What's your current portfolio?

[Oreo]

I mostly just invest in Amazon (AMZN). And then there's some other stuff.

[UNF2007]

Two portfolio's

 

Active Long Only:

HRI (spinoff from Hertz), MDR, PIH 80% : 20% Cash

 

Passive:

Vanguard Total Stock Market Index

[writser]

Wow some of you are quite concentrated. I wonder how many of those folks have a larger portfolio? Say more than a million bucks. No worries if you guys don't want to share. A decade ago , I would take quite a bit of concentrated positions but my portfolio was only $50K so it wasn't much of a risk. Now I dare not go over 10% even though I know it'll be a perfect Kelly's bet. I had turned into a complete wuss.

 

I am a big wuss too. I have ~30 core positions and 10-20 small positions on the side. I do a basket approach in some areas, if you group those together the number goes down somewhat but I can't imagine going below 20 positions. I'd rather err on the side of caution (i.e. not outperforming) than risk blowing up. Additional upside: it prevents me from getting bored. It's the Walter Schloss approach.

 

And yes, I think quite a few of the concentrated posters here are young, early in their career and run small portfolios (not that there is anything wrong with that). Anecdotal evidence: the topicstarter owns 6 shares of Google.

 

I am definitely not posting my portfolio in this thread.  It is far too short a list and someone is going to get some bad ideas and over concentrate in 2017.

 

Concentrating is easy for you, you run OPM. Gotta gamble it up!

[wachtwoord]

 

And yes, I think quite a few of the concentrated posters here run small (< 7 or even <6 digit) portfolios. Anecdotal evidence: the topicstarter owns 6 shares of Google.

 

 

I think this is correct (it is in my case, 6 digits nearly 50% in my top 3 holdings). Maybe we should define a set of portfolio value ranges (predefined, to keep some privacy) to specify next to your holdings to make a topic such as this a bit more meaningful?

[hillfronter83]

Tetragon Financial

HRG 7 3/4% of 2022 Bonds, "fully hedged" with SPB puts and HRG puts

LUK Bonds (6 5/8% of 2043)

Berkshire Hathaway

Various equities roughly equal weighted (RESI, FOR, SIR, LUK, FCE, EQC)

Gold

Silver

Various Options and Hedges

Non transferable SWY CVR on Casa Ley

Short Indexes

 

I-Bonds

TIAA Stable Value Fund at 1.8%

 

Hi, Pupil,

I'm curious where you hold your Stable Value fund.

[orthopa]

In taxible account

 

PM

MO

V

BP

BRK-B

AIG-WT

FNMA

FNMA preferreds

[Graham Osborn]

 

And yes, I think quite a few of the concentrated posters here run small (< 7 or even <6 digit) portfolios. Anecdotal evidence: the topicstarter owns 6 shares of Google.

 

 

I think this is correct (it is in my case, 6 digits nearly 50% in my top 3 holdings). Maybe we should define a set of portfolio value ranges (predefined, to keep some privacy) to specify next to your holdings to make a topic such as this a bit more meaningful?

 

Sorry if that creates confusion.  I have a second external portfolio largely of options that I am in the process of liquidating (if liquidity weren't an issue I'd transfer the assets today).  Once that is done and this portfolio is fully "stocked out" it will be a six figure portfolio of probably 20-25 positions.  Hope that helps.

[Graham Osborn]

Wow some of you are quite concentrated. I wonder how many of those folks have a larger portfolio? Say more than a million bucks. No worries if you guys don't want to share. A decade ago , I would take quite a bit of concentrated positions but my portfolio was only $50K so it wasn't much of a risk. Now I dare not go over 10% even though I know it'll be a perfect Kelly's bet. I had turned into a complete wuss.

 

I am a big wuss too. I have ~30 core positions and 10-20 small positions on the side. I do a basket approach in some areas, if you group those together the number goes down somewhat but I can't imagine going below 20 positions. I'd rather err on the side of caution (i.e. not outperforming) than risk blowing up. Additional upside: it prevents me from getting bored. It's the Walter Schloss approach.

 

And yes, I think quite a few of the concentrated posters here are young, early in their career and run small portfolios (not that there is anything wrong with that). Anecdotal evidence: the topicstarter owns 6 shares of Google.

 

I am definitely not posting my portfolio in this thread.  It is far too short a list and someone is going to get some bad ideas and over concentrate in 2017.

 

Concentrating is easy for you, you run OPM. Gotta gamble it up!

