frommi

Thats one reason not to invest in index funds. ;D In 1998/1999 we had a similar overvaluation, but were the following years so bad for value investors?

ALXN AMAVF ASOMY DDD DSNY FB FNGN GENT GILD ILMN LGND LNKD SSTK TSLA TWTR ULTI WETF

@Edward Look at the Strayer thread under Investment Ideas there are enough arguments to destroy the bull thesis. I don`t want to discuss it in this thread, perhaps we can resume the discussion there.

Ouch, i don`t think he would ever invest there. The numbers look good, but who said that education has to cost money? (There are enough countries in the world where education is free.)

BP should do well in 2014, when it goes above 50$ it breaks the 3 year trading range. But that is a purely technical view, i don`t know if that is worth something in this forum. ;D

Merry Christmas from germany and thanks for providing so outstanding knowledge nearly for free :)

Around 5 Years with a 80% savings rate. www.earlyretirementextreme.com ;)

I would buy the book http://greenbackd.com/2012/12/26/quantitative-value-a-practitioners-guide-to-automating-intelligent-investment-and-eliminating-behavioral-errors/ it gives some really great insight about that with sharpe and sortino ratios for a lot of ratios. But for your case a nice overview over mechanical strategies with returns per year of the last 13 years: http://www.oldschoolvalue.com/stock-screener.php

Sold WMT,MT and bought more CHL. Initiated a position in WSTG. I hope my turnover gets lower over the next year, but currently i am optimizing my holdings with all the new knowledge i got from here and elsewhere. A big thanks to all :-*.

After reducing my leverage over the last days, i sold off the last bit of my AAPL position today. It was a trading position, my price target was 580. It has not reached it but it was close enough to close the position. It was never a high conviction idea for me, so taking profits and putting it to work somewhere else with a better upside potential looks like a good idea to me. Will buy more TI/ARCP over the next days.

Holding up to 50% Cash makes sense when cash yields are near S&P500 earnings yields, because than the opportunity cost is really low. In 2000 and 2007 this was the case, in 2000 it was very extreme with 2% earnings yield vs. 6.5% cash yield. (Whats the point in holding stocks then?) In 2007 it was 5.5% earnings yield vs. 4,75% cash yield. In 1987 before the crash 10y treasury bond yields were 2% higher than earnings yields = no reason to go 100% stocks. (i have to data about cash yields here, probably nearly the same) But nowadays we have the opposite case, the spread between cash yields and earnings yields are extremely high. Currently there is no reason to hold cash.

I understand why a fund manager or a business like berkshire or ffh holds cash, but as a single person i don`t see that reason being valid. What i need is a cashflow for my running expenses, thats the reason i love dividend paying stocks. Holding cash will always come with a cost.

He doesn`t seem to be that stupid, he found an inefficiency and exploited it. But now that this secret is official, people will adept and reduce or remove the inefficiency and the only one thats going to get rich is the man who sold him the tips. :)

The outperformance of the strategy comes from the years after big market crashes and you can only expect to outperform with stocks <50M market cap. This seems to capture the price-to-book premium and the smallcap premium. When you look at the data on greenback`s site you can see that the -ev strategy with <50m stocks is only loosing money in recessions, what is exactly the kind of behaviour i expect from a value investing approach. Perhaps its a good idea to start with a small part of the portfolio to get in touch with the approach. And its totally clear that these stocks are something where you are better off not thinking about what you buy, because its allways something ugly otherwise it wouldn`t be so cheap. The only thing to do is perhaps try to detec fraud. (so exclude chinese stocks for example.)

Sold FUJIY, bought ARCP.

When you look at the greenbackd`s portfolio you see that the outperformance comes only from 1 or 2 stocks, where one was a 4 fold and another an 8 fold. I know that i couldn`t stand the psychologic pressure to hold onto them after they have doubled. But doing so will drive down returns to normal market levels. But when you really can avoid touching these stocks for one year, its possible that you are outperforming the market by wide margins. I can only imagine myself doing that by not looking at the portfolio for one year. (But really who is able to do this?)

what's your thesis on CHRW? Seems like a good company but at an expensive price I would say it was not cheaper in the last 10 years :). But what do i know, i am a cloner. ;D

I don`t know, the business has grown while the stock has gone nowhere in the last 10 years. Sold JNJ today and bought more NTT.

If you don't mind my asking, why NTT and not DCM? NTT looked cheaper to me, and i get a growing cloud business that offsets the shrinking mobile/voice business. That was my thought, but its possible that i am wrong :).

One of my biggest mistakes was daytrading from 2003-2007. Lost around 2-3 years of expenses. I traded everything, futures, options, KO certificates, CFDs. I had a lucky start with some good runs, but lost all of it soon after and some more in the next years. It was like casino gambling, i think i made some banksters rich. ;D

Bought CHRW and stocked up on NTT.

Look at the poll its 50/50, and since nobody can look into the future you won`t find a 100% sure answer. But i can throw in a totally different approach to finding the answer, but i am not sure if it will help you. When you believe in Elliottwave Analysis (comes from behavioural finance/psychology) the last decade was a simple ABC-correction and we are indeed in a new secular impulsive bull wave. But because monetizing on that approach is not easy, i won`t rely on that. :)

No they are in their own league. :)

I am your age, happily married and owner of a small software-consulting-company. Half of your networth. In the years mentioned capital flowed into gold, because of negative real cash yields. For money there is currently no real alternative asset class to stocks, cash looses to inflation, gold is above its inflation adjusted average price and bond yields are much too low to be an alternative. But the thing is, when you invest bottom-up and not top-down every piece of macro information is noise in the wind. Look at 1999 when the market was really overvalued, from 2000-2002 cheap stocks outperformed the market big time, so it is probably very good for cheap stocks if the broad market is really overvalued. :)

Its totally useless because my holdings are undervalued. What would bother me is if a recession is on its way, but currently there is no sign of it on the wall. Is this still your capital allocation? 22% Fairfax, which is fully hedged 5% Gold (who knows? just in case!) 36,5% other long positions 36,5% short positions Then i don`t wonder why you are so convinced that the market is overvalued. But you should make a reality check if that is a wise allocation of capital going forward. As Tepper said, "i am only worried that the long/short guys are not long enough". ;D