Gregmal

Just from my own personal experience. The smartest women I know let men handle investing for them. The smartest men I know, some are very good at investing, some are very bad at investing, some let other people handle investing for them. Wouldn't read too much into either though.

I've had pretty solid results with cars. Outside of my first one where I was 23 and wanted an Audi and just walked into the dealership and said if you can get this to my office by 4pm I'll take it. Stupidity. Since I've bought 3 cars. What I've found is that bringing a trade-in always helps. Adds another area where you can negotiate. Also typically from August thru EOY they get very promotional. I've seen some utterly ridiculous deals advertised, ie brand new Jeep Grand Cherokee lease for $175 a month. Of course its a bait and switch, but walking in there and pointing to a paper saying "this is what you advertised, and this is what I'll pay, not a penny more" gets things done, IF you make it clear to them you already have a car, do not need a new one, and are more than willing to walk out the door(and actually walk out the door).

This may sound more harsh then I intend it to be so don't take it the wrong way. But this sort of thinking is a big part of the problem along with "market prices" for tuition thinking. I'd say that the people going into these schools cannot make informed decisions. Part of the problem is the everyone is special and you can be what you want to be bullshit. But also that these students are pretty young and not all have the ability to make the right decision because of youth/inexperience/etc. Furthermore, the biggest part of the problem is that they don't have the information to make an informed decision. For example they think they're gonna make 80-90k 3 years out of school. As DTEJD said here often that's wrong they'll make 40. But they don't know that. Also since the schools became de facto business they market to these kids pretty aggressively and throw a lot of bullshit their way. The employment and salary stats they publish are also cooked which contributes the misinformation. I know a couple of very reputable business schools that flat out lie in their stats. If the reputable schools do it you can bet your ass the lower ones are doing it "bigly". But sure it's the kids' fault they don't know any of this. Why should the schools bear any responsibility. If we follow this path then why do the schools even need admission departments? Not taken the wrong way at all. Open dialogue is great and honestly this IS a big issue facing future generations and imo a worthwhile discussion; not just the law schools either, but universities as a whole. In regards to your points, I wouldn't necessarily disagree, the schools need to be reigned in for sure. But I also think this just excuses people not being diligent. If I buy Company XYZ stock, I damn well better be doing more than just reading the Company's investor packet... Same applies here. Smarter people(especially the type that one would think fall into the category of lawyer capable people) are typically very curious and inquisitive. They are critical. Naive generally wouldn't be a word to describe a person with the skill set needed to pursue a law degree. There is also a sense of entitlement that comes with taking these schools at their word. I should be a lawyer, despite perhaps inferior marks. I should have someone offer me 80k/year once I graduate. But I've never met anyone successful who wholly carries this mentality around that things will just be given to them. No one in their right mind should really think they are coming out of a mid tier school and starting at Baker McKenzie. That would be like graduating from Elon in SC with a 3.5 in Business Administration and expecting a job in investment banking at GS. Outside of the bigger name firms in bigger cities, its small and mid tier firms and associates typically start at 35-60k a year if they are lucky. This is not hard material to find. Otherwise, your only option is going out on your own, which is a roll of the dice and typically even there, you dont make shit for several years. Perhaps getting long winded, but this truly is a fascinating subject to me because of its far reaching and treacherous ramifications. I originally looked into law. Growing up I always wanted to be a lawyer. I went to a small, typical rich kid, 4 year school. I looked at the most popular majors for law school students at the time and picked two, history and English to double major in and graduated with a 3.9. I scored mid 160s on LSAT. Then, among several things, the financial crisis occurred and the idea of spending 3 more years in school, accumulating 150-200k in debt, and then having to be a slave at 50k/yea for 5 years, did not appear attractive to me as getting into the financial world near a generational bottom. Maybe I'm different though. My sister is brilliant. Aced the SATs first time taking them, full ride to UF, always wanted to be a biologist. Knew all along she wouldn't make shit, but she wanted to do something she was passionate about. My younger brother always wanted to be a doctor. Studied hard, got into a good med school, and along the way, always joked, I'll be up to my eyeballs in debt until I'm 50. He knew pay trends weren't what they used to be for doctors doing what he wanted. Decided to do it anyway, but he knew what he was looking at. My youngest brother decided at 16, "I want to be a biomedical engineer". Why? "I'm going to make a shit load of money". And so far, that's what he is doing. I've never met someone qualified to do something, who doesn't know what they are getting into prior to making such a life decision. The one example I have of this, was an old friend. Never the brightest of the bunch, lazy, real leaf floating in the wind. Mediocre high school grades, never went to a real university. Spent 3 years and 30k at a for profit getting a degree in surgical technology thinking he'd transfer to a real school and become a doctor(pipe dream from day 1). Graduated with his degree, which he pretty soon found out wouldnt even transfer over to local community schools. He now delivers packages for Fedex. After starting a landscaping company and failing. So to me I guess, the horrible law school results is more symptomatic of people being allowed to foray into areas they don't belong or shouldn't be in the first place. Couple that with these same people typically being naive and probably uniformed, mix in schools being deceptive and misleading, and yea, we've got problems. The only real answer IMO is being more proactive about teaching people how to identify their strengths, and teaching them how to exploit those strengths. I never saw kids in wheel chairs doing competitive swimming in school. I saw a lot of idiots pursuing MBAs and grasping for a law degree.