 

20 positions seems reasonable.  It may be true that with a smaller portfolio you can earn it back quicker, so you might be encouraged to take more risk.  But in my case, I'm running this portfolio to establish a track record - so if it blows up I just lost a year of my life.  FWIW, I've had substantially all my assets (5-6 figs) in the market for the past 4 years.  I've made dumb mistakes (sometimes in the process of trying to avoid other dumb mistakes) and learned from them.  So I have just as much fear (if not more) of losing money as the retirees or personal managers on this thread.  0% can be an excellent risk-adjusted return under some scenarios.

[adesigar]

SHLD

BRK

LUK

[writser]

20 positions seems reasonable.  It may be true that with a smaller portfolio you can earn it back quicker, so you might be encouraged to take more risk.  But in my case, I'm running this portfolio to establish a track record - so if it blows up I just lost a year of my life. [..] So I have just as much fear (if not more) of losing money as the retirees or personal managers on this thread.

 

If you fail to establish a track record with a ~$100k portfolio you lose one year of your life? Please, keep things in perspective. If you're a full-time investor and you blow up you might have to sell your house, can't take care of your family, can't afford a retirement home and/or a good school for your children, just to name a few things. On the other hand, how your portfolio performs the next few years is mostly irrelevant in the greater scheme of things because the vast majority of your future net worth will come from labour, not capital. You can blow up $100k once or twice and still get a great job, your quality of life wouldn't be affected.

 

You say you can 'earn it back quicker' after a blow up but a retiree can't earn it back at all.

[ValueMaven]

Great question!! 

 

11.11%: Gross's Janus Unconstrained Fund: JUCTX (I think of this as macro w/HY overlay giving me 2-3% in HY ST exposure w/Gross's macro overlay)

8.64%: PIMCO Total Return: PTTDX

8.84%: LSB Industries: Special Situation Equity

9.5% Wells Fargo

 

62% Cash: Valuation trumps everything...

 

Sincerely,

ValueMaven

[valcont]

20 positions seems reasonable.  It may be true that with a smaller portfolio you can earn it back quicker, so you might be encouraged to take more risk.  But in my case, I'm running this portfolio to establish a track record - so if it blows up I just lost a year of my life. [..] So I have just as much fear (if not more) of losing money as the retirees or personal managers on this thread.

 

If you fail to establish a track record with a ~$100k portfolio you lose one year of your life? Please, keep things in perspective. If you're a full-time investor and you blow up you might have to sell your house, can't take care of your family, can't afford a retirement home and/or a good school for your children, just to name a few things. On the other hand, how your portfolio performs the next few years is mostly irrelevant in the greater scheme of things because the vast majority of your future net worth will come from labour, not capital. You can blow up $100k once or twice and still get a great job, your quality of life wouldn't be affected.

 

You say you can 'earn it back quicker' after a blow up but a retiree can't earn it back at all.

 

That's a great point. Stakes are way more important in investing especially when you are evaluating a portfolio manager. I wouldn't consider anyone who doesn't have his whole net worth in line for multiple years. Skills are way overrated and its hard to distinguish them from luck.I understand Buffet now when he says its easy to compound small amounts. Not because you can find more opportunities but the psychology starts to take over when stakes are raised.I would be extremely wealthy had my success in monopoly translated into real life.

 

[Rainforesthiker]

In my main account from largest to smallest

 

EZPW (got large due to the large price run-up; need to trim)

BRK.A

AIG

BAC

GM+B

LUK

MKL

CBI

AIG+

JPM+

C

BAC+A

BAM

FCAU

BBU

 

 

[undervalued]

Largest to smallest:

 

WFC

BAC

LUK

USG

CBI

LBTYK

PBF

KERX

NXEO

KIN

 

1% cash

[Dynamic]

My wife and I are both working full time, have no kids, are investing for retirement and roughly living off one income while investing the other. We have quite some time to go, unless we're very lucky with our future returns (though I try to temper my optimism from what looks like an unusually great year).

 

Tax Free (UK Self Select ISAs):

Cash (GBP) 3.3%

BRK.B 61% (37% operating company market value, 24% look-through market value of BRK portfolio)

AAPL 27% (28% look-through exposure)

WFC 4.6% (8.5% look-through exposure)

IBM 1.3% (3.6% look-through exposure)

 

Taxable but gains/losses well below UK Capital Gains Tax threshold

HPQ 0.7% (taxable, via employment & divestitures but not yet reinvested)

HPE 1.1% (taxable, via employment & divestitures but not yet reinvested)

KEYS 1.5% (taxable, via employment & divestitures but not yet reinvested)

 

Additionally I have a pension invested in UK FT All Share Tracker which should be worth about one third as much again at present, adding some diversification to allow me to be more aggressive, plus a new pension starting now for my wife and another for me in a few months - again to be invested in cheap trackers.

