NormR

A ham sandwich would be a big improvement in many cases!

I think he was highlighting the correlation between presidents who had affairs with the staff and debt reduction. ;)

Anyone else LOL at the very notion that low beta is the reason for Buffett's success?

Thanks! I'll try to avoid getting a swelled head - it's already too big. ;D

Yes, very true, it's a published record to the extent that it's based on articles (published by third parties) rather than AUM over a decade or so. Also, the rebalance dates are often not based on the calendar year end.

Oh, no offense taken, it's a very valid point. I'd be very pleased if all the feedback I got was nearly as good. :)

should be: If I Recall Correctly Yup, sorry about that.

Thanks for posting this, looks like a good place to check for ideas. I have seen a lot of backtests that validate the Graham method. But it means more to me to see people who have done it with real money. It's easy to look at an investing strategy and think "I am going to set something like this up and just sit back and let the returns happen." There are a lot of things you don't think about when you look at a backtest. Are the stocks liquid enough that the returns would have been possible? And would you have really followed it even if it was possible? To achieve the results that are mentioned in this article you would have had to go all in on 4 stocks in fall '08 when all hell was breaking loose. Not all in on PG and WMT either, but in stuff like Methanex (MEOH). I can't see myself doing that. If anyone else on here has a decade or so experience with a diversified statistical approach like Graham advocated I would like to hear about your experience with it. Oh, it got worse than that. IIRC, the method picked out only 2 stocks in 2003. But, the - um - author frequently points out that the method does not result in a diversified portfolio. He fully expects people to hold more stocks. ;D However, there were more than 40 stocks that passed the test in the spring of 2009. So, some patience and a holding period of a few years instead of one would result in a more diversified portfolio. Many value strategies work well with 3-5+ year holding periods. But Graham's original defensive criteria were a little too strict, produced even fewer stocks, and IIRC had an uneven record in the U.S. soon after they were suggested. IIRC, a slightly different take on Graham's defensive method was applied with good results in the South African market. Again, it did suffer from a paucity of picks from time to time. I don't have the paper that described it close at hand. To the last question, yes, I've been using methods similar to Graham for many years now. I tend to be a little more quant than qual (at least compared to most posters here). But it has served me well. While we're on the topic of Walter, here's a recent article ... How to beat the market, with patience and ugly stocks. Apologies for the self promotion.

Well, IIRC, Royal was at a slight premium, but many others were much lower than book. At least when I bought a few. ;D However, what happens with an Irish-type situation and a 50% real estate decline?

Walter likes the 3rd edition too. (A great talk, even if he didn't seem to hear / answer some of the questions directly.)

Isn't the 4th (1962) the last one with Graham?

Time for the Americans to outsource their government to ;)

LOL. Why do I get visions of The Sorcerer's Apprentice (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSTWy25hRiI). ;D (I'm even worse when it comes to typos!) As it is, the dinner is getting pretty huge which is a testament to Sanjeev's hard work and dedication. I'm looking forward to the next meeting!

I have to give a good deal of credit to this fine forum for many of the ideas. I also pillaged the portfolio of several notable value investors such as Mohnish Pabrai for a few stocks. Many thanks! More generally, I want to incorporate a little more copying into my process and the new column/blog should help me set aside some dedicated time to do so. As to portfolio construction, I deliberately stuck to larger and more liquid names. While I tend to follow a bunch of less liquid and smaller stuff myself, it's hard to suggest to a non-specialist audience. I also gave some thought to non-equal weighting but I didn't want to effectively narrow an already rather focused portfolio. Again, the non-specialist audience should lean to more diversified portfolios. (It's also why a few, let's call them, investment conglomerates were included.) So, in some ways a few compromises were made but I think it should be an interesting little portfolio nonetheless.

Thanks for the link Sanjeev! I'll be trying to spread value investing love far and wide. 8) So, let me know about any value investors / ideas that deserve to get a little more attention. ;D

Another trick is that they tend to use value indexes to measure value funds. As a result, the value part is assumed. Also, when looking at just the strategy, one should back out the fees. A fund that charges 3% a year and underperforms by 1% after fees is on to a good strategy - it just charges too much for it.

Some one looked at the top 10 in the S&P500 over many decades and the mega caps did not fare well. -2-3 percentage points per year on average IIRC. I think it was in the FAJ a few years back.

What, no love for Hetty Green? Kim Shannon has fans. Etc. I grant that investing has been male dominated but there are more than a few smart women out there. I expect to see more in the future.

Now now guys, there are some famous female value investors out there.

Well, based on the FFH meeting, there be many sausages around these parts.

I'm looking forward to the seniors discount. (I think some might start as early as 55) My parents are making out like bandits. Oh, and they're getting cheap stuff too. ;)

Shhh, or the 60+ might wake up and kick me out of the tree house too. ;)

Moore is right. Managing other people's money is different. There are both legal and size issues among others. Heck, I've a hard time buying reasonable amounts of some stocks for my own portfolio. They'd not really be options for a 1B AUM fund.

Not a great poll for pros re: AUM. So, I'm going to assume we're talking personal portfolios here.

Hey you kids, get off my lawn! ;) ;D