Gregmal

I would ask the question who invests with this mentality, but it seems a lot of people do. In general I don’t think one should be in the stock market if they think +/- 10% is a big deal either way. It’s just kind of arbitrary and in hindsite stating that buying the absolute top on the Nasdaq was a bad move, seems to be as well because even if you did, DCA take care of this and chances are you also bought lower than the top prior or have the ability to after as well. If I had listened to all the valuation experts warning about buying MSFT at the top of the tech bubble I’d never have bought a tech stock during the last decade. You just have to accept certain risks when investing and there’s ways to mitigate them. Over time the people who are certain they have the crystal ball…never do.

https://money.com/google-8-wrong-worst-predictions/?amp=true

Lol true, but generally speaking. If you know what you’re doing you can probably just sling derivatives and other exotic product. But for the normal persons, and I’m talking CDs, government bonds, etc…like where you get 5% with zero shot at anything more…..total waste.

IDK, I still just think that unless you are retired, or like maybe on the very back end of your career, buying bonds is the equivalent of admitting defeat or hitting from the ladies t. If you're in your 20s/30s/40s....you have time. More importantly, for an average person, the bulk of their growth will simply come from savings. Its just such a dangerous game sitting around thinking you re smarter than the market and sustainably so...as in "Ima make my nut shucking and jiving around between bonds and CDs and occasionally stocks"....as Ive said many times, it says something that even in year where it all worked for them... short sellers and bearish prognosticators....most of the actually lost money! And the ones that did make money...the amount they made hardly compensated them for the years of lagging due to such framework. Weathering drawdowns is as integral and normal an aspect of investing as taking punches is to a being a boxer. All you gotta do is avoid the knockout punches.

This is another really big flaw I see in the big bear arguments. I agree with “2021 was a peak year” and this should be obvious. It also goes without saying that it was not a normal time either. So there’s a lack of sophistication to an argument that things declining from what was a clear one off….equals…. the end of the world or some terrible situation. It’s why there’s a huge overblown sensationalism to the “see earnings and margins are coming down!” stuff.

Out of all the folks I know and have met who “outperform”, almost NONE and them spend any time trying to “outperform”. They just don’t even worry about it. Of the folks that do spend lots of time trying to outperform, pretty much none of them do. It’s such a useless exercise. Like Vinod mentioned, it’s impossible to have high inflation without top line growth somewhere. Eventually inflation goes away, the cycle takes fold…whatever. As long as you weren’t being too granular and were buying durable businesses or assets, you’re good. I mean really when you invest(again stressing investing not short term guessing games) the most important thing is not valuations or rates or inflation or whatever flavor of the month topic exists, but the larger and longer term prosperity of the area you are investing. If someone is massively bearish on the USA, why in the world would they own Berkshire Hathaway long term? Some of this stuff is just simple.

Well theres another very simple aspect to this, but its hypnotizing and very much a siren song for many the egomaniac who needs to be right or "call it". Stocks either go up, or down. Many times, those calling it, think they are geniuses simply because the direction matched the forecast, even when the logic/framework behind the forecast was totally wrong. So they sit around waiting to eventually be "right"...and generally speaking, if given enough time, one can almost always clip a window where they can claim to have called it. However, if instead of being deathly loyal to an ego and "being right"...one can also choose loyalty to making money...IMO..the reason one is in the markets, and in which case the whole "calling it" thing and sitting around waiting for that cookie...becomes a fools game.

The banking crisis was largely overblown by people trying to create one and Jerry trying to be a tough guy for his friends. In other news, the 2010 inflation crisis called and says it wants its oil prices back. It’s amazing the straws that continue to be grabbed at in order continue to peddle the inflation story.

While I dont think we go back there anytime soon, nor that the economy is on the brink of disaster, the major flaw you guys are making is exactly those assumptions. If theres no longer inflation, why wouldnt all those programs be back on the table? Especially now that they've, gasp, given themselves 500 bps of room to breathe, which was previous the argument for the "theyre trapped and have nowhere to go" bear crowd.

Like all the “ma calculators and excel sheets prove her Tesla work is total bullshit!” bros…….it’s like yo, brotha, didn’t you call it a short and have a $30 price target on it…..in like 2015? At least she got the direction correct lol. We all know both of you are just guessing on where it ends up and when that happens…but Ken Griffin appreciates your business.

They all must be mocked equally. I especially enjoy how much rage the underperforming value bros throw at Cathie. Deep down, they know she’s superior to them…the goal for neither is to really compound, but make money. And Cathie’s biz just had a run like few ever had and it eats at those fucks which is why she gets so much hate. Would I ever invest with her? Hell no. Although I’d consider investing in the parent company who generates fees off the crazy ARKs. But girl has a fuckin business and a brand, thats for sure. Someone like Hussman? Not so much.

I’ve added “financial professionals opining on valuations” to the list of folks to either ignore or point and laugh at. As a group, they’ve clearly demonstrated that there’s no correlation in terms of what they think something should trade for, and where it eventually does. More cynically, their opinions really seem to just be marketing material or ego caressing attention grabs.

Yea I turned off CNBC in 2016 and haven’t watched a second since. Peak was Icahn vs Ackman on HLF. Peak entertainment that is; there was never any value and if anything it was a distraction.

