Not an investment board

[deadspace]

This great board is in danger of losing everything that made it great for so many years.

This board needs a moderator

Politics and Covid should be immediately banned as topics

Perhaps an AI bot could be used to remove posts that are of little investment value

I am happy to submit some key words to the bot for flagging purposes

 

Hopefully someone takes this seriously

 

[Morgan]

There are mods. There are also different boards. Focus on the investment board and ignore or mute the others.

 

Also we’ve had a bit of a rally the last few years so there are fewer names that appear cheap...more time to talk about other topics I suppose.

[Casey]

My suggestion is to set the politics section to mute and use the covid topic to update your "ignore" list.  A covid thread with actual moderation would be pretty useful. I've given up and just moved to Twitter.

[bookie71]

I catch myself visiting less and reading even less than I once did.  Seems like I look at one or two things and then check "mark all topics read" and move on.

[merkhet]

Unfortunately, politics leaks from the politics board onto other subjects all the time. I have found this board less and less useful since around 2013 or so -- many of the old posters are no longer as active as they used to be -- but that's just the nature of the beast.

[villainx]

This great board is in danger of losing everything that made it great for so many years.

This board needs a moderator

Politics and Covid should be immediately banned as topics

Perhaps an AI bot could be used to remove posts that are of little investment value

I am happy to submit some key words to the bot for flagging purposes

 

Hopefully someone takes this seriously

 

I really haven't experienced this issue.  Am I doing this site wrong, because I only visit the areas that I find relevant or of value.

 

I mean, I do see more threads that I'm not very interested in, and that in itself might take away focus (or breed discontent/arguments that otherwise wouldn't surface), but I don't click on those threads.

[Read the Footnotes]

Unfortunately, politics leaks from the politics board onto other subjects all the time. I have found this board less and less useful since around 2013 or so -- many of the old posters are no longer as active as they used to be -- but that's just the nature of the beast.

Many of the respected posters from years ago have told me there's a reason they don't participate any more.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law

 

To the best of my knowledge, there aren't "mods". There is just one "mod". It's a pretty good result given the limited resources for policing behavior.

 

The suggestions in the following threads won't solve all the complaints, but they will help.

 

https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/how-to-ignore-users-on-this-forum/msg400410/#msg400410

 

https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/poll-have-you-set-the-politics-message-board-to-ignore/

[Guest cherzeca]

while some posters are "better" than others, I dont buy the miss the good old days lament.  I use stock names to drive my interest to read, and user names within a topic for avoidance.  put another way, if I have an interest in a stock, I will generally be happy to read all posts on that stock, wheat and chaff.  but on a topic (yes, covid/politics) where my interest is a little less investment focused (I do believe covid/politics have an investment nexus), I will try to be more discriminating among which posters I will invest 20 seconds to read.

[LC]

Also we’ve had a bit of a rally the last few years so there are fewer names that appear cheap...more time to talk about other topics I suppose.

 

Bingo.

 

I joined this board in 2012/13 when the financial system had recovered; yet market prices were still under 2007 highs.

 

What a great time for investment discussion! Systematic risk had largely been removed but prices were still depressed.

 

Over the following 6-7 years, we have seen prices rise, and even outpace earnings. Market price was driven less and less by individual company earnings and more by macro policies. Therefore (to me) it is no surprise that the conversation has shifted to those macro factors (including politics, which impacts these policies).

 

Additionally there is some nostalgia you may be experiencing. When I went back and read some posts from 2012-2014, the quality was not as good as "I remembered". Usually we just remember the good stuff, and ignore the mediocre.

[watsa_is_a_randian_hero]

This great board is in danger of losing everything that made it great for so many years.

This board needs a moderator

Politics and Covid should be immediately banned as topics

Perhaps an AI bot could be used to remove posts that are of little investment value

I am happy to submit some key words to the bot for flagging purposes

 

Hopefully someone takes this seriously

 

100% agreed.  also too many posts by small group of posters, who dominate this board and comment every 2 minutes on every topic.

 

I have been part of this community since the MSN days, and a long while back made a suggestion that it have a reddit like function where you could upvote/downvote relevant threads, and a Dalio-like spirit where you could upvote/downvote posts from individuals, and some sort of algorithm that demotes posts that are either downvoted or from individuals with low scores on past posts.  I also suggested individuals have a total post limit per month so this isn't filled with as much spam.

[merkhet]

Also we’ve had a bit of a rally the last few years so there are fewer names that appear cheap...more time to talk about other topics I suppose.

 

Bingo.

 

I joined this board in 2012/13 when the financial system had recovered; yet market prices were still under 2007 highs.

 

What a great time for investment discussion! Systematic risk had largely been removed but prices were still depressed.