Not to be a heartless Republican, but... Shouldn't one be able to use judgment themselves and determine whether the risk/reward is favorable? I mean part of this is the fault of the new-age American philosophy that "you can be whatever you want to be"/everyone gets a trophy, but if one is pursuing a career in a certain field, should they not have a solid grasp on their own competency and more importantly, where they stack up against their peers in said field? I mean, if one has a 3.0 and 140s LSAT is it really a stretch to put the breaks on?

I wouldn't ride in the vehicle if there were other passengers. Your service would have to be a lot cheaper than the car services. Autonomous busses don't seem very attractive to me, I would never give up my car for that. 100%. Not only do I like driving, but I also like the peace and quiet when I'm driving alone. I would never ride with others. I also like being in control of the vehicle.

No. Paulson has a fund for just about everything. The Paulson Fund, The Paulson Advantage Fund, The Paulson Super Advantage Fund, The Super Duper Advantage Fund, The Paulson Gold Fund, The Paulson Merger/Arb Fund. The guy is quite the salesman. I remember reading a piece where he was asked about it and he said it's all just marketing and all he has to do is create a new product and people line up for it. Was fairly interesting.

This should be called the everything but technology stocks thread.

Being familiar with the way mortgage brokerage, stock brokerage, insurance brokerage, and car sales go, so much of this is hilariously spot on. Especially the highlighted stuff. I am sure you also ran into the "sign on mercs"?

Hardly. It appears he willingly tripled his position during the current quarter. While he has owned some GM for a while, he's largely been in and out of it and in significantly smaller size. The is one of his biggest positions he's taken in recent memory.

This probably applies to most people in the fund management business. Especially during the decades covered in the book.

