It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Well, yes and no. I won’t disagree with LB. Made some excellent points. I’m into Marks’ thinking more on a philosophical level than his performance as an actual practitioner. I’m convinced that valuations at any given time are significantly elevated or depressed owing to public perception. If I can gain an edge by understanding that basic market dynamic (be it in preserving capital, reducing risk or making money) so be it. Marks is like a broken record ISTM. His is not a complex philosophy - though one most difficult to execute for some of the reasons Lewis points out. Not interested in owning his or any high fee hedge fund. He is one of dozens of successful investors today. Learn what you can from them all.Sounds like folks are talking past each other here …
......Sounds like a very common reaction from years ago on this Board re: The Zurich Axioms: complaints about the Axioms containing contradictory observations and advice, making them virtually useless. I think the response here from @FD1000 illustrates perfectly the fact that we are all put together differently. We confront the world from different perspectives, operating with very different assumptions, fundamentally. Our various approaches to making sense of things will be different. My own reply is simple: investing is not a cut-and-dried process, like following a recipe. If that's the way one invests, I assert that it must be a method arrived at after much PRIOR investigation and analysis. Because not only the Markets, but the entire world, is a jumble of contradictory signals and noise and extraneous incidentals. Each of us must sort it all out for ourselves. I am very much in touch with the line of thought which says that investing is always some combination of both Science and Art. Very little in this life is all-or-nothing, either/or, or black or white. It's complicated. Anything which is important enough to matter is complicated.Concur with LB.
More, I read many of Marks articles over the years and they are long. Lots of fluff with contradicting reasons of what to do and what not. The end result is hardly any specifics of what to do and when.
I have heard the above many times. Why stop at foreign-domiciled companies? Why not slice it 8 ways, just to be sure. This is why many investors lag by complicating their portfolios. The fact is that the most dominated companies are in the SP500 + the USA is very stable + capitalism is not perfect, but still the best we have + I prefer American management globally. China high tech looked great until Xi Jinping took care of that. Europe have been sinking for years. Did you know that there is no European high-tech company by revenue at the topGood post. The longer you check, and I'm talking about at least 20-30 years, a cheap index such as the SP500 beats most stock funds.
The SP500 is based on the best indicator, the price. The price never lies, regardless of any opinion.
The SP500 is global too, it gets about 40% of its revenues from abroad.
The S&P 500 index is a good representation of large-cap U.S. stocks.
Most active funds underperform this index over longer time periods.
Although many S&P 500 companies derive substantial revenue from foreign countries,
it may be prudent to also include foreign-domiciled companies in your portfolio.
I respect Warren Buffett and Jack Bogle but disagree with their views to avoid foreign investments.
...yes, you're correct. it was done at 9:31 a.m.Pending cancel is just default until something is done. My guess is that your previous order (market or limit or stop) was executed near the market open. So, in the order queue, it was too late for your cancel instructions. But you would have reason to be upset if the execution was well after the open (so check the time of the trade).
Water is like that for more than alcohol production. Which is why I recently took a flyer on water ETF's. At worst I figure they will be little better than a utility type fund. OTOH . . .Making alcoholic beverages is morally wrong
Certainly some ratings penalize (or exclude) the manufacture of alcoholic beverages for moral reasons. However, M*'s Sustainalytics concerns are not moral but (surprise) sustainability:https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1092686/hate-the-sin-love-the-stock-investors-esg-exclusions-leave-opportunitiesBased on assessments from Sustainalytics ... the biggest environmental, social, or governance risk for alcohol stems from water use. ... water isn’t just an ingredient. It’s critical to production, including cleaning, cooling, and packaging. And water is even more important given its direct impact on product quality and experience, as well as the growing of ingredients like barley, corn, and other crops.
With respect to mutual funds, I do consider diversity a virtue, but some investors like lack thereof, i.e. concentration.
The S&P 500 index is a good representation of large-cap U.S. stocks.Good post. The longer you check, and I'm talking about at least 20-30 years, a cheap index such as the SP500 beats most stock funds.
The SP500 is based on the best indicator, the price. The price never lies, regardless of any opinion.
The SP500 is global too, it gets about 40% of its revenues from abroad.
and,In 1978, I was asked to move to the bank's bond department to start funds in convertible bonds and, shortly thereafter, high yield bonds. Now I was investing in securities most fiduciaries considered "uninvestable" and which practically no one knew about, cared about, or deemed desirable... and I was making money steadily and safely. I quickly recognized that my strong performance resulted in large part from precisely that fact: I was investing in securities that practically no one knew about, cared about, or deemed desirable. This brought home the key money-making lesson of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, which I had been introduced to at the University of Chicago Business School: If you seek superior investment results, you have to invest in things that others haven't flocked to and caused to be fully valued. In other words, you have to do something different.
I Beg to Differthe total dollars earned by all investors collectively are fixed in amount, all active bets, taken together, constitute a zero-sum game (or negative-sum after commissions and other costs). The investor who is right earns an above-average return, and by definition, the one who's wrong earns a below-average return.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
