I’m an avid reader of the Saul board and have gained some great insights to the active posters.
I’m beating the indexes right now with a taxable brokerage account with a return of 47.83% It constitutes my overall holdings, let’s say BOTE 70%.
My 401k is up 26%, would be higher but limited selection while in the TSP. And yes, I’m in my 30’s actively contributing so no change to an IRA.
Overall brokerage account consists of PRO stocks, some MFO options and other picks discussed on this board.
I incorporate diagonal calls, synthetic longs, and short puts so it would be difficult to breakdown a portfolio allocation without covering levered and unlevered exposure; to much for a Monday morning. However, the following are my top 10 holdings by market value.
AAPL
AMT
AMZN
BR
COHR
FB
SHOP
SWKS
SQ
ZIOP
I have incorporated starter positions in some companies thanks to this board: LGIH, TLND, UBNT, WIX
Congrats to all in their retail investment learning and continued board involvement to make this place a fantastic opportunity for investment opportunity!
Sorry for the alpha soup. BOTE = Back of the Envelope; meaning about 70% of my investments.
My brokerage account is composed of Motley Fool PRO stocks and Motley Fool Options option investments along with some Saul stocks. Interestingly, PRO has some similar picks to those stocks people on this board routinely discuss.
My 401k is the Thrift Savings Plan. This 401k is for military and government employees. There’s only 5 funds you can choose from. Deciding which to be in to maximize your gains is the subject of much online discussion. The 26% is a time weighted return to cancel out the routine contributions from paychecks.
Overall, this has been the BEST YEAR for me.
Brokerage returns from prior years: (only my taxable account)
2016: 8.86%
2015: 0.91%
2014 and earlier: I need to dig a little for those numbers…overall I’ve doubled my investments since 2000.
I’m surprised there are some who are looking at individuals portions of an entire portfolio and commenting on those gains versus the entirety. Why would someone care if one portion is up 100% when the overall may be much less than that. Sure it has something to do with how one may want to position future investments, but it doesn’t alter today’s performance.
Here’s my breakdown and overall portfolio performance:
Everything ending in an “X” is a Mutual Fund of course. I don’t include a more recent 401k started this year in the above. Within the next three months, about half of my cash and all of the Mutal Funds will be moving to my IRA from an old 401k. This will give me a lot more freedom to invest in stocks.
The portfolio above including everything on a time weighted return basis is up 44% YTD.
I’m quite proud of that. Certainly not as great as some, but I don’t have to be the best. Just happy enough to be doing well.
For me the 87.6% YTD return is on my stock only accounts which are about half of my investable assets. The other half is in index funds and a few mutual funds in my and my wife’s 401k that have limited investing options
So it appears that your 87.6% YTD return is actually about 43.8%
Sorry b&w, but I find that rather silly. The people posting their results are posting the results that they’ve gotten with the money that they are investing following the plan suggested by this board. His 87.6% return is based on his “this board” type investing. He achieved 87.6% year to date on the money he was investing that way. Saying that he should include 401k plans invested by someone else, and mutual funds managed by someone else is nonsense and irrelevant. That’s not at all what he was talking about!!!
(You seem to be desperately trying to minimize the results that people achieved, because the results were so much better than buying dividend stocks).
By the way, I have no mutual funds, 401k plans, or ETF’s. My results refer to ALL my investing money.
You seem to be desperately trying to minimize the results that people achieved, because the results were so much better than buying dividend stocks.
I always figure it it the evil twin Sual who posts things like this - since when are ‘dividend paying’ stocks a bad idea? On the 401k choices, in my wife’s company we pushed for self-directed brokerage options and finally made it happen. Regardless, it makes sense to compute consolidated returns period, right? To look at all aspects of a portfolio’s return?
My results refer to ALL my investing money.
ah, but we are splitting hairs, but ‘investing’ money can be pretty subjective too - can impact how money is allocated. None of these distinctions are a ‘bad thing’ as much as they are a ‘thing thing’.
Regardless, i wish I was up 100% in my ANY money this year…
Saying that he should include 401k plans invested by someone else, and mutual funds managed by someone else is nonsense and irrelevant.
And you are saying that if someone tries out a new system with 50% of his portfolio and gets 87% results with it, that somehow “doesn’t count”, and he should include 50% he still had under the legacy system to get his “true” results! What utter and total nonsense!
Agreed. With this type of reasoning, why not throw in your real estate holdings and the equity you have in a home? After all, you could either cash it all in and/or refinance and invest all the proceeds, bringing that 87% gain down even further
Agreed. With this type of reasoning, why not throw in your real estate holdings and the equity you have in a home? After all, you could either cash it all in and/or refinance and invest all the proceeds, bringing that 87% gain down even further
this is a pointless argument, but the idea that you shouldn’t look at 100% of your holdings - regardless of where they are - seems really strange
I was foolish as a young man - I didn’t bother to get beach property when I could have, and thus the housing aspect of my net worth is just a pedestrian rise of real estate. If I’d looked at everything, then you make different decisions, and for most people the house is one of their main sources of wealth - sure you didn’t mean this, but it is something to think about, isn’t it?