I think this largely lends itself to the notion that there are many people looking for a combination of an entrepreneurialish gig that provides the most personal freedom and the easiest path to supporting ones lifestyle ambitions. These types of businesses then become overpopulated, ground down, and then are no longer attractive on the original basis. Competition here is very fierce. A few examples personally- I grew up in a wealthy suburb of NYC. The kind of place were not many kids appreciate money because its never been an issue. It was always just a given that one of three things will occur largely revolving around the notion that you just end up where everyone else does(In the suburbs this means an 800k house, a wife and 2-3 kids with 3 vacations a year and a mid life crisis that gets resolved with the purchase of a sports car) 1) You use family/friend connections to get into a respectable job working for someone else 2) You get funded by family/friends to start your own venture (If I had a penny for every kid I grew up with who became a "hedge fund manager" with the help of mom+dad and a few relatives...) 3) You inherit money I've lived on my own since my mid teens and gotten to know the other side of the coin as well during that time period. I've found that the hustle required to really get to that next level seems far more common in lower-middle class raised individuals because it is the norm. When you see family and friends working 2 jobs to put food on the table, that becomes the standard. When you have to chose between a new pair of sneakers, a dinner date with a girl, or paying for a textbook, its far different than shopping with the credit card, then meeting your date at the Cheesecake Factory, and then showing up to class late. But these are two completely normal realities depending on where you are from. Which kind of delves into where some have already pointed. When you, your family, your neighborhood, etc become accustomed to certain ways of life, they become hard to break. If it is easier to secure an 80-100k job with great benefits, that will be your path of least resistance. In America, outside of the big cities, it's not easy finding jobs like that anymore(at least ones that don't require 80 hours a week and 5+ years of university). A lot of that went away with the financial crisis but the evolution of technology has also eliminated many jobs that used to support this. So many people must turn to an entrepreneurial path to provide themselves the life they want. However most traditional routes of entrepreneurship arent there anymore. Growing up(I was born in the 80's), you had family run businesses. The local deli, now replaced by Subway and Panera. The local sporting goods store, now replaced by Dick's. The local mechanic/auto body shop, now a Midas chain. Local clothing store, now a Kohl's. The local grocery store, now replaced by Stop-N-Shop. All of which are being threatened by Walmart and Amazon. So even those seeking to be entrepreneurs are given far fewer opportunities to than ever before. Its the ugly by-product of capitalism in which everything is suctioned to the top. As consolidation occurs the vortex becomes stronger and more and more carnage occurs, in an accelerating manner. Tons of people I know have tried starting their own business. Probably 70% of people I know at some point or another have tried starting a construction/landscaping business. 75% end up taking W2 jobs eventually. 15% struggle along under the constant pressure of never really being secure, and 10% seem to end up getting there through a combination of working harder than everyone else and doing things more efficiently. Although I'd argue that this 10% are the type that would make it regardless. Take 90% of the people I know who are self sufficient with their own businesses, and it's finance and real estate folks. Two industries under attack(automated investing/AI/ Zillow/internet plus massively over-regulated), and likely shrinking rapidly over the next decade as well. Which leaves whom safe? Doctors and lawyers? I personally believe much of this here in the states is because the education system is so screwed up. People are not educated in a way that directs them to areas that they can best be utilized. Canada definitely seems to have things better handled on that front. At least their university grads are not leaving school with a useless 5 year degree, 200k in debt, and the grim reality that you'll need to compete for a 55k a year job. Bottom line it seems, is that Canada has a better handle on "the system". The quality of life in CA is higher. Employment does not seem as challenging, and people seem to be put in position to provide for themselves better. Meanwhile in the grand old US of A, one is taught until their mid 20's that you can be anything you want to be, everyone gets a trophy, and then we wondering why things just dont work.The US may be more entrepreneurial but it is because more people have to be because there is now a greater social disparity between the people who have made it, and those whom haven't. Canada still seems to have a healthy middle class.

I've looked at various models and everyone always seems to use the 4% rule but realistically if your primary residence is paid off, how much really do you need. Taxes on my home are 16k. Healthcare probably another 15k. 60-75k should be enough for any prudent and fiscally responsible adult. I also question what most consider retirement. Retirement to me is doing what you want on your terms and enjoying life. Running around stressed and under a constant gun is what we strive to free ourselves from. But retirement? Many imply that this is where one officially does nothing and sits on the front porch reading all day. To do this the parameters are far different from a situation I'd more closely associate with retirement where maybe you work by choice doing something you enjoy for a supplemental income. I've also occasionally screwed around with various models that branch off the 4% withdrawal plan. I'm no where near needing to tap into my investment funds but I've always been intrigued with the idea of refining the 4% strategy to something variable. Say, you live off of 50% of the previous years returns, with a cap at 7% and anything after getting thrown into a side account that rests mainly in short terms interest bearing vehicle. This side account then acts as a draw account to live on in years of negative returns. It can also be used to add fresh funds after market corrections. It essentially forces you to cash out a small piece after outperformance. It would look something like this. Say you have $3m and return 20%. You "gain" $600k. Your primary account increases to $3.3m after you withdraw $300k. You live on $210k(I'd still probably spend nowhere near this), and $90k goes to the sub account. Next year you gain 16%. $528k gain, $210k to live on, $54k to sub account. $3.564m in main account. I like something like this because in lean years it forces you to be nimble, and in solid years you are rewarded for great investment returns while still growing your money. Also, provided you can generate a positive return, your safety net account grows and will cushion your down years while also allowing you to have dry powder most who are "fully invested" don't have. As long as your returns are positive, you're never really in bad shape, and honestly, while everyone debates the practicallity of "beating the index", simply generating a return greater than zero is easier than easy.

