frommi

I posted it in the investment idea thread. In short its a super cheap low leveraged internally managed medical net lease REIT that just bought back 4% of outstanding shares. Its growing and from i could see has no troubles with tenants right now, unlike other publicy traded medical REIT's.

bought even more SILA, think its a ~8% position now, biggest REIT position

Sold SEER, TUSK, LSEA, DSGN after the little popps in each of them.

Sorry

added SILA to my REIT basket and increased my put position on the S&P500.

Its a little late for April fools day . @james22 that was a joke, right?

added NLCP, CCI to my REIT basket added LSEA,TUSK to my NCAV basket

" “Now if at the start of the 20th century you had seen what the auto [industry] was going to do to this country, the impact it would have on the lives of then your children and grandchildren and so on. It just, it transformed the American landscape. But of those 2000 companies, three basically survive. And they haven’t done that well, many times. So how do you pick three winners out of 2000? I mean it’s not so easy to do. It’s easy when you look back, but it’s not so easy looking forward. So you could have been dead right on the fact that the auto industry— in fact, you probably couldn’t have predicted how big of an impact it would have. But you wouldn’t have— if you’d bought companies across the board you wouldn’t have made any money, because the economic characteristics of that business were not easy to define. I’ve always said the easier thing to do is figure out who loses. And what you really should have done in 1905 or so, when you saw what was going to happen with the auto is you should have gone short horses. There were 20 million horses in 1900 and there’s about 4 million horses now. So it’s easy to figure out the losers, you know the loser is the horse*. But the winner was the auto overall.” Warren Buffett in a speech at University of Georgia in 2001. I think this fits the current AI hype perferctly. When you want to generate alpha from AI, than look for shorts, not longs.

Mainly IMB has performed better and i didn't change these holdings a lot, but the difference is small. IMB also does everything right at the moment, while MO has a lot of problems with volume and blasting away money on buying products that make no money, while IMB just buys their own stock. IMB is also still cheaper.

With hindsight bias that is easy, but out of 1000 stocks can you tell me which ones will do best over the next 20 years? There is so little data for this matter, that it is very hard to do by numbers. But for holdings periods of 1-5 years you can do a lot of backtests and see what has the most impact. With these periods your return will come from multiple expansion, growths and dividends. The longer you make the holding period the more this shifts to only growth+dividends. But a lot of my returns have just come from multiple expansions. Most extreme are NCAV stocks, where growth is typically negative. But even for FFH more than 60% of my return has been multiple expansion. Tax deferrals matter to a degree but if you plan to sell at some point in the next 5 years the impact of selling early and switching onto something else is much smaller than most people think. For very long term holding periods it is a different story.

Most of my big winners this year are already out of the portfolio like LABP, ITOS, JVA, XBIT, VNDA. Current NCAV stocks are all posted in this thread. But i don't expect them to perform good until oct/nov, they typically perform very very well in the winter months.

Thanks for sharing, i didn't know these articles. Walter is my personal hero. My thinking about the holding period is a little different, i think if you are good in the business of value investing it only makes sense to hold onto your stocks if you 100% sure that the business compounds faster than you would be able to. It's always a question of opportunity. BRK has compounded @10% for the past 25 years, if thats your hurdle it may be a good idea to stay, but if you are able to compound faster than that, it may be wise to switch to more undervalued stocks. I for example sold a part of my FFH holdings too early in november/december last year, but the portfolio of NCAV stocks i bought with the money have compounded much faster (up 60-80%). So it was not a mistake, it was a good decision with a good outcome.

Imperial Brands has bought back >5% of shares the past 12 months while also paying a 7-8% dividend and still trades at a stable >10% fcf yield.

Can someone explain to me why fairfax is taking on debt at all while at the same time investing in lower yielding bonds?

32% Tobacco (10% BTI, 8% PM, 6% IMB, 5% MO, 3% STG) 25% REITs (5% EPRT, 5% BNL, 3-4% O,AMT,CCI,NXRT,AVB, MAA) 10% MDLZ 5% Evolution AB 8% NCAV Portfolio (KRON,SEER,RPID,AVIR,DSGN,HRBR,HURC,UUU) 9% Puts (7.5% DAX, 0.7% TSLA, 0.7% BA) 10% Cash Is somebody more defensive than me?

If your account gets hacked and your money transferred out of your account via these illiquid stocks that you/the hacke bought for horrondeos prices, you maybe think a little bit different about this issue

added BNL to my REIT basket.

VNDA after it reached NCAV.

No because its irrelevant but he also makes macro calls, they are just not as promiment. Winding up his partnership in 1969? Selling BRK-stock in 2000 and warning of the bubble? Even in the latest letter is a hint that the market is very frothy. I am pretty sure he also looks at the yield curve and its implications. Graham told us that we should increase our cash/bond allocation at times and have it varying depending on whats available. So its not so black and white. For me it makes sense to look where we are in the capital cycle and invest accordingly. Theres also a book on this i think its Capital Returns: Investing through the Capital Cycle .

The inverted yield curve is not really a signal, its the root cause of why the economy doens't expand anymore. Banks lend long term and borrow short term. So if the yield curve is inverted they don't make money on new credit, which leads to reduced economic activity. At least as far as i understand this. Maybe increased government spending counteracts this a bit, but i doubt its enough to counter it in the long run.

True, but with my strategy of just buying puts over the summer months when unemployment is trending up, i just have to be right 1 out of 5 times to make money in the end.

It takes time after the inversion, and the stock market weakness typically starts after the first rate cut.

yes thats the last nail. first sign - Yield curve negative - since more than 1 year now, just like 1989, 2001 and 2008. second sign - Unemployment rate growing, low was 3.4% last year, we are at 3.9% now. like 1989, 2001 or 2008. third sign - Rate cuts. Economy is weakening. 0-6 months after these events we had a 20-25% "crash" in every case. And you wont find a lot of instances where 1. and 2. happened without a crash. It only occured in 1979-1982, the pullbacks there were just 5-10%. But Shiller P/E in those years was 7-8, while we are now at 35. I would argue, based on these facts, the top is close or already in.

2% fcf yield for a business that grows at 7-8% in the long run and has problems atm. still not really cheap.

As far as i understand it, high HDL is not a problem at all. And high LDL is also not always a problem or the real problem, its just an indicator. See https://youtu.be/sY48qLl9ZzE?si=m6xPfabrrcyp21F6 or