 

With my wife included, we hope to be able to invest about an additional 10-15% of today's market value into our retirement funds each year for the next few years (including some in the form of future pensions invested in trackers), so we are not so risk averse as the already retired.

 

I feel BRK.B is sufficiently high quality and diversified I'd be happy to hold 100% from time to time especially when it seems undervalued. I went heavily into BRK.B (over 90%) in February at about $125, selling HLMA (London) which I felt was pricey. Currently BRK trails HLMA by 1.74% (in GBP) excluding dividends so this looks poor, though I could argue that I sold most of the extra BRK exposure for a 13% profit when I...

 

...made a big bet on AAPL at $95.00 when it suffered bad year-on-year comparisons but I felt iPhone 7 and iStore sales would see some recovery, reducing my heavy BRK.B exposure by about one-third at $142.00 to fund most of it, but limited my initial exposure to about 25% due to the single company risks and moderate but real risk of Apple going the way of Nokia (despite customer lock-in, brand cachet and ongoing Apple Store sales). Since then AAPL is up almost 18% versus BRK (excl dividends) as BRK has only gained 2%. My wife doesn't like AAPL and neither of us has any of their products, but I recognise value there for the investor.

 

We've also added new money to the portfolio this year.

 

Also I lucked out big-time by being almost entirely USD denominated when the Brexit vote hit, so my portfolio looks like it gained enormously in GBP thanks to my home currency being greatly devalued! So despite the gains, I don't feel anything in my portfolio is overvalued, but I'm prepared that my gains might be wiped out in part if GBP strengthens versus USD.

[ValueMaven]

My wife and I are both working full time, have no kids, are investing for retirement and roughly living off one income while investing the other. We have quite some time to go, unless we're very lucky with our future returns (though I try to temper my optimism from what looks like an unusually great year).

 

Tax Free (UK Self Select ISAs):

Cash (GBP) 3.3%

BRK.B 61% (37% operating company market value, 24% look-through market value of BRK portfolio)

AAPL 27% (28% look-through exposure)

WFC 4.6% (8.5% look-through exposure)

IBM 1.3% (3.6% look-through exposure)

 

Taxable but gains/losses well below UK Capital Gains Tax threshold

HPQ 0.7% (taxable, via employment & divestitures but not yet reinvested)

HPE 1.1% (taxable, via employment & divestitures but not yet reinvested)

KEYS 1.5% (taxable, via employment & divestitures but not yet reinvested)

 

Additionally I have a pension invested in UK FT All Share Tracker which should be worth about one third as much again at present, adding some diversification to allow me to be more aggressive, plus a new pension starting now for my wife and another for me in a few months - again to be invested in cheap trackers.

 

With my wife included, we hope to be able to invest about an additional 10-15% of today's market value into our retirement funds each year for the next few years (including some in the form of future pensions invested in trackers), so we are not so risk averse as the already retired.

 

I feel BRK.B is sufficiently high quality and diversified I'd be happy to hold 100% from time to time especially when it seems undervalued. I went heavily into BRK.B (over 90%) in February at about $125, selling HLMA (London) which I felt was pricey. Currently BRK trails HLMA by 1.74% (in GBP) excluding dividends so this looks poor, though I could argue that I sold most of the extra BRK exposure for a 13% profit when I...

 

...made a big bet on AAPL at $95.00 when it suffered bad year-on-year comparisons but I felt iPhone 7 and iStore sales would see some recovery, reducing my heavy BRK.B exposure by about one-third at $142.00 to fund most of it, but limited my initial exposure to about 25% due to the single company risks and moderate but real risk of Apple going the way of Nokia (despite customer lock-in, brand cachet and ongoing Apple Store sales). Since then AAPL is up almost 18% versus BRK (excl dividends) as BRK has only gained 2%. My wife doesn't like AAPL and neither of us has any of their products, but I recognise value there for the investor.

 

We've also added new money to the portfolio this year.

 

Also I lucked out big-time by being almost entirely USD denominated when the Brexit vote hit, so my portfolio looks like it gained enormously in GBP thanks to my home currency being greatly devalued! So despite the gains, I don't feel anything in my portfolio is overvalued, but I'm prepared that my gains might be wiped out in part if GBP strengthens versus USD.

 

Do yourself a favor - half that position in BRKB and buy some FAIRFAX!!! 