IDK, I'll preface this by saying I am long these as well, however something I've struggled with is the basis for these claims. It all seems outrageously rife with hind site thinking and Monday morning quarterback mentality. Essentially investors hearing the winning lottery numbers and then claiming they had the tickets before it was announced. On the one hand, I agree with pretty much everything the bulls here are saying(fundamentally in terms of what's legally right and wrong), hence I own the securities. However the other side of things, one that isn't so compelling, is the simple fact that these companies, along with many others were in dire situations. Maybe they weren't insolvent, but they were shut out of the capital markets and the lender of last resorts did so on rather onerous terms. This lender, essentially held the fate of these companies in their hands. Just because they acted differently with AIG or C, doesn't mean they had to do so with Fannie and Freddie. That lender, then down the line changed the rules, but if you think about it, any majority owner would seemingly have similar ability to do so if they owned equivalent amounts of a given company, and the rest of the shareholders would just kind of be screwed without any recourse. More troubling if I am playing devil's advocate, is that it seems like every long here, got long well after the doomsday events that shaped the reconfiguration of these entities. IMO the argument that "yea these companies were stolen and obviously they were healthy" doesnt really hold as much water if you werent previously invested in them during the time period in question. Your argument essentially is what? That it was so obvious they were healthy but I didn't make an investment until 2012? If it was such a no brainer that these entities were healthy at the time, why weren't they able to access the capital markets? Specifically in relation to the preferreds, look at a lot of the O&G companies that have recently been thru chapter 11. This IMO was just a messier(not surprising bc the government was involved) re-org. I hope it all works out. But a lot of the arguments, while fundamentally pretty damn sound and legally compelling, are all hind site based and IMO wishful hoping.

I think a trend we are already starting to see, but one that will become more prevalent is focusing on higher education in earlier years rather than blowing a load on colleges and universities. My parents always stressed the importance of a good education and my siblings and I all had the opportunity to go to private schools. The logic was that the mind and the individual develops far more during the early-mid teenage years and thus those years and the education received is more crucial towards development as a person than going to a "brand" school for $50,000 a year. So for $10,000-$20,000 a year for 4 high school years, you supposedly get much more than you would for 4 years at $40,000-$50,000/year. Maybe I'm an outlier, but the first two years of college are gen-ed which is the same everywhere, and personally I found being adventurous far more enlightening than mundane tasks that largely revolved around things like being able to do what you are told and memorization(tasks I knew I could do if I wanted and thus felt no need to do if the content did not compel me). Additionally, having gotten a real education in high school, I was already at a huge advantage having taken calc+stats classes and advanced sciences and then showing up to college and seeing people spend 2+ years and tens of thousands of dollars learning Earth Sciences and Algebra. This was over a decade ago. My youngest brother went the same high school route however went into college knowing he wanted to be a biomedical engineer. I had a vague idea that either law or finance interested me, but otherwise not a clue. My brother seems to be in the same boat as a lot of kids these days, whereas I was in the same boat as many in my day. So I think there is becoming a naturally tendency for kids to develop their interests earlier, and then pursue them more efficiently. I think universities will soon be forced to evolve and as a result of both the lack of demand and well as the insane costs, I think we are not too far off from seeing the typical 4 year degree cut down to 2-3.

I am by no means an expert, but several people I know have spoken very positively about some of the Mutual Series Funds as a buy and hold forever. *Edit, noticed you mentioned ETF's, not mutual funds.

PepsiCo is a name I'd be comfortable owning into a melt down. I think the junk food/soda crackdown is exaggerated. There's been nothing known to man to be worse for you than cigarettes for decades and those companies are still cash machines. Soda and potato chips will survive.

Site was down/scrambled/no content at various points between 5-9:30 EST.

Tepper is different animal (much more diversified) compared to those other folks. He is, but from time to time he really loads up when he sees something and doesn't often miss. The financials were his big one, but even now, AGN is a pretty concentrated position. GM a couple years ago was about 20% if I remember correctly. Cooperman on the other hand is the definition of diversified and had one of the worst runs of "blow ups" I've seen from 2014-2016. SD, MONIF, S, where all fairly big and well promoted positions that all had spectacular declines. Another name I'd mention in the not blowing up camp is Nelson Peltz.

After reading through a few threads, particularly the SHLD and VRX ones, it got me thinking. Obviously we all take major beatings from time to time, the trick is to managing the impact of such events. This is something that wasn't really done with Ackman's VRX investment, or Berkowitz's SHLD position. The effects for both guys have been pretty devastating by any measure, but especially in terms of publicity. I can think of major positions blowing up for many guys. Watsa, Cooperman w/ SD, Pabrai ZINC, Baker Street, etc. But what about guys who haven't really had this problem? What sort of investing style have they used to avoid these pitfalls. How do they manage their positions. Obviously a major market downturn is going to have a predictable effect on performance, but the big killer is having prominent positions go bust for reasons specific to the investment rather than the broader market. First name that kind of pops out for me is Tepper. He does seem like more of a trader, but he isn't afraid to be concentrated in a big idea. What managers do people follow whom don't seem to get beat big? Lastly, more so out of curiosity in regards to others here, how do you personally look to avoid this. Diversification seems to help, but one look at Cooperman the last few years will show it doesn't spare you entirely. As a trader, it seems obviously a bit easier as you typically have a set of rules. But as a value investor, what rules do people use to avoid major blow ups? Do you just size it and let it ride? Do you only add under "x" scenario? Personally I've found avoiding companies with high debt loads/complicated capital structures and unpredictable earnings/consistent history of losses helps. I tend to concentrate in companies with hard assets. The downside is I miss out on a lot of tech, biotech, and even energy names. Apologize in advance if this thread has already been covered somewhere. Still somewhat new here but thought it was an interesting subject given the popularity of threads relating to SHLD, VRX, and FNMA which could be another big blow up for many managers(not surprisingly both Ackman and Berkowitz as well).

