frommi

They don't support companies that are trading OTC. I have several alerts there for OTC companies and they work.

conferencecalltranscripts.org

Sold VTR,MPW,OKE,UL,NSRGY,FAST and bought LICT (new position), CHRW, AFL, BEN.

What i took from the book was that 25 holdings with a value framework lead to the best sharpe ratio, the rest is just for entertainment and for me only 2 of the stories were new.

more CHRW,AFL,NXRT,BBBY,CSCO,AMNF. But still net short 80%.

You are probably underestimating the impact of fees (especially of a fund of hedgefunds) over a long enough timeframe and most hedgefunds don`t necessarily hedge. Look at Druckenmillers or Richard Dennis track record to see what you can do when you are able to play the market on both sides without restrictions. But its hard to pick 5 hedgefunds and outperform because the more funds you pick the more you are the market itself. Since you can`t outperform the market when you own the whole market the only thing that matters is fees. Thats the reason it was an easy bet for Buffet.

bought some more AFL,PDER and NXRT

http://www.factset.com/websitefiles/PDFs/earningsinsight/earningsinsight_4.22.16 Summer season starts tommorrow, so i am officially allowed to hedge now. I am now short S&P500 and DAX futures and long under/fair valued dividend growth stocks. Net short -100%, maybe a bit bold but i expect a pretty steep downmove this summer.

Is there something new in it, assuming i have read ~30-40 books on value investing?

Here is my valuation watchlist of dividend stocks, i am sure there are plenty of errors in it but it has worked for me. Perhaps there are some ideas for you. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HjdCBGkRsS83oAYMs0MmV_oPkm0nv7PtPnAZLy6DdTk/edit?usp=sharing The important column is FRoR 5Y which is basically the expected annual CAGR for the stock assuming it trades back to the average/fair multiple and growths by the assumed growth rate.

Historically moving to a permanent portfolio asset allocation (25%cash,25%gold,25%LTT,25%stocks) in these times would have been a very good idea. Personally i hedge with futures (I favor Russell2k, DAX and FTSE futures at the moment for that) over the summer, because that has worked for me very well and the carry cost is minimal. But i have at least a small edge in market timing. (>60% batting average)

1.) When you buy or sell cyclical stocks based on valuation you will get what you deserve. 2.) There is no bubble in dividend paying stocks. There are cheap dividend paying stocks and expensive ones. Utilities are expensive here, but far from a bubble. (~15-20% overvalued, but given where interest rates are thats fine.) In fact when you think interest rates go up (and inflation, too), why are you shorting businesses that profit from that?

And you assume that someone that indexes is able to hold even if the index sucks and everybody else is outperforming like 2000-2002. Indexing sounds easy on paper, but in real life with emotions and all the macro news involved its not that easy anymore. For me successful investing is all about finding YOUR way to invest, a way that you fully embrace and can stick to through thick and thin.

The correlation between earnings and prices is very weak, this is wasted time. :) https://caldaro.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/stock-market-myths-and-whats-wrong-with-the-economy/

Thanks, interesting conclusion. But it looks like it doesn`t work that way for healthcare REITs? I didn`t look at the numbers in depth, but is there a reason that expense ratios are high in that sector?

Nobody knows if this is a bear market rally or not because nobody can know the future. You can argue all day long and will still not know the prices in the future. So its all about probability and risk/return. Assuming that a) the chances are 50/50 b) that a bear market rally will not exceed the ATH c) that a bear market rally will bring lower prices than the current low. Going short or flat you risk 6% (from 2000 to the ATH) while getting 10% or more upside (if the S&P500 moves below 1800). Thats a good trade. Everything else is just noise.

Margin expansion here was driven by fixed cost and increasing revenues, as long as the number of companies on the marketplace doesn`t shrink i don`t see margins compress. That can happen in a 2008 style market, so i sized it accordingly. (Its a 3.5% position for me) Dilution was pretty low, for me it looks like these guys are very shareholder friendly. Yes regulation is a threat, thats the unknown for me here. There are some writeups on Seeking Alpha and VIC, you can look them up.

