I had to see who picked Henry Schein and Waste Management. Bravo to Bill Nasgovitz and Bill Miller. Once again we see that value investing beats growth over the long term.
Thought I was pretty smart in the late 90’s not investing in the hot Internet stocks of the day, but instead investing in Nokia, Cisco, Oracle and Network Appliance. Then following the LTBH mantra of TMF got killed in the 2000’s. So much for that learning experience. I’m actually still taking $3,000 annual write-offs for that debacle
'38Packard
– won’t ever do that again!
Yup. Berkshire-B went from about 40 in 2000 to 80 in 2010, while Walmart held its value.
Meanwhile the S&P took until 2012 to regain 2000 levels.
To paraphrase some old rock band: “When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Mary comes to me. Speaking words of wisdom: “buy Berkshire and Walmart.””
Funny thing though, if one had put $1000 into each of those 10 suggested stocks in 2000, one would have come out pretty close to even in 2010. That’s not bad after the biggest recession since the Great Depression. Diversification does reduce risk.
I recall trenchrat (RIP) and Tinkershaw did a similar exercise around the same timeframe. I kept a copy on my computer for years but that machine has since been dismantled and recycled into oblivion. I recall both lists were pretty much exclusively Rule Breakers like those in the list above. (The posts probably live on in the old boards but I have no idea how one would find them
Nope. I’ve seen a half dozen analyses and they all say the same thing. Here’s a quote from a trusted source, some outfit called “The Motley Fool”
- Finally, when it comes to overall long-term performance, there’s no clear-cut winner between growth and value stocks. When economic conditions are good, growth stocks on average modestly outperform value stocks . During more difficult economic times, value stocks tend to hold up better.*
Growth vs. Value Stocks: Investing Styles | The Motley Fool
I would say that if you are merely throwing darts at a stock list then perhaps value stocks would be better, as they tend to be less volatile and are more stable. But if you are doing your diligence and finding decent growth stocks, you will do fine, perhaps even better than “boring old value stocks.” (I own mostly boring old value stocks, FWIW.) Growth stocks require more tending, but the rewards can be far greater, I think.
Back to the point of the thread, If I have made one mistake over the years it’s to wait for the final capitulation of the bear, waiting and waiting for the last down leg, until oops, the bear is over and I’ve missed a gigantic part of the upside. So, as I’ve said, I’m waiting for another ~10% fall and will start deploying - but it will be opportunistic, some things I’ll do sooner, some things maybe never.
If you’re sitting in a recession, I would look to things like Dollar Stores, where people trade down from supermarkets and toy stores, they should be relatively recession proof. I would look to things of habit: tobacco companies ride with super dividends and have for 50 years. And yes, oil is a habit, too, we Americans, not the mention the rest of the world, can’t seem to live without it.
Now even in a recession some businesses will grow: digital banking, probably. Amazon, probably, although perhaps at a slowing rate. Healthcare just has to keep growing given the baby boom moving into old age.
And some will do well, even though they’re kind of nefarious: credit check, credit collectors, lessors, repo agencies, etc.
I see cable continuing to decline due to high pricing, but I don’t see streaming as the savior, as people will churn to whatever’s cheaper for a quarter or two making them volatile. In an older day radio & tv were pretty good plays, indeed radio prospered when tv advertisers cut those budgets and loaded half into radio and the other half into their own pocket. - But those days are over too, I suspect.
Anyway, I’m going to start with some sector theses and then develop ideas for specific companies and go from there. For the moment, cash is king.