[undervalued]

My wife and I are both working full time, have no kids, are investing for retirement and roughly living off one income while investing the other. We have quite some time to go, unless we're very lucky with our future returns (though I try to temper my optimism from what looks like an unusually great year).

 

Tax Free (UK Self Select ISAs):

Cash (GBP) 3.3%

BRK.B 61% (37% operating company market value, 24% look-through market value of BRK portfolio)

AAPL 27% (28% look-through exposure)

WFC 4.6% (8.5% look-through exposure)

IBM 1.3% (3.6% look-through exposure)

 

Taxable but gains/losses well below UK Capital Gains Tax threshold

HPQ 0.7% (taxable, via employment & divestitures but not yet reinvested)

HPE 1.1% (taxable, via employment & divestitures but not yet reinvested)

KEYS 1.5% (taxable, via employment & divestitures but not yet reinvested)

 

Additionally I have a pension invested in UK FT All Share Tracker which should be worth about one third as much again at present, adding some diversification to allow me to be more aggressive, plus a new pension starting now for my wife and another for me in a few months - again to be invested in cheap trackers.

 

With my wife included, we hope to be able to invest about an additional 10-15% of today's market value into our retirement funds each year for the next few years (including some in the form of future pensions invested in trackers), so we are not so risk averse as the already retired.

 

I feel BRK.B is sufficiently high quality and diversified I'd be happy to hold 100% from time to time especially when it seems undervalued. I went heavily into BRK.B (over 90%) in February at about $125, selling HLMA (London) which I felt was pricey. Currently BRK trails HLMA by 1.74% (in GBP) excluding dividends so this looks poor, though I could argue that I sold most of the extra BRK exposure for a 13% profit when I...

 

...made a big bet on AAPL at $95.00 when it suffered bad year-on-year comparisons but I felt iPhone 7 and iStore sales would see some recovery, reducing my heavy BRK.B exposure by about one-third at $142.00 to fund most of it, but limited my initial exposure to about 25% due to the single company risks and moderate but real risk of Apple going the way of Nokia (despite customer lock-in, brand cachet and ongoing Apple Store sales). Since then AAPL is up almost 18% versus BRK (excl dividends) as BRK has only gained 2%. My wife doesn't like AAPL and neither of us has any of their products, but I recognise value there for the investor.

 

We've also added new money to the portfolio this year.

 

Also I lucked out big-time by being almost entirely USD denominated when the Brexit vote hit, so my portfolio looks like it gained enormously in GBP thanks to my home currency being greatly devalued! So despite the gains, I don't feel anything in my portfolio is overvalued, but I'm prepared that my gains might be wiped out in part if GBP strengthens versus USD.

 

Do yourself a favor - half that position in BRKB and buy some FAIRFAX!!!

 

The surest way to become a millionaire is to save and have no kids for sure.

[Jurgis]

The surest way to become a millionaire is to save and have no kids for sure.

 

QFT.  8)

[CassiusKing1]

In random order (stocks only, MF's not included):

 

BRK

AMZN

GOOG

INTC

PRDGF

>25% Cash

[Graham Osborn]

On the other hand, how your portfolio performs the next few years is mostly irrelevant in the greater scheme of things because the vast majority of your future net worth will come from labour, not capital. You can blow up $100k once or twice and still get a great job, your quality of life wouldn't be affected.  You say you can 'earn it back quicker' after a blow up but a retiree can't earn it back at all.

 

I don't know who you are or where you're coming from, and I assume the converse is true.  But one of the biggest reasons Buffett got to where he is today is that he regarded his savings as more sacred than a retirement account from a very young age.  True - young people have more room to make stupid decisions and still avoid working at Walmart into their 70s (theoretically).  But there is a real opportunity cost to each and every blunder - namely the age at which you retire.  Buffett was a self-proclaimed retiree in his early 20s.  It's more about mindset than chronological age.  Whether you are a laborer or a capitalist is a personal decision, but poor risk management will forever confine you to the former category.

 

But I digress.  Let's return to the thread topic.

[Rainforesthiker]

The surest way to become a millionaire is to save and have no kids for sure.

 

QFT.  8)

 

Children are the greatest treasure by far . . .

[dyow]

Saving is way overrated.  The cheapskates i know put so many limitations on themselves.  I can't eat here, or vacation here, or buy that bc it is $200 extra....how can you live that.....to me it is a trait that was passed down from our early resource greedy ancestors and it warps people's minds. 