To me at least, this seems like a clever way to cut costs.

Zacks is trash. No value to it. Their analyst work is an automated script.

Pretty cool stuff and great reddit discussion. Always find this kind of stuff fascinating. How one attains their freedom. The pursuit of money is often falsely associated with people who are driven. Personally I think the freedom from hard work is the primary driver and accumulating wealth is generally just the bi-product. David Siegel from time to time has had somewhat interesting commentary on the ease with which hard work alone can propel one to great heights simply because this type of work ethic itself has become a scarce commodity. Especially when you are young. Wouldn't necessarily call him a role model but I always find it neat how you hear the same type of things. "In my mid twenties I was at my office working on Friday at 10 pm while my friends were out getting drunk and chasing tail at the bars" was one of his better lines. It is quite true. The earlier you can stand compounding the better. Not only can you compound wealth but experience too. Both become immensely valuable over time.

Personally Ive found concentrating in a few solid ideas within sectors you like and understand is the best approach. If you like to read and research it helps too, although at times this also makes it difficult to stay disciplined because you are constantly presenting yourself new ideas. On the other hand I know people who just diversify the heck out of everything and never plan on selling. One person I know will buy 100 shares of anything fundamentally solid, up to about 10k. He's got a portfolio of like 200 companies purchased over the past 30 years plus. Some have gone to zero or been losers; some have turned into 50-100x the initial investment. This is a very long term process and approach but if you hit on a few investments with returns like that, your retirement is taken care of. I guess starting early is big too.

The left made a case out of Russia for their own self-protection. Assured that the spying on Trump & Co. would eventually come to light after HRC lost, it looks to me that Obama's minions created this entire "Russian's hacked the election" narrative to distract from the real target of their spying. Public enemy #1 -- their political opponents. The most amusing aspect of all of this from the libs/MSM is that they had been presented with the idea that Russia is something to be concerned about and completely blew it off. I remember Mitt Romney questioning the fact that Russia could be a major problem during one of the 2012 presidential debates and sly ole Barry made some crack about "the 1980's called and wants the Cold War back". The arrogance was unprecedented. Then the Ukraine stuff started going down, and still, no one wanted to touch it and outside of some half assed sanctions, it was ignored again. Now, after losing the election, and ignoring the issues for an eternity, they get all riled up because "someone"(whom they're claiming is from Russia) leaked emails exposing how corrupt key members of the party were. And it's Trump's fault.

What I think is funny, and probably worth an SNL skit or two, is the paradox between a man's pursuit of a woman(or I guess in today's day and age another man as well(although you never hear about sexual harassment on that front from MSM)) and the application of the same principle(once called resilience) in regards to other areas. Pretty much anything sales related for that matter. Imagine a cars salesman if forced to behave with such little drive? Salesman: hey, this is a wonderful car, perfect for your family, inexpensive yet well rated Customer: No thanks Salesman: OK have a nice day How about T-Mobile which is very aggressive about recruiting customers? "How much are you paying at Verizon?" "I'm not interested" "Ok, bye!" Things were fine up until probably the last decade, when previously there were just natural pursuits and a girl saying No was sometimes just part of the game. A respectable and proper gentleman would not really have a problem deciphering whether he was getting the "NO" that meant get the F away or the "no" that meant keep trying, I like the attention. But now today, a girl is given the message that as long as she says no once, she essentially has a free call option on whatever the heck she wants from a guy provided he didn't make her sign a legal contract. This IMO is a symptom of the larger problem; things that were previously just common sense and common courtesy now need to be governed and regulated/legislated because society has gotten so petty and PC and there are no shortage of lawyers or politicians trying to capitalize on it.