 

Over the following 6-7 years, we have seen prices rise, and even outpace earnings. Market price was driven less and less by individual company earnings and more by macro policies. Therefore (to me) it is no surprise that the conversation has shifted to those macro factors (including politics, which impacts these policies).

 

Additionally there is some nostalgia you may be experiencing. When I went back and read some posts from 2012-2014, the quality was not as good as "I remembered". Usually we just remember the good stuff, and ignore the mediocre.

 

I think the signal-noise ratio was much higher. There are a lot more Harry Longs these days. It was once mentioned that the next time we have a crisis, the really good posters would come back (similar to what you’re saying re too many years of rising prices meaning not much to talk about) but March passed by and I didn’t see folks return. (Maybe stuff wasn’t cheap long enough.) RTF is right though — increased popularity of the board + Gresham’s Law has had an effect.

 

I don’t mean this to sound too much like a criticism. I just started re-reading Poor Charlie’s Almanack, and he mentions that it’s no great tragedy for someone to bemoan that Berkshire gave them 50 years with Buffett at the helm, and then they’ll get someone who isn’t quite as good. I feel similarly about this board.

[AzCactus]

The areas of the board are categorized by topic.  If you aren't interested in a topic, you don't have to read it. 

[ratiman]

Online communities probably have a reverse Gresham's law. Quantity wins over quantity. You can complain about the volume posters but they're the ones keeping the site alive. If you show up and there are no posts you stop showing up. Of course there is a point where there is too much quantity but COBF isn't even close to that. There also needs to be a mix of serious posters and trolls. I'm afraid COBF might not have enough trolls. I try to do my part but I can't do it all by myself.

[Guest cherzeca]

I am waiting for someone to mention the reduction in in board utility where you have to X-out of a full page add periodically...

[Guest Schwab711]

No one publicly discusses the good ideas (As I have found out, it's not that the ideas are ignored or go undiscussed as the threads may lead you to believe - just no one publicly discusses them). The best discussions are often the battleground stocks that don't actually present a great return profile. They are just good for discussion but might actually enhance attrition rates. Outside those, COBF often feels like an echo chamber with few dissenting opinions.

 

At least one other issue is that the best performing stocks do not meet the standards of traditional value investing and traditional value stocks have performed relatively poorly. When I first signed up, 'quality investing' are paying slight premiums for higher quality companies was being debated. If you look at today's best performers, clearly the quality investing side won the debate the conversation has transitioned to how much to pay for what type and duration of quality/growth. I don't think this forum has ever been the best place to discuss business models so I think those conversations naturally moved elsewhere.

 

I think it's fair to say the quality of discussion in general has declined.

[Broeb22]

No one publicly discusses the good ideas (As I have found out, it's not that the ideas are ignored or go undiscussed as the threads may lead you to believe - just no one publicly discusses them). The best discussions are often the battleground stocks that don't actually present a great return profile. They are just good for discussion but might actually enhance attrition rates. Outside those, COBF often feels like an echo chamber with few dissenting opinions.

 

At least one other issue is that the best performing stocks do not meet the standards of traditional value investing and traditional value stocks have performed relatively poorly. When I first signed up, 'quality investing' are paying slight premiums for higher quality companies was being debated. If you look at today's best performers, clearly the quality investing side won the debate the conversation has transitioned to how much to pay for what type and duration of quality/growth. I don't think this forum has ever been the best place to discuss business models so I think those conversations naturally moved elsewhere.

 

I think it's fair to say the quality of discussion in general has declined.

 

Where do you think conversations about business models migrated to, because I would like to read/think more about that...

[Read the Footnotes]

No one publicly discusses the good ideas (As I have found out, it's not that the ideas are ignored or go undiscussed as the threads may lead you to believe - just no one publicly discusses them).

Schwab, the first rule of fight club is never talk about fight club. Please delete this post.

[valueinvestor]

No one publicly discusses the good ideas (As I have found out, it's not that the ideas are ignored or go undiscussed as the threads may lead you to believe - just no one publicly discusses them). The best discussions are often the battleground stocks that don't actually present a great return profile. They are just good for discussion but might actually enhance attrition rates. Outside those, COBF often feels like an echo chamber with few dissenting opinions.

 

At least one other issue is that the best performing stocks do not meet the standards of traditional value investing and traditional value stocks have performed relatively poorly. When I first signed up, 'quality investing' are paying slight premiums for higher quality companies was being debated. If you look at today's best performers, clearly the quality investing side won the debate the conversation has transitioned to how much to pay for what type and duration of quality/growth. I don't think this forum has ever been the best place to discuss business models so I think those conversations naturally moved elsewhere.

 

I think it's fair to say the quality of discussion in general has declined.

 

I can go one further, I don't think anyone in this board has a traditional value investment idea that trades single-digit PE or they have a catalyst that closes NAV or matches the alpha provided by Amazon, where they are comfortable putting 20%+ of their net worth into...

