frommi

Since there are probably a lot of cyclical companies in a swiss ETF i doubt it.

Tried different stuff and ended up buying options on the future. Ideally i would just go short the currency in the IB account, but they don't let me do that anymore (probably because of EU regulations). Buying futures you need cash in the account in case the future moves against you (otherwise you get margin called), so buying options was the only way to do it for me.

When its in the news, everybody knows it already. Lets see what happens. Long USD is the trade since 2009, so probably this analyst is VERY late to the party. And since i am hedged, the direction the currencies take is not that important anymore. I just don't want to wake up one day and have a 10% loss in my portfolio because of the currency, for example because the war in Ukraine ended or something like that.

PM,MDLZ,PEP,LKQ,TAP. But european companies like STO:EVO, CPH:STG or IMB, BATS, DCC are very cheap so i also bet on them.

As a european I started to hedge my USD exposure and limit investments in the US. I doubt this currency trend will hold, over the past 30 years the USD tanked during every republican president, i doubt that this time is different.

You are putting yourself into a very vulnerable spot if you do your investing that way. Of course it can go right and you make tons of money. But what most investors these days forget is that stocks can also go down and for long timeframes. And in these times this type of stock will often get crushed down to realistic valuations. Just look what happened 2000-2003. On top of now holding a stock with losses, it can also not use its stock as a currency. Good example is KMI, it took years until it recovered and it pretty much followed your playbook for a long time. Heck even Kraft Heinz was playing that game and look how that ended.

added to Evolution AB. Top#3 position, will probably make it #1 if it stays that cheap.

After holding Altria for 7 years (and adding a lot on the drops in between) i finally sold out. Think it is fairly valued here and you don't get compensated for all the risks the business faces at this point in time. (IQOS, illicit vapes, pouches taking over, regulation, heavy volume declines etc.). Given all the shit that has happened after i started buying it was a satisfying investment that beat the market over the past 3 years. Still own big positions in BATS, IMB and PM.

bought more MDLZ

More TAP and CPH:STG

bought even more STO:EVO and a little more CABO

BP,TAP,SHEL,OZK,CPH:STG,STO:EVO. Sold most of my REIT's for that except Sila and NXRT.

I really doubt that that is even possible. 40% annualy without high turnover is something i have never seen. Probably lots of leverage involved if true. Without understanding his process i would not copy him. If he has no process it was probably all luck and than i also wouldn't copy him.

I don't care, for me its just spoiled with untrue statements. Of course its free, but whats the value when 80% of the "free" posts are just bullshit? But i think this discussion derails the threat, so lets do it somewhere else or not at all

I started blocking everyone with a political post, now its a lot cleaner, but theres still a lot of nonsense in my feed.

Imagine giving up a year of good life in your fourties for a little worry at the end of your life, thats a miserable exchange.

That depends. A DIY investor with a true value mindset would have thrived from 2000->2008. But you have to be able to go against the crowd. But returns in my backtests for that timeframe for value was in the ballpark of 20-50% annual returns just to give you an idea. The index was dead money in that time.

That depends on were you live. In a lot of countries the tax rate is better for dividends, for me it is the same tax rate. The math is simple here, if you sell 2% of a stock that trades at 50% of its value, you are giving up double the amount of future value than if you get that money as a dividend, because the dividend is paid out of the "business value" and not the "stock value". Imagine a stock with a liquidation value of 10$ trading at 5$, if you sell 5$ you are left with nothing, but if the business pays out 5$ as a dividend you still have the stock which will surely not trade at 0$ after the distribution. (because there is still 5$ of value left in the company) Its different if the business is overvalued, but why should you hold a stock that comes out of a bear market as overvalued?

The numbers are with withdrawals, so in this case around 40k are withdrawn every year and since the portfolio was down a lot already in the GFC its on a much smaller base than at the start. Withdrawals by selling stock can be deadly when your returns suck and you are in a bear market. And at least when you look at shiller P/E the numbers/whole situation is similar to 2000 right now.

Dividends cover all living expenses for me, but depends on what you invest in. I haven't checked the numbers but can imagine they are right, especially if you are a true value investor. Everything above the amount that is necessary to cover living expenses is invested in NCAV stocks or other value plays.

@Viking Your post made me look up when i started to work only part time. Funnily for me it also was when i started to perform really well investment wise (I thought that was just luck, but maybe i am more disciplined and systematic since than). So maybe this is another option for @alertmeipp I work 3-4 hours a day for my old company (remote 4/5 days) and live the happy life with investment research, body workouts and family time the rest. 20% annual returns the last 4 years, while before it was 10% on average.

Same here, got burned with BBBY back in the day. Will never invest in Retail stocks again. That stock always looked cheap and the business got worse and worse, but always looked cheap. But maybe ULTA is different, who knows.

You don't have to be an economist to hedge. A quant would also do it, and there are quants out there that have done a lot better than Buffet in percentage terms.

With WB also selling lots of stock, i would argue the top is in or at least not far away. 1990, 2001/02 and 08 (where the sahm rule triggered) all ended with >20% drops in the market in a short timeframe, i doubt that we get away with anything less than that this time. Market is also very expensive and August/September are the worst months for the S&P500 if you believe in seasonality.

If you really want to invest into NCAV stocks the rules from the book are worth a lot more than 22$, so gz to the bargain.