My portfolio at the end of August 2018

My portfolio at the end of August 2018

Here’s the summary of my positions at the end of the insane and ridiculous month of August. This month the last week ended on the 31st, so you get a full five weeks worth. Note that I almost always use adjusted figures when the company gives them.

I have stocks in a small group of remarkable companies, in which I have high confidence for the most part. I feel that they mostly dominate their markets or their niches, are category crushers or disruptors, and that they have long runways, and will have great futures. I very recently wrote up their stories in my post called Category Crushers and my portfolio, post #45099, http://discussion.fool.com/category-crushers-and-my-portfolio-33… so I will give a greatly shortened version of my stock descriptions this month only, and mostly just tell you what I’ve done and what I think.

I’m sure that you understand that my results are ridiculous and embarrassing and it’s very hard to discuss them without seeming to be bragging, in fact without bragging. That makes me uncomfortable but it is what it is, so I’ll go ahead and brag.

As you know, last year (2017) was an extraordinary year in which I finished up 84.2%. At the end of the year I begged everyone not to expect that this year would be anything like that. I’ve kept saying that each month this year, but our stocks keep going up in spite of my warnings, and in fact my portfolio is way, WAY ahead of the 49% that it was up at the end of August last year. In fact, it’s actually ahead of that 84.2% I finished last year with, and it’s only the end of August!!!

This month, August, my portfolio closed at the remarkable result of up 86.0% for the year so far. In fact, if you consider my results since the beginning 2017 to today, my whole portfolio has well more than tripled so far in a year and eight months! It’s actually at 343% of where it started 2017. That’s beyond remarkable, it’s ridiculous!

In words instead of percentages, it means my portfolio has grown to almost three and a half times where it started just over a year and a half ago. (You can check the calculation with a little hand calculator: 1.842 times 1.860 equals 3.426, or 342.6% of where it had started).

To quickly summarize:
So far this year my portfolio is up 86%%
For the trailing 12 months it is up 130%
Since January a year ago it is up 243%

Please keep in mind that that result was without leverage, just investing in ordinary stocks, no margin, no penny stocks, nothing oddball. Yep, stock picking doesn’t work. There are books written that prove it :grinning:.

I’d like to bring up a sort of odd question here for your consideration, because I’ve been wondering about it, and it puzzles me. My question, and it’s a serious one, is how come all the smart guys, with MBA’s, who have studied all this stuff and gotten Masters degrees in it, who understand all those terms in the 10-Q’s, and all those squiggly lines on their technical graphs that I don’t have a clue about, and who probably even understand what these companies are actually doing, how come these guys can’t do what I, and Chris, and Bear, and others on our board are doing??? Why is my common sense investing producing so much better results.

That’s not an idle question; someone just recently linked to an article pointing out that Hedge Funds, for instance, were on average trailing the S&P significantly this year. Trailing the S&P! I was wondering whether these guys are paralyzed by having too much information, too many contradicting facts in face of what is essentially a binary decision (to buy or not)? Whether they are limited in what they can invest in? Or what? These are the guys with the business training and education. And probably a lot of technology education too. I’d be interested in your ideas about this. As far as I know, no one is doing as well as we are doing! No one seems to be as successful as we are, not investing in common stocks anyway. Why? Why? What I am doing just seems like common sense investing.

The three indexes that I’ve been tracking against closed Friday as follows. The results are given from Jan 1st to date:

The S&P 500 (Large Cap)
Closed up 8.1% for the year. (It started the year at 2684 and is now at 2902).

The Russell 2000 (Small and Mid Cap)
Closed up 12.9% for the year. (It started the year at 1542 and is now at 1741).

The IJS Small Cap Value ETF
Closed up 12.5% for the year. (It started the year at 153.6 and is now at 172.8).

These three indexes averaged up 11.2% for the year so far. And if you throw in the Dow, which is up 5.0% and the Nasdaq, which is up 17.5%, you still get up 11.2% for the five of them. That means my portfolio is not only beating the indexes but is up 7.7 times as much as the indexes.

Why these three indexes? Well, they give me 500 large caps (the S&P), 2000 small and mid caps (the Russell), and 600 small cap value stocks (the IJS), which combined ought to give me a very representative set of standards to compare against. I’m sure some people will say “Why not drop this index and add that one?” but these are the three indexes I compare against currently, and I will probably continue to do so. I think they give me a pretty good approximation of how the market overall is doing. The last three months I’ve thrown in the Dow and the Nasdaq as well, so as to hit all the major indexes. I may continue to do that.

(The averages would be very slightly higher if you use the S&P with dividends added, but I’m continuing to use the straight values for consistency with past results. I consider the roughly 0.1% per month that the average of the three indexes would be changed by including S&P dividends to be irrelevant considering the magnitude of the differences between our results and the results of the indexes.)

The skeptics visiting our board have said, “Anyone can be a genius in a raging Bull Market!” Raging Bull Market??? The three indexes I follow are up an average of 11.2% so far this year. Last year they were up 14.4% on average. If we combine the two years together, the indexes are up all of 24% while many of us are up well over 200%. It’s hard to explain a 243% gain as being due to the market being up 24%, or my 86% gain this year as due to the markets being up 11%. Think of it this way: this month alone my portfolio tacked on 31 points (from up 55% to up 86%). The markets have tacked on just 11 points in eight months!

How can we explain the disparity between our results and the averages? I have to say again that we seem to have caught a secular wave, in which our companies are exploding in function and importance as well as in revenue, which is mostly recurrent. It’s the wave of big data, the cloud, artificial intelligence, and all the rest. I had some big winners outside of that area, but it’s been that big wave that has carried us. Let me quote (with permission) an excellent analogy from an email from FlyGal:

I have studied economic history over the years and I do think that this period of time is a great transformation.
One of the things that happened in the transformation from waterpower to electricity is this: when electricity was first introduced they simply electrified water-powered factories. Water-powered factories had generally been built vertically to convey power through a series of belts from the water wheel [they weren’t built for electricity, but for water power]. The electrified ex-waterpower factories were not really much more efficient, as goods in production still had to be carried from floor to floor. But when NEW factories were built after electricity was ubiquitous, they were built in the horizontal model (taking into account that they’d be powered by electricity, not water) and they were much more efficient.
Until recently business just bolted computers into their existing operations. But the real period of efficiency is arriving now as businesses are built from start to really take into account the power of computers.
Cloud computing is so much more efficient. One of the big things that I think people miss, when evaluating companies related to cloud computing, is the efficiency with which they operate compared to enterprise computing. There are lots of enterprise shops, but all new endeavors go to the cloud because it’s just that much more efficient. Legacy systems still run at the enterprise level, but even those enterprise businesses will start most NEW functions in the cloud.
And, I, Saul, just want to remind you all that in general, our companies are built for the cloud from the ground up, and they provide the picks and shovels for enterprise companies switching over to the cloud.

One or two chronic critics on the board have said I shouldn’t compare against the market, but should compare against indexes of Cloud and Internet-based stocks because they are closest to what ours are like. I think that that is fallacious and ridiculous. I compare against The