 

As a person who read annual reports ever since I was a kid and having boxes of notebooks of traditional value ideas, I just don't see how you would place a large chunk of your net worth in any one of those ideas. If you read WEB's letter, you were essentially warned not to do just that. Secondly, if one has any experience running a business (no matter how small), you realize financials only show a very small part of the entire story of a business.

 

Actually, if anyone has a traditional value idea that I've described above, please let us know. You don't have to disclose the idea, but just out of curiosity - maybe run a poll. The only way I can see one doing that is if they are invested outside of North America, maybe Japan.

 

Also, I see a lot of posters in this forum trying to invest, as if it's 1967 where average PE, EV, TBV, etc... is a lot different now. Value investing hasn't changed, the macro environment has changed.

 

WEB invested in Coke when it was not cheap by any metric. If I recall correctly the P/E was 91% more expensive than most stock on a P/E Basis. Yet, most people are trying invest in equities 91% cheaper than the S&P500. Why?

 

No one publicly discusses the good ideas (As I have found out, it's not that the ideas are ignored or go undiscussed as the threads may lead you to believe - just no one publicly discusses them).

Schwab, the first rule of fight club is never talk about fight club. Please delete this post.

 

;D

 

Anyways, if anyone in the fight club is actually invested in a Ben Graham Pre-Munger WEB idea, I would love any confirmation.

[villainx]

No one publicly discusses the good ideas (As I have found out, it's not that the ideas are ignored or go undiscussed as the threads may lead you to believe - just no one publicly discusses them). The best discussions are often the battleground stocks that don't actually present a great return profile. They are just good for discussion but might actually enhance attrition rates. Outside those, COBF often feels like an echo chamber with few dissenting opinions.

 

Maybe it's the experience level of the posters that changed?  I find many posts very helpful and folks here fairly generous with time and attention.  Some of the stuff in What are you buying has helped me with companies or ideas to explore further. 

 

The same is true (for me) in the Investment Ideas.  I find it to be an incredible resource. 

 

Part of it is that I don't have a strong financial background and am not much of a number guy, and I'm more or less free riding (I hope I'm using that term correctly!!!!!) on the expertise of others.  My posts are more often seeking clarification or trying to understand better.  In that sense, I am probably contributing to the quality decline.  But anything I gain is from folks discussing what I assume are their good ideas.  But that's me. 

[Liberty]

This great board is in danger of losing everything that made it great for so many years.

This board needs a moderator

Politics and Covid should be immediately banned as topics

Perhaps an AI bot could be used to remove posts that are of little investment value

I am happy to submit some key words to the bot for flagging purposes

 

Hopefully someone takes this seriously

 

This is the "general" section, which isn't supposed to be just about investing. If you go to the investment section, it'll only be talk about companies. Same for the Berkshire and Fairfax sections.

 

There's also a thing called a computer mouse. It allows you not to click on things that don't interest you.

 

The main problem with this forum right now is that it is heavily rooted in the traditional value way, and traditional value has been underperforming for over a decade. That doesn't help. Back when value was doing much better (in the rebound of the GFC, for example), this board had a lot more investing-idea activity, but I'm guessing most members are not finding much of interest through that lens these days..

 

Almost all my investments today wouldn't be considered traditional value, and when I discuss them here, I don't get much reaction. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[thepupil]

The Investment Ideas section is an investment board. Generally people respond to posts on ideas in that thread. I've always found people willing to engage in discussion of ideas that I and others post.

 

I actually think there's a good diversity of types of ideas. There is the problem that only a few people may be interested in a type of idea, so occasionally a thread might become an echo chamber of thepupil and BG2008 pondering how wide some NAV discount could get on some doomed property company, but generally there is good and additive discussion in the investment ideas section. Or sometimes people want to talk a lot about SHLD or shorting TSLA or whatever (I myself sacrificed 200 bps to Mr. Musk in 2013, admitted defeat and moved on).

 

I absolutely don't mean this as a personal attack deadspace, but I read your post and was thinking "I don't know who deadspace is, I wonder what companies he/she's posted about over these years that haven't got any love, so I clicked on the old "show posts" by deadspace. I found an extremely prescient call on SHOP, a bearish call on AAPL, some love for Guns Germs and Steel, then it got to Fannie Freddie / and 2017 or older and I stopped.

 

That's a long way of saying, if you want more posts about investing in companies, maybe post about investing in companies. You had some 5 bagger+ insight into SHOP in May 2019. Kudos to you. that's freaking awesome; my posts have offered no such insight.

 

Next time you have an insight that you feel is 5 bagger potential (hell I'll take a 2 bagger or a 1.5 bagger), post more than 2 sentences about it. This may engender further discussion of the company/idea, and improve the quality of the board.