Bought more OTCM and hedged my portfolio again. Will stay long short now until september or october. Will see how the waves unfold further, but i have that nagging feeling that in 2016 a zero return will not be that bad.

How are you valuing OTCM and what's your IV estimate? What's your growth/discount assumptions? I think fair value is around ev/ebitda 12. At the current multiple i don't need growth to make a reasonable return. Including the special dividend it has a 7% yield on a monopoly like business and p/fcf is around 10 with a cash rich company that has grown by >20% in the past years. Never seen something that cheap and good before. Maybe i just miss something important. :)

I like the system, its typical quant stuff. This is a value screen (P/FCF<10) with a quality check (dividend+growth) and momentum. And the author added a timing strategy on top. (If forward eps goes down switch to bonds). The only part that i don`t like is the timing part, because this looks like curve fitted to 2000-2002 and 2008. And i wouldn`t use momentum with dividend stocks, i doubt that that really adds a lot of performance. But the author probably tested this a lot before publishing. In the end the system doesn`t matter, you have to have the eggs to stick to it through thick and thin. This is nearly impossible for 90% of humans especially if you haven`t developed and tested the system yourself.

OTCM,NOV,ETP

In the all weather approach Dalio`s fund is basically long everything, bonds, stocks, commodities based on past risk (volatility) so that every asset class is weighted on risk parity. Its similar to a permanent portfolio asset allocation (25% gold, 25% stocks, 25% long term bonds and 25% cash). Its simply based on the fact that in our current monetary system the monetary base is increased nearly every year and this lifts all asset prices in the long run. Ni-co isn`t it smarter to just bet on a rising dollar, instead of betting on the possible secondary effects like lower interest rates or falling stock prices? At least in 2015 you had plenty of time to be prepared for the fall in stock prices, because you already knew the dollar has risen in April/May, so the fall of stock prices in the summer was like shooting fish in a barrel. But this year and especially next quarter we get earnings that are not depressed by the currency, at least if the dollar doesn`t rise dramatically next month. So its possible that the bull resumes now and kicks the bears around until they give up before we start the real crash. Lower interest rates in january were the result of fear not the result of deflation, at least when you believe the last CPI data from friday.

I change my mind every two days, so just ignore my picks. I am clearly not smart enough to pick a concentrated list of stocks that perform well 1-2 years out. But funnily my 60 picks outperform the market.

Yes you are right, negative rates are not the solution, but maybe giving money directly to people will solve it. The swiss are voting on this in the summer (http://www.thelocal.ch/20160127/swiss-to-vote-on-guaranteed-income-for-all), when this gets approved than thats probably the channel to throw money of the helicopter. If enough countries do it, you can be sure that inflation picks up sometime down the road. I was always under the impression that current government policy (austerity) is the real problem, because they don`t see the problem in the first place. Maybe it comes too late to save the banks, who knows.

To me, this principle sounds like a choice only politicians and ideologues are able to make-up as a guideline. Shouldn't it be obvious that investors will quit giving their money to (hugely fragile) European banks when they know that taxpayers will step in only after investors will be wiped-out? Anticipating that, a prudent bond- or shareholder will cash out long before his bank seems to be even close to the brink, thereby driving down the bank's equity and debt prices, in this way closing capital markets for this bank and, in the end, causing a rat-race to the bottom at which the bank will have to be bailed-out by taxpayers. This seems to be inevitable. Sorry but why should taxpayers be liable for the downside, when all the upside goes to greedy bankers and investors? A well managed bank doesn`t need to issue equity. And if the taxpayers money is used to resuce the system, than all the upside from that move should go to the taxpayer, too. Makes shorting troubled banks easier, but maybe they will just forbid that when shtf.