified stocks. As Ben Graham said, unless you're prepared to do the research yourself and play the part of a very active trader, best to put your money in a low cost index fund. ETFs provide fantastic diversification and match the market. In my opinion, the reduced risk is a justified trade-off for the chance to beat the market by a couple of pips. Then, you just need to concern yourself with the market beating inflation. If you are very interested in active trading, or interested in making the move from passive to active, I can really see the benefits of having timely up-to-date advice from a seasoned investor as it can often shed light on why the market is moving, as opposed to whether the market is moving.


----------



## Pauliwalnuts (9 Dec 2011)

I am a subscriber & I am very happy with the service provided.

Rory doesn't pretend that he is a sage or anything like that.

He emphasises the Value Investing Approach & examines his picks under three categories business risk, financial risk & valuation risk.

He also emphasises some value-based approaches to selecting a diversified list of stocks, which have proven that they in fact do indeed provide returns in excess of the market over time.

He also provides some good training which allows the novice investor to gain some kind of understanding of how the market behaves & how one can go about dipping their toes in it without getting burned.

I would definately say there there is alot more skill rather than luck involved & my experience is showing me that his approaches do indeed work. 

I understand Brendan & Marks comments & of course the evidence in 90% of cases probably supports the points they make but in this case I genuinely believe that this offering stands out from the crowd.

That is the opinion of one satisfied subscriber.


----------



## Marc (9 Dec 2011)

We need to properly account for risk here.

In this post, I go to great pains to explain that "value" is a risk factor.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1217489#post1217489

If I buy a concentrated portfolio of stocks, I am taking more risk than the market. I therefore expect to either do better than the market or worse. I don't need to take this risk (as I can diversify) and therefore I cannot expect over time to be rewarded by the market with higher average returns. 

Secondly, if I buy value stocks I am taking on more risk than if I buy growth stocks. Again, I expect to do better simply because I am taking on more risk. 

There is no evidence that I am doing better because I am a skilled stock picker. I am taking on more risk, that is why I make more.


----------



## Rory Gillen (11 Dec 2011)

Well it's not hard to spot the Efficient Market Theorists - Marc and Brendan above. All good comments and each to their own and I've no real arguments with them. The markets are efficient most of the time but I like Warren Buffett's comment best - those who believe in the efficient market theory tend to over reach by claiming that because the markets are efficient most of the time, they are efficient all the time.

That aside, the reason I set up my own website is that I believe most private investors need some guidance - I think the Financial Services Industry is unique for its lack of care for clients - stockbrokers are outright sellers and the network of IFAs in this country generate their income by selling insurance company unit-linked funds - very few appear to be on the side of the client in my view. Banks should be prohibited from selling investment products - they cannot provide suitably unbiased advice and their training standards are so low that they are mostly incompetent.

The internet has changed everything and those with more experience can assist those with less, and for an affordable price. Stockmarket investing is both a career and a hobby for myself. The website GillenMarkets.com (previously The InvestR Centre) aims to assist people in this area by being squarely on the side of the subscriber. Funds analysed are those quoted on stockmarkets and that includes passively managed exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and actively managed investment companies. Neither have entry fees, exit fees or holding periods. I particularly like investment companies but space does not permit an explanation here. Low-cost online dealing coupled with a subscription-driven investment advisory service, and suddenly the private investor gets independent advice and lower costs!

As Marc quite rightly says, control of risk is as important as the pursuit of returns and we surely learned the mother of all lessons in that regard in 2008. Many can't tell the distinction. I get bored with passive funds and I like to find simple stocks and actively managed funds across the various asset classes while using ETFs for gaps I need to fill. That is just a style and is neither better nor worse than average for it.

When I finish off the book on Beating the FTSE 100, I will post a copy to you Brendan and it will show a long and documented track record of how selecting 10-15 shares from the FTSE 100 index with one simple value metric beats that market handsomely over time. But I don't major on stock picking on the website. I learned a few years ago why I should not do so.

A long winded reply. The special trial-offer referred to above is not advertised on our website - I have over 6,000 on my database and it was an email promotion to that database. You can access the offer outlined below by emailing to info@gillenmarkets.com and quoting this blog. Ardle Culleton, our Operations Director, will handle your request.