Besides, b*w was just asking a simple question and making a commonsense observation, right? Nobody is invalidating a 97% or 100% return!!
<i?I’m surprised there are some who are looking at individuals portions of an entire portfolio and commenting on those gains versus the entirety. Why would someone care if one portion is up 100% when the overall may be much less than that. Sure it has something to do with how one may want to position future investments, but it doesn’t alter today’s performance.
Picking out a good portfolio from the rest one owns, or picking individual excellent performers from lessor performers doesn’t give a true picture
I learned a long time ago—You can’t spend percentages—You can only spend dollars
The point for posting returns for me is to help evaluate this investment strategy, not to combine it with any others that any one of us has. Except for my tiny Roth, my posting is all I got invested…no index, ETF’s etc. I also manage $ for spouse and children, all of which are up but I have not calculated them or included them. The overall strategy in those is similar. No doubt there are other successful strategies, as each of us finds one or more with which he/she is comfortable.
Surely if someone says ‘Wow, I’m up 100% this year!’ the reasonable inference can only be that the overall portfolio of the speaker is up 100%; anything else would be misleading or disingenuous. The meaning is the meaning as used by Saul. If Saul says he is up 100% and someone else says he is up 100% too, we assume he has done as well as Saul. Congratulations duly flow. But what if his pf actually has only 2.5% devoted to similar holdings and the whole pf brought in a derisory negative 5%? It makes the whole thing incoherent!
Err, both numbers are relevant … depends on what one is trying to compare. If I want to know how much my overall wealth increased this year, then I look at the whole number. If I want to know how my portfolio that has some relationship to Saul’s is doing compared to how Saul and others are doing with similar portfolios, then I want to compare that number.
Saul’s number has a certain heft because everything he has is all in. It is also probably a pretty big number by now. But, neither is a factor when comparing how similar investments have faired in the time period.
If I count only the stocks that match Saul’s portfolio, I can also claim that I’m doing very well YTD. I can even claim I beat Saul if all I did for my “Saul portion” is buy SQ for the year. The fact is if I were to invest all the money in my brokerage account the Saul’s way, I probably would be losing a of sleep. I am no Saul and I admire what he is capable of and very thankful of all the contributors on this board but I have a full time job, two young kids, and don’t have the time and instinct that many of you have.
I don’t think b&w is discounting Saul’s methodology but I do think it’s different if you invest most of the money the Saul’s way vs putting a small portion in it. The risky level can be very different and the way a person act/react can be very different too.
buyandwin: I’m curious as to what the portfolio growth numbers that are being divulged represent. Are these numbers from total investable assets or are there a part of assets not counted? For example --Someone has 50% of assets in Index funds-25% in Treasuries and 25% in a stock portfolio? Are these percentage gains on the 25% stock portfolio or on all of the 100% asset valuation?
B&W, great question! Personally, I include only stock investments as that is what is relevant to this board. Other types of assets would make any type of comparison virtually impossible and bring up severely off topic issues. In retrospect, my inclusion of index funds is a little bit questionable by this standard but as I no longer own index funds that has become a moot point.
At the moment, my assets are completely in my stock investment portfolio. If that changes in the future I would still report my numbers in the same way though I would also track a separate overall asset growth number for my own use.
It also seems a bit silly to include 401(k) accounts (or other investments) where a person has no ability to choose individual stocks through their own initiative. That is as far outside the scope of this board as is real estate investing! Though again, I would also track the combined number for my own benefit.
Well, if I throw in my house I’m up a great deal more, though my timeline has greatly lengthened. I paid $110K for my mid-century modern home in the Seattle area in 1987. It’s worth well over $1.2M today.
95% of it is still in index funds,
10 or 15 years from now that may turn out to be the right move. Or maybe not.
But 5% , presumably divided into several stocks, let’s say 5, is only a 1% holding of each. That’s just not worth the trouble.
Because to me the point of Saul type stocks is to catch that 10 bagger, hold it long enough for the story to play out. Unless you have a huge amount in the portfolio , that rare stock is not going to make much of a difference in your retirement life style. A great percentage gainer just won’t add enough total money.
Of course if you have a $50 million retirement fund even a 1% 10 bagger is a lot of money. But few of us are in that class.
I am 65 and will retire in the next couple of months and am up 85.41% as of Friday. I have some real estate holdings in Seattle that I don’t add into the numbers.
