Sweet

On indexing in general, you have to choose the right country, the right sector, the right indexing approach. Some indexing, like buying Europe, has worked poorly compared to US indexes. Someone pointed out one time that the rules of the SP-500 meant that it acted like a giant trading algorithm that cuts losers and allows winners to run. I thought that was very perceptive and accurate and it helps explain its success. But indexes with a slight rule change, such as equally balanced rather than market cap weight ETFs aren’t as good as cutting losers and allowing winners to run. Wrt the indexes I’ve looked at, generally equally weight underperforms marketcap weighted. My preferred index would be to hold the Nasdaq but unfortunately you have to get the timing right because valuations can go crazy at times.

I have historically sat in a large amount of cash to wait for investments that can take a very long time to appear. I realised about 2-3 years ago that the approach you described is optimal - easier said than done though.

I feel like we have already had a landing and it’s soft.

Land is something I’ve wanted to own. That’s significantly cheaper than land in the UK- about 4x cheaper by my estimates. Something I would seriously consider if I lived stateside.

Thanks @Lucaand others who provided an explanation of how and why they use leverage

For those who are using leverage how are you using it? Are you protecting against downside? Is diversification more important with leverage? Doesn’t leverage work against you when the market drops - how do you avoid this? I don’t think I can use leverage competently.

I don’t use leverage but I don’t think using leverage is stupid. I just don’t yet feel comfortable using it.

You seemed to suggest I look in the mirror, that’s why I said what I did. I don’t believe I’ve made an arrogant statement.

Valuearb didn’t call him arrogant. I did. And I didn’t say that statement… so.

I have more of an issue with the ‘anyone who disagrees with me is clueless’ type of attitude, than the comment from valuearb. Whether someone is a genius is subjective, and I’d think you’d agree with me that there are other computer applications more complex than Bitcoin. In the investing / trading sphere I find it unique to the crypto world that whenever an adherent of Bitcoin finds someone they disagree with the ‘you don’t understand’ trope is more often and more quickly wheeled out.

I’m ok with people posting what they want. If there are a few pages of talking about Apple and Berkshire that’s ok. It’s just people working through investment ideas which I think is entirely part of what this thread was supposed to be.

No wachtwoord, it’s your arrogant attitude and the manner you disagree with others.

Oh do shut up wachtwoord. Arrogance overload.

It’s grown more than 20% over 10 years, but I agree with your thinking on it valuearb

what % was the coke position at the peak?

That’s not like the question and discussion we are having about Apple which is one of valuation and future returns. They answered a question about portfolio concentration. No doubt it’s a great company, and no doubt Berkshire would have a problem deploying 140 billion if they sold, but the question is - Apple, flat revenue, 32 PE?

I said I exercised the options, so no, it was ended up a stock position that took a big dive whilst I was trying to be clever by splitting it between tax years.

I once had a fat gain on options which I was desperate to split across years for tax purposes. So I waited and exercised them. I ended up waiting too long such that any savings I might have made in tax was lost many times more in not just selling earlier. So it’s easy to make the exact argument you just made in the moment but it can be a mistake even just a few months later.

It’s not that it’s a ‘problem’ it’s whether it’s the best use of Berkshires money. Somebody else said on the board recently that Apple might be the new Coke for Berkshire - Spek I think. Fair enough. But the SP-500 has outperformed KO for over 30 years, and by a significant margin in the past 20 year or less. Apple isn’t growing much at the moment and sitting at a PE of 30. That 177 billion could be sub-100 billion if revenue or earnings don’t start growing again.

I don't think this means that the US is going to break up. I don't think it would be allowed to happen either.

I think the risks mentioned here, not the prescription, are about right: I remember Buffet one time said that the value of Berkshire would rise when he and Charlie dies on the prospect of it being split up. Not sure that’s true anymore - the value rising part.

Stopping the NWS does mean much. Sure it is a prelude to release, but it doesn't guarantee the shareholders get anything.

Trump had 4 years to get it done last time and it didn't happen and I don't think there is any reason to think it will be different. I had traded in and out of a position in this years ago, twice for small profits, once for a small loss. It was a gruelling lesson in not buying into a company based on a court case, as the recent Spirit Airlines merger has shown. It's just too hard to predict court cases, and its especially hard to win them when government are on the other side of the bench from you. I'd like to own the companies at low prices but I'm not holding my breath.

“Hikes to corporation tax and the National Living Wage are also adding to costs for debt-laden businesses.” That’s our supposedly conservative and supposedly pro-business government for you. And Labour, the higher tax party historically, are likely to be the next government - I guess they can’t do any worse.

Why would they need to know in advance it could be adopted or not? I’m sure these guys are trying new things all the time, some work and some do not. I never said they needed a back door. In any case, there have been plenty who thought it was truly anonymous and got busted.