We are offering access to the website for €5 for one full month - a period over which you will have full access to all the commentary and research. You must use your credit or debit card and enter your contact details. The website is encrypted to the highest standards. If the site is not for you, then you can unsubscribe before the balance is due at the end of the month (i.e. €144). Hence, you must opt out. No tricks, no hidden agenda - quite simply we believe we have a great offering and want to encourage as many to join. The website is investment focused, it will not help those who wish for quick results over short time periods. The advertising antics of spread-betting companies who try and convince you that you can make money in up markets and down markets border on disceit. Where is the Regulator I ask!

*Rory Gillen*


----------



## Marc (13 Dec 2011)

Rory, 

This isn't a market efficiency debate and that statement is actually very misleading.

It is actually a question of the statistical significance of any outperformance from any recommended strategy over an appropriate benchmark. Equally significant is if the correct benchmark has even been used to measure success in the first place. 

For example, if you outperform the FTSE 100 (an index with a slight bias to Large Cap and Growth Stocks) with a strategy, how much of that outperformance can be attributed to sensitivity of the portfolio to priced economic risk factors of small stocks and value stocks (which are incidentally both there for the taking by any investor from an investment in an appropriate index and without the ideosyncratic risks associated with holding a highly concentrated portfolio of stocks) and how much of it is "genuine" alpha from stock picking?

Since 1955, the historical premium from UK value stocks over the UK market (as measured by the FTSE All share) has averaged around 3.7%pa. Investors can have this for "free" by simply buying a UK value index.

Equally, the premium on small stocks over the FTSE all share has averaged about the same over the same period.

So, you would need to consistently outperform the market by at least 3.5%pa to 4%pa on average, year after year, allowing for trading costs, bid offer spreads, stamp duty and other frictions and allowing for the additional volatility associated with holding a small portfolio of stocks otherwise it begs the question, if an investor wants to "beat the market", why wouldn't they just hold a small index or value index? Or perhaps both?

If we want to help investors make prudent decisons with their money (and I know most of us on askaboutmoney do) then the important issue here is to ensure that everyone understands that one of the most important considerations in investing is that markets deliver return for risk and from that you deduct your fees and expenses. 

I totally agree with your statement that much of what actually passes for advice and informed comment often falls well short of the mark. But equally, when it comes to any claims of apparently simple routes to excess returns let's make sure that we apply a suitably robust critique of these claims and test for statistical significance against an appropriate benchmark.

For reference since 1986 the FTSE all share has slightly outperformed the FTSE 100 (9.66%pa vs 9.51%pa) so as financial theory would predict, I can expect to outperform the FTSE 100 just by holding more of the UK market and especially more smaller companies. Or said differently, I can also beat the FTSE 100, I just buy the FTSE All share.


----------



## Rory Gillen (20 Dec 2011)

Marc,

I find your style of answering queries to be overly argumentative.

I am happy to answer queries on this website for those who need that assistance.

*Rory Gillen*


----------



## Daithi7 (26 Jan 2012)

I am a member of Rory's site and I find it and his advice and approach really excellent!!

p.s. I hate the way he avoids arguments at all costs though- I mean you'd think he'd have time for something as productive as a petty handbagging!!


----------



## noelnoel (7 Jul 2021)

well, arriving here 10 years on and interested to see an old argument where time will presumably have proven one or the other correct. 
has Rory outperformed the market with his value investing or has he performed in line with the broad returns of the market?


----------



## noproblem (7 Jul 2021)

Rory is not the problem, Marc and Brendan likewise. But for the ordinary bloke with a few bob, or some spare money, the set up of the market is so cryptic and complicated, one would wonder is it that way so as to benefit a certain cohort at the expense of the ordinary bloke.
If all i've written above comes across as "double dutch", then I apologise, but i'm just one of those who find it very complicated to assess and make a bit of interest from the so called markets. At least Mr Gillen tries to help us understand some of the gobbledegook, unlike some of the many so called experts (mostly ex bank staff) set up in most towns around our country as Financial Advisors, or similar. And doing very nicely thank you very much from what I can outwardly see.


----------