Yea I’m not @BG2008 close to this so maybe that’s part of it, but I just don’t view the company as distressed and I don’t buy that they’ll have any trouble tapping the debt markets on their core stuff. So when the market gives the picture you’re severely distressed, and you’re not, sitting around doing nothing isn’t my preferred plan of action.

Idk but while I’m sure all else equal these guys prefer their stock trade at $15 vs $5, if it’s worth $15 and trading at $5 you buyback stock. If you’re building real long term per share value, it’s a no brainer. If you can develop with 100% upside, buybacks are still the right move at $5. That’s the owner operator mentality. If you’re just collecting dirt or growing Sq/ft or unit #, at the expense of other stuff, what’s the point? If you’re swimming upstream(NY, microcap REIT, etc) you need something working for you, proactively. That’s all. AIV can buyback stock all day between $5-7…with a $12 NAV that gets scoffed at. But Clipper with a $12-15 NAV can’t be bothered?

The first paragraph to me validates the reason to dabble with the last two paragraphs. FRPH or FIZZ is the model. Show me you give a shit on allocation. There many different things I can point to with the FRP or FIZZ teams and profiles that seam ugly but there’s just as many where I can say they create value and care about shareholder value. Is there anything you can point to with CLPR that shows management gives two hoots? Im perfectly fine owning illiquid and even private stuff if everyone is aligned. But I need to know they’re aligned.

I don’t think anyone knows for sure but same stuff @thepupil mentioned a few years ago when we were all smashing these sorta names. They’re ugly ducklings, if the duckling never gets pretty, or gets uglier, theres little stomach for stuff like this, especially when the market gets fickle. That’s why we need to see a meaningful corporate action from management, which I’m not sure is coming.

LOL my man I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve been told variations of that. Or gotten requests to really create a fund or ETF. I don’t know why, although I could gander somewhat, but I’ve never been all that ambitious about anything other than being able to live life on my own terms. At a certain level financially, that’s achievable. After that, the money loses its meaning, at least to me. Part of why I’ve never understood how people who already have so much, behave in certain ways, just to get more, of something they don’t need. Even worse, harming others with less than you, in order to do it. So I just enjoy interacting with likeminded people who also do it for love of the game rather than likes, clicks, or dollars. All of this stuff can be closely related, but hugely different, all at the same time. I like investing but I also like hanging out with my daughter all day like I’m doing today, just playing together, or pulling my son from school Wednesday to go see the Super Mario movie…so I guess it’s just priorities.

My old man was always into this kinda shit. The Gloom Boom Doom Report type stuff. ZH as well. I just remember asking him many years ago if he thought it odd that all these places that are selling you these "services" almost always seem to arrive at the same conclusion, almost irrespective of the situation. They always find a way to bridge whats happening back to the same old, same old. Imagine an investment or financial publication, with unique insight, that presented things like IDK, Tepper, or Eisman, or just in general, took a calm, measured approach LOL? That shit doesnt get page views or generation subscription sales though. I bought some GLD today. Without getting too much into the reasons, whenever I think of gold, I wince, because its the perfect example of this sort of thinking. Talk to die hard gold bulls...theres never a point in time where they arent super convinced that everyone needs to hoard gold. 2005, 2009, 2013, 2016, 2020, 2023...what should we buy? Gold off course!

Crime is surging and they’re indicting political foes and charging security guards who get shot with murder….they’re earning every ounce of future pain in that city, and have no one to fault but themselves. Id honestly rather pay $7 for Clipper after seeing a massive buyback than $5 with the Bistricers just continuing the status quo. Show us you care….

Yea I think often with stocks folks get intimidated, for a lot of reasons. But rule of thumb with stocks, people, life, etc, at least for me, is if you truly know and are comfortable with who and what you go to sleep with at night, you'll sleep well. But most dont apply that to their investments. Find any 5-10 year stretch in history and if you bought a solid company and stuck with it and just intelligently but lazily DCA's in over an extended stretch, you did ok. Bubbles dont mean theres no value and crashes tend to happen quickly. Stairs up, elevator down Ive always heard is the saying. Its why even with stuff I really like, I'll never go all in on the first purchase.

I follow an outfit called the NIA, standing for National Inflation Association. They probably fall into a similar category and often are involved in stock promotions, but do often provide unique viewpoints and actually at times, actionable investment ideas. ZH though, IMO is too extreme and predictable. Nothing sells like greed and/or fear. Most choose to market the later because their target audience is so much more gullible. Pitching greed, folks know when theyre being greedy. Pitch fear? Those folks think theyre being prudent, conservative and responsible lol. But its the same shit. In general, in todays day and age with the internet, you need to be mindful of folks who make their money via page views and subscriptions. Be weary of outfits that ALWAYS sing some variation fo the same tune. Thats why when Tepper or Loeb speaks, I pay close attention. When Mark Spitznagel has something to say, its like gee thanks for wasting my time.

Flipped BUR and XLE and bought some GLD

Baffert is currently suing Churchill Downs which I found amusing.

Part of investing is adapting. Valuing investing doesn’t work? Tell that to someone who took a textbook approach in 2020….maybe started a long/short fund. Whereas if you started in 2009 you probably have a different view. Why do you think there’s so many guys who look like geniuses that are “value” investors born from the ashes of the tech bubble in the late 90s? So there’s two things, luck in terms of when you start, and for longevity…ability to evolve your process and read the market environment.