GregS

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.

Bought BRK.B - first time I've ever owned it.

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.

Have you discussed your approach here with your attorney? Do you have an attorney?

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.

I was going to say Boston Beer SAM but then I realized $2B barely moves the needle on >$100B dry powder.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Medicine weeds out unqualified people at med school admissions. Law weeds them out at the bar exam.

Airlines? I wouldn't call this hated. http://finviz.com/chart.ashx?t=UAL&ty=c&ta=1&p=d&s=l

Anyone looking at AEO? Seems to be bringing some stability to core biz, possible growth with Aerie. The market didn't like their recent earnings, however, and I'm not sure I want to be in mall-based retail. Any thoughts?

Your question seems to imply that central banks control rates, or is at least a central bank-focused view. They are a factor but I think market forces are a greater influence. As TwoCitiesCapital noted, there's an endless bid for duration, demographic demands for income assets, and relative value reasons for capital to be in US bonds. Bottom line is that there is too much capital chasing safe assets, and until that changes rates will stay near historic lows. The biggest near term factor might be a change in perception of the US as the safest, most stable place to invest capital. Not sure how to model that though.

I've noticed the quality of VIC write ups declining, and perhaps that's a function of a rising market, but I do think some people phone it in to maintain membership. On one occasion, I noticed an author submitted two write ups very close together just under a year after the last one... I have heard some say the discussions/comments are worthwhile. Any members care to comment? Do you still get full access to the comments if your membership goes inactive?

I will second the rec for Art of Profitability. If you've gone through the Value Investing classics I would recommend picking up books on businesses. The Everything Store is one of the best in recent years, and Made in America is one of the classics. Haven't read it but Shoe Dog is getting rave reviews. There's so much to read here. I would also highly recommend Clayton Christensen's The Innovator's Dilemma. "Disruption" is such an overused term because this book is brilliant, but the concept is terribly misunderstood and misapplied and I suggest everyone read the original. Some of the short selling/accounting books are good even if you are not shorting: Quality of Earnings, Art of Short Selling, Financial Shenanigans, Dead Companies Walking.

I strongly agree with Nate's thoughts on fashion being tough. I will add that if you are going to buy a fashion stock (or a restaurant) in its growth phase you are going to have to pay a scary looking multiple. When the multiples start to look reasonable there are probably storm clouds on the horizon. Anyone who exercises price discipline is going to get in trouble investing in fashion. Turnarounds are possible but they happen MUCH more rarely than most investors hope.

Either a knee jerk contrarian or someone angry at Liberty for pointing out the fallacies of their political position.

Student loan debt could cause some losses, sure, but they will be localized and it won't be like the last crisis. The biggest difference between student loan debt and the mortgage crisis is that student loan debt will not impact asset values the way the housing crisis did. As we all know, mortgage defaults caused increased supply for sale and reduced demand (due to falling prices, tighter credit, and removal of speculators) which crashed housing prices. As other borrowers including prime experienced income shock (loss of job, health care, etc) they too defaulted rather than sell (and don't forget underwater walk-aways). Cascade effect. I don't see how that happens with student loans. The defaulting borrower keeps the asset (the degree) which is not devalued (it may have been a worthless for-profit college degree, but nothing changes there). A default by one borrower has no effect on other borrowers' asset values or ability to pay. Student loan markets may tighten but I can't see it as a economic crisis causing a recession. Of course, bankruptcy laws will prevent discharge so the debt burden won't go away. But this is an argument for a muddle-through/slow growth scenario, where heavy debt burdens are preventing increased spending and use of credit (like mortgages) among those entering the workforce and reaching household formation years. Indeed that might be one of the key reasons for our sluggish recovery. That said, perhaps the market sells of on such news. Buying opportunity. In short, student loans are contained (oh wait...)

I was a lawyer for six years at a big firm before quitting. Went to law school straight out of college, and it was always what I thought I wanted to do, but I hated it. So I stayed home with the kids for awhile, learned investing in the aftermath of the financial crisis, and am now trying to build my own investment management firm. The big thing that allowed me to make this transition was that my wife established her career and could take over being the bread winner. The kids are older now and I have the time and the desire to do what I wanted, as well as my wife's support. I think two things hold people back: 1. money/golden handcuffs and 2. fear of failure. You have to pay the bills so it's hard to quit and start over, but once you have the family and mortgage, etc., the minimum you can live off escalates and makes it even harder. You have to solve that problem by having a spouse make the money, savings, downsize your lifestyle, whatever. This is hard to solve and I'm very grateful for my situation. As for fear, I think some (most?) people lack adaptability and a growth mindset by their mid 30s. Maybe they never had it. But I can spot which people have it and which don't by who is supportive of my venture. These are also the readers, travelers, technophiles, life-long learners, etc. who are willing to try new things. On the other hand are those who are afraid to take risks so they count the days until retirement. These people sometimes wish risk takers and entrepreneurs will fail because it justifies their decision to do nothing. Unfortunately, I know people like this. This is a great podcast on that issue: http://www.goodlifeproject.com/how-do-you-handle-naysayers/ One of my best friends I met in law school was 39 when she started. She had worked in the auto industry for years but finally decided to pursue a life-long dream. Her spouse was supportive emotionally and financially and I think that was essential. I know she was intimidated at times starting school again with a bunch of young hotshots but her experience made her an amazing student and attorney. It's great to have a role model like that.