AzCactus

I don't think we have the same definitions for those words, because if you use general market levels and ratios to make decisions about a portfolio of single companies (and you don't own the general market), and you are seeing things that are attractively priced that you're not buying because of those decisions, that's macro investing to me by definition. That's a call on the general market. It's fine, you can do that if you want. It's just not something that I think I can do well. Yes. I think the key question to ask is not is your cash level at 0---we should be asking if the market dropped 20%-25% would you be caught flat footed or have the ability to go on offense. If someone has a $100K portfolio and is fully invested than their cash level maybe at 0. However, if this same individual has $50K in cash that does not have a designated purpose than they would still have the ability to go on offense if prices dropped. David

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-26/consumer-sentiment-in-u-s-rises-to-highest-in-seven-years-1-.html The link above will take you to a brief article giving some of the reasons that consumer confidence is at its highest level in more than 7 years. Clearly this would have been a pretty good time to sell stocks. I was wondering if anyone else is getting the feeling that the regular Joe is starting to get a little to confident and complacent---and that now maybe a good time to proceed with EXTREME caution. David

"I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people." Isaac Newton Using the quote mentioned above as a segue into the behavior of crowds in Ferguson, we can probably safely say that people are more apt to do things wrong when they are surrounded by tons of people. Sadly we saw this in Ferguson the past two nights as people expressed their displeasure regarding the fact that their will be no trial for Officer Wilson. With stocks a similar mentality seems to exist as people talk to their friends or relatives who are dabbling and doing well in stocks and then decide to join. Warren Buffett talks about people at the cocktail party and someone watching his neighbor get rich quicker than him even though the neighbor is dumber. We all know the story ends with stocks going very high and then the subsequent downfall that inevitably ensues. Ultimately, for anyone who wants to chime in about either their Ferguson, the way people behave in large crowds or their opinion about the stock market that would be much appreciated.

tede02--I would say 3 years is the minimum number and 5 or 7 years is more appropriate.

I would ask for the three biggest qualities that have led to personal and investing success.

Gio, I am surprised you have no Berkshire in your portfolio especially since Berkshire tends to make opportunistic purchases of both stocks and wholly owned businesses in a recessionary environment. If we listen to what Howard Marks and others have said it sounds like we are towards the end of the game (bottom of the 7th according to Marks)but it isn't over. Personally, there are two issues that I believe are essential: investing time horizon and tolerance for volatility. To a large extent they are functions of one another (E.g. the longer time horizon you would expect a greater tolerance for volatility), however that is not always the case. While using a metric like Shiller PE is good it will provide some guidance but isn't the end all indicator. Ultimately, if someone thinks that stocks are too high then cash really seems smart because it cushions the downside and provides the opportunity to allow for buys in market turmoil. I am currently around 20% cash, however that figure is likely to rise over the next 3-6 months if stocks continue their run. David

You could use this link--basically a large reduction in Lands End and a 10% reduction in AIG. http://www.dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=fairx

And IBM if I'm not mistaken

Since a popular topic seems to be what you are buying it makes sense to mention what you are selling as well. This basically indicates that you feel the security is overvalued or at the very least will not offer the return of where you plan on deploying the funds. I sold some of my Vista Print position today.

Some 13f's are already out. The rest should be out shortly. Let's use this forum to discuss specific ideas from recent 13-f filings. I haven't really seen much. The only 13f that came out that is meaningful to me is Mohnish Pabrai's and there did not appear to be any significant additions.

They must be getting killed with their shorts because their two largest holdings (Apple and Micron) are just beating the pants off the market.

Hi Pete, Thanks for the reply :) If you do not consider five years a long time, I would ask what is the shortest time frame that you consider long? If you look at Biglari as an example there performance is about 7100 basis points worse than the index, for them to make up that ground they are going to have to outperform the S&P 500 by 11.5% for the next five years just to be where the index is at. Also, the reason I mention the index is because that is basically the opportunity cost to picking individual stocks. I mean if someone buys VFINX and holds for an indefinite period of time they will outperform most managers.

Hi All, I am fully aware that a loss obviously is not a loss until it is realized. That being said how long are you comfortable holding an investment that is getting trounced by the indexes? One example that I know some people in this forum own is Biglari Holdings. Per Google Finance since 12/31/2009 the company has returned about 12% total, while the S&P 500 is up 83%. This is noteworthy because its about 5 years not one or two months. A second example is Berkshire's investment in IBM. I believe he bought (initiated) his stake in November of 2011 and the investment is probably down around 8-10% while the market is up about 64%. Anyone have thoughts or insights? Thanks, David

I know this answer deviates a bit from your question, but I would just put any passive money into VFINX 7 bp add a little every month and watch it grow. To the extent you want to be active have some portion of invest-able assets separate.

There is something very refreshing about working from home (clothes tend to be looser, music tends to be louder and focus seems to be easier to come by). To be honest though I do not really see how Buffett actually relates to the topic. However, based on Alice Schroeder's biography I think he should have planned his schedule in such a way that allowed him to spend more time with his kids.

In general education is a good thing. That being said things could vary on a case by case basis. There are obviously going to be people who drop out of high school or college and end up being great successes. However, by and large though education does matter and many studies show the positive correlation between education and income. In my opinion someone in that sort of situation would not prevent a date or two or even a relationship, however it may effect how soon finances get merged. All the above being said this question was posed nearly a year ago and I am wondering if the author has an update. I did not read all 8 pages of posts so if there is an update that I skipped over that is on me.

Rukawa---In terms of getting more knowledgeable regarding Ocwen and Bill Erby do you have a link or anything that has more information on it. Thank You

I think it depends on how broad you define the word "screen." Having a screen to weed things out is different to me than having a screen to allow stocks in. So based on Tim's criteria "micro and small caps with low risk, low PE combined with improving earnings" I would think that stocks that do not meet it are out. However, that does not mean that stocks that do meet it are automatically in. Tim could probably clarify in more depth if I'm even on the right path or not. David

Oddball---I would say that even if the guys interviewed by the newsletter are not screening for stocks, there are probably many managers who control larger sums of money who exclusively screen for stocks. The issue with a screener is (and I know this is obvious) anyone could do it. So the skill to a large degree is probably how the numbers are analyzed. There are also the qualitative issues (management, moat of business) that are harder to quantify.

Hi all, There is a company called Denali Investors that has produced some pretty solid returns over the last few years and spin offs seem to be their sweet spot. I was wondering if anyone had any references regarding spin offs or companies that were recently spun off that they think would be worth examining further. David

Kraven, I completely agree. The other thing is his returns have not been that great---barely beating the S&P 500 since 2000.

Oddball ---The 3% fee is pretty much outrageous. Few managers are justified in charging that over a long period of time. A couple of managers who charge more reasonable fees and earn them include Berkowitz (FAIRX), Sequoia (SEQUX) and Riverpark/Wedgwood (RWGFX).

WC Any specific names you would like to add to the conversation?

Pay attention to the management. Not to be rhetorical but when managed properly debt can be acceptable or even useful. However, when used inappropriate debt can obviously harm a company.

Hi Investor-man, It goes without saying that everyone looks at 13f-s. The main purpose of my post however was to hone in on a few specific 13f's that people find most align with their investment philosophy/mindset. Additionally, I would agree there are some huge advantages to managing a smaller amount of money. David