 

Another thing about these cheapskates i know, they would make terrible investors.  If any of the cheapskates I know bought a value stock and it went down 50% afterwards they would implode, panic and sellout at a loss.  I think the best investors also have a trait where they are emotionally detached from money.  An emotionally detached investor can put 50% of his net worth in one stock and do it rationally (accepting it will go lower), not to get rich per say, but bc the probabilities are so much on their side that it would almost be irrational not to.  If there is a 90% chance you get a multi bagger (the energy crash had these opportunities), and you did all your work you should go all in. 

 

People who think this is too risky I just look at it this way.  If I work 9-5 there is say a 90% chance I get paid a steady income going forward.  But there is also a 10% chance I get fired, laid off or want to quit bc I end up hating my job.  But nobody thinks working a 9-5 is risky.  To me it is all same, you have a 90% chance here and 90% there. But with the 90% multi bagger you have the chance to literally change your life forever.  Maybe my brain is twisted, idk, but this is how i view it and this is how i invest.

 

PS i know you can't attach exact probabilities to anything but you can approximate an outcome based on all the relevant information.

[winjitsu]

 

I don't know who you are or where you're coming from, and I assume the converse is true.  But one of the biggest reasons Buffett got to where he is today is that he regarded his savings as more sacred than a retirement account from a very young age.  True - young people have more room to make stupid decisions and still avoid working at Walmart into their 70s (theoretically).  But there is a real opportunity cost to each and every blunder - namely the age at which you retire.  Buffett was a self-proclaimed retiree in his early 20s.  It's more about mindset than chronological age.  Whether you are a laborer or a capitalist is a personal decision, but poor risk management will forever confine you to the former category.

 

But I digress.  Let's return to the thread topic.

 

Writser is basing this off a general academic theory on human capital and asset allocation. More or less as a laborer, you can do a PV calculation of your future earnings and think of it as an asset called human capital.  The older you get, the PV of your future earnings decreases. Meanwhile, you convert your earnings into savings and into financial capital. Your overall wealth = human capital + financial capital

 

The argument is not there is no opportunity cost, but rather losing 100k in your financial portfolio when you're a doctor with a PV of future earnings of $2.5mm from your job, you'll still be okay. Buffett is a unique case since his mindset was that his PV of earnings from being a laborer would be 0, so impacts to his financial capital would be huge. While this mindset may be prevalent on this board, I don't think its the case for the general population.

 

I don't think the theory is perfect by any ways, but it does help frame personal asset allocation decisions for less sophisticated investors. For example, according to this theory, if your human capital is high risk and highly correlated with financial markets (i.e. you work for an investment bank or a hedge fund), you should seek lower risk investments with your financial capital. That way when the financial market collapses, you don't lose both human capital and financial capital. etc etc.

 

Anyways, my discretionary portfolio, in order of size:

 

AGX (~40% will be trimming shortly)

Cash (35% + and growing)

VDTH

INCP

RCII

 

[SwimmingNaked]

largest to smallest

 

FCAU

RACE

TCX

DTEA

CRH.TO

RYCEY

TFI.TO

 

looking at: ALLE, FOGO

 

recently sold: BIDU, AGU (not a fan of the merger), CXRX (what a disaster, ate a ~60% loss on this...think I'm done with levered equity plays, maybe use options instead)

[Picasso]

Saving is way overrated.  The cheapskates i know put so many limitations on themselves.  I can't eat here, or vacation here, or buy that bc it is $200 extra....how can you live that.....to me it is a trait that was passed down from our early resource greedy ancestors and it warps people's minds. 

 

Another thing about these cheapskates i know, they would make terrible investors.  If any of the cheapskates I know bought a value stock and it went down 50% afterwards they would implode, panic and sellout at a loss.  I think the best investors also have a trait where they are emotionally detached from money.  An emotionally detached investor can put 50% of his net worth in one stock and do it rationally (accepting it will go lower), not to get rich per say, but bc the probabilities are so much on their side that it would almost be irrational not to.  If there is a 90% chance you get a multi bagger (the energy crash had these opportunities), and you did all your work you should go all in. 

 

People who think this is too risky I just look at it this way.  If I work 9-5 there is say a 90% chance I get paid a steady income going forward.  But there is also a 10% chance I get fired, laid off or want to quit bc I end up hating my job.  But nobody thinks working a 9-5 is risky.  To me it is all same, you have a 90% chance here and 90% there. But with the 90% multi bagger you have the chance to literally change your life forever.  Maybe my brain is twisted, idk, but this is how i view it and this is how i invest.

 

PS i know you can't attach exact probabilities to anything but you can approximate an outcome based on all the relevant information.

 

Good stuff as usual.