 

Be the change you wish to see on COBF (is channeling Dr King Ghandi (oops) too political?)

 

 

[SharperDingaan]

Most long-timers have just evolved over time. At one time they were utter sh1te, and the board was a valuable asset. Over time, the value-add of the board declined as they got better. Eventually, ongoing participation just wasn't worth the upkeep.

 

No dispute that the tone has declined quite a bit over time. I flatly will not post on our positions any more, other than for disclosure or time-capsule purposes. Lots of time for informed enquiry/criticism - but peanut gallery comment? PFO.

 

My own view is that the tone  reflects ongoing deterioration in US business leadership/civility. When tolerance of Trump antics are the 'new norm', a decline in tone is pretty much inevitable.

 

SD

 

 

 

[Guest Schwab711]

No one publicly discusses the good ideas (As I have found out, it's not that the ideas are ignored or go undiscussed as the threads may lead you to believe - just no one publicly discusses them).

Schwab, the first rule of fight club is never talk about fight club. Please delete this post.

 

8)

 

 

@Broeb22

Like a lot of things, I think the conversations have fragmented into numerous mediums from a few in the earlier days of the internet. Private team-like chats, there's public Discords, Twitter, Zoom, COBF is still relatively active, some is on VIC, various blogs/wordpress sites, podcasts, and so on. Due to some of these new mediums, individuals that otherwise can't post about specific securities are more able to share thoughts and insights (because they aren't recorded for all posterity). This has also pushed some conversation away from recorded mediums. The foreign country-specific investor forums are fairly active in Germany, France, Australia, and New Zealand. I'm sure most countries have them. It's everywhere

 

 

@thepupil

The GRIF thread is an example of how discussion died as soon as dissenting opinions were posted.

[thepupil]

@thepupil

The GRIF thread is an example of how discussion died as soon as dissenting opinions were posted.

 

I disagree. dissenting opinions on the true quality of management, on the decision to not sell assets immediately and grow the company, and on the right value of the stock, and on the sustainability of extremely tight cap rates in industrial have been voiced throughout that thread.

[Jurgis]

The Investment Ideas section is an investment board. Generally people respond to posts on ideas in that thread. I've always found people willing to engage in discussion of ideas that I and others post.

 

I actually think there's a good diversity of types of ideas. There is the problem that only a few people may be interested in a type of idea, so occasionally a thread might become an echo chamber of thepupil and BG2008 pondering how wide some NAV discount could get on some doomed property company, but generally there is good and additive discussion in the investment ideas section. Or sometimes people want to talk a lot about SHLD or shorting TSLA or whatever (I myself sacrificed 200 bps to Mr. Musk in 2013, admitted defeat and moved on).

 

I absolutely don't mean this as a personal attack deadspace, but I read your post and was thinking "I don't know who deadspace is, I wonder what companies he/she's posted about over these years that haven't got any love, so I clicked on the old "show posts" by deadspace. I found an extremely prescient call on SHOP, a bearish call on AAPL, some love for Guns Germs and Steel, then it got to Fannie Freddie / and 2017 or older and I stopped.

 

That's a long way of saying, if you want more posts about investing in companies, maybe post about investing in companies. You had some 5 bagger+ insight into SHOP in May 2019. Kudos to you. that's freaking awesome; my posts have offered no such insight.

 

Next time you have an insight that you feel is 5 bagger potential (hell I'll take a 2 bagger or a 1.5 bagger), post more than 2 sentences about it. This may engender further discussion of the company/idea, and improve the quality of the board.

 

Be the change you wish to see on COBF (is channeling Dr King Ghandi (oops) too political?)

 

I'll post mostly mea culpa.  8)

 

I am (mostly) not interested in deep value ideas, so I don't contribute in deep value idea threads. Though I appreciate the work that people put in. You know who you are.  8)

 

In terms of GARPy ideas, usually they are known and I don't necessarily have much to contribute that hasn't been said. I also don't see a value to try to persuade other people that my idea is good or their take is wrong or whatever. IMO usually not much benefit comes out of battleground fights.

 

Some examples: FB was cheap last year. I bought a bunch. I probably wrote something on FB thread, but clearly this was known.

I bought EXPE and DFS in March. I still don't know if these were good purchases. Both are 50%+ up from the bottom, but I have some shares that are still in red too (I started buying EXPE way before March). I think both of these are known too. Actually DFS is "value idea" even. Not much to say though.

I bought a ton of AAPL before Buffett. I sold some recently and I may think that it's overvalued. Again, this is known and I'm not very interested in arguing for or against selling.

 

On the other hand, I have offered to discuss the GARPy stocks to a-bunch-of-people-you-know-who-you-all-are on the outside channel. Crickets. That's fine with me.

 

I might post about another probably-not-great idea that I bought recently. Just to see whether that causes any interesting discussion.

 

Peace. 8)