I guess I’m confused about how we’re supposed to use EPIC. In consists of four groups - RB, SA, HD and DI. So May RB recommends buying QXO and in July EPIC recommends selling. Certain lack of consistency there. Also, still finding the boards extremely difficult to navigate compared to how they used to be. For instance - I have to choose different categories but when it involves a stock, they don’t list the one I’m talking about and won’t let me enter it so I have to change the category to comment. Getting to be more trouble than it’s worth to try to get any help.
My personal opinion is outside of DI, the other traditional distinctions between the other services don’t really exist anymore. You will find services with conflicting recommendations on the same stock. The explanation is “we’re motley”.
The truth is the only long term strategy that meaningfully outperformed the market was David Gardner’s Rulebreaker and even better was his Team’s approach in stock advisor. It’s where his 6 trait strategy was applied to more well proven businesses.
To me, this is really the only effective strategy but one you will need to replicate on your own. TMF is in the business of selling advice in any area or sector. Usually, the real investing experts are quietly buying stocks rather than making recommendations to others.
The reason I kept Stock Advisor for so long was because it does have such a good record of consistent results. Already decided to go ahead and keep QXO because I like the looks of it - just got confused at such different advice in a short period of time - I certainly don’t need even more services!
I rely more heavily on some analysts over others. On the whole, most of the recs have become thinly researched. I can’t speak specifically to QXO. I agree the advice is confusing and often contradictory. They are trying to manage more than a thousand active recs in the various services. It’s unsustainable and investors now need to do most of the heavy lifting.
My biggest issue is they are now preaching a message of diversification without limit. It gives no consideration to dilutive impacts, regression to the mean in terms of returns, and the likelihood of adding worse businesses rather than better ones.
Worst, they have, IMO, misstated as examples of success in owning lots of different positions, investors like Lynch and others that never got rich that way nor did they ever recommend other investors use that approach.