Jump to content

GregS

Member
  • Posts

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

GregS's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • One Month Later
  • One Year In
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. IIRC, he used margin to increase the BRK position which is why it's so large. I wish him the best of luck and good health. I know I wouldn't want to quit right now being down as much as he likely is even if that was the plan, but I suspect investors forced the issue. I think you can be a concentrated investor or you can raise funds through hagiographic media articles but I think it's very hard to do both for long. I expect he'll be back doing something in due time. Hard to keep guys like this away from the game.
  2. Bought BRK.B - first time I've ever owned it.
  3. IMO it has nothing to do with AUM. He was investing in large caps even when small and his strategy scales well. I think it is just a period of underperformance for a concentrated value investor and he should be judged over the cycle. In the meantime, he needs to manage his LPs which won't be easy.
  4. Have you discussed your approach here with your attorney? Do you have an attorney?
  5. After SA put the transcripts behind the paywall I signed up for BamSEC. $35/mo or less if billed annually and they give you access to Thomson Reuters earnings and event transcripts. Still learning my way around the other features but this is a really useful service, and the best value you can find at that price.
  6. I was going to say Boston Beer SAM but then I realized $2B barely moves the needle on >$100B dry powder.
  7. Oh I almost forgot demographics as a factor. Aging boomers and their retirement and pension needs could cause a sell off. I think this is a longer ways off that most people suspect due to boomers undersaving and needing to stretch for returns, but it could also hasten the stampede for the exits as retirees seek to protect nest eggs in a declining market.
  8. I'm not sure indexing necessarily creates bubbles. In my opinion, the problem with too many investors indexing is markets become primarily dependent on flows. So in this sluggish but growing economy with a trend toward passive investing we've seen stocks march higher with low volatility. As long as there is marginal capital to allocate, why would anything different happen? The key question is when and why will the flows reverse? Could be that stocks hit bubble territory and collapse under their own weight, but I suspect that's a ways off. Something else could trigger it. I suspect it won't reverse until we hit a recession and see incomes and profits squeezed. Economic factors stall and reverse the flows, then investor psychology takes over. Of course, the market hasn't been a monolith. We've seen bear markets in certain sectors like energy and retail over the last few years and for good reason, even as the indexes have been fairly steady. So I don't want to overstate the case that passive is driving everything, but it does suggest that economic fundamentals are going to be the key factor in the markets for the near term.
  9. In investing, a good plan you can stick to is better than a great plan you can't. Indexing is an attempt to provide a good plan investors can stick to. Few people have the time or skill to invest in individual names themselves. Funds have proven their long term track record vs indexes is poor in general, and the average investor's return in the successful funds is terrible due to performance chasing. Indexing brings more long term focus and discipline that, in theory, should allow more people to stick with it through corrections, especially when combined with dollar cost averaging. Set and forget. However, given how popular it is getting over the last few years, it hasn't been thoroughly tested. Like, at all. I doubt it ends much differently for the average person than any other strategy.
  10. That's the thing, firms with super conservative lawyers/compliance are generally going to default to no. It's just easier to justify the "safe" position. Happens in so many different areas not just here. Good insight on shareholder meetings, Gregmal. Skips the gatekeepers.
  11. I think this is a function of two things - 1. They are giving a very cautious reading to the securities laws, whereby discussing the position in any way they could be construed as recommending it and exposing them to liability. There are multiple reasons there is minimal risk of actual liability, but if there's even the slightest gray area it's easier to just say no unless there's a good reason to do it. This is how lawyers and compliance people think. Why risk it if there's no benefit to them? 2. They see no benefit from discussing the position with you. I see no reason not to make these calls, but I'd expect any fund of decent size to refuse to discuss unless you have something for them. I also think a lot of funds see their analysis as their valuable intellectual property and keep it exclusive to their investors. This is why Klarman and others threaten to sue people who post their fund letters, and why compliance won't let analysts discuss stocks on twitter even anonymously.
  12. I like the layout and it has the info I like for an initial look at a stock. Cleaner presentation and more useful than something like FinViz or Morningstar. Bookmarked.
  13. I typically ignore the political threads. There's not a lot of actual discussion that takes place, just a lot of trolling, stereotyping and, eventually, shouting. But the threads on gender in fact make the issue they are discussing worse as they give voice to the types of BS opinions that have held back women in the first place. I don't blame those curious about the issue. I would just recommend they talk to women they personally know rather than discuss on anon boards. - GregS, Unapologetic Crybaby
  14. jeffswaldron, I guess you weren't aware, but we had a thread some time ago (maybe a year or two) asking why there weren't more female investors. The original poster was genuine but it descended into straight up misogyny with people coming up with reasons why women are terrible investors. I think one guy ranted about his dumb ex-girlfriend. Or maybe that was a different sexist thread. Anyway, the thread finally got deleted after people started calling out the embarrassing crap. And here we are, with DTED straight out of the gate posting a bunch of crap, including a gratuitous digression about female attorneys, without any irony, apparently, that his post reveals a total lack of analytic ability or self-awareness. Or maybe people who post crap like that are straight up trolling for fun, but I'd suggest anyone like that go give HanA--holeSolo's apology a read and rethink their life. I only know a few investors on this forum personally, all men, but others have noted there are women posting who would never reveal they are women. I can't blame them. I'm sure there are plenty of female entrepreneurs and engineers in Silicon Valley who would love to be able to hide their gender and be judged solely on ability. Alas, that can't be done in the real world. And we wonder why women don't want to go into fields like STEM or finance traditionally dominated by men. Anyway, I'm sure your thread was honest, but the trolls have already come out. I am an ally to women trying to push into fields like investing and won't hesitate to call out the crap. I'm not doing it to convince anyone of anything, but to show that men are not of one mind on the topic.
  15. Some of the best attorneys I ever worked with were female. Some of the worst, too. Same thing for men. Hmmm...it's almost like gender had nothing to do with it. However, as an investor, I've never had one woman ask me about VRX, or SHLD, or ZINC. Wow, men must be such lousy investors! Keep your money from them! Seriously, just delete this thread.
×
×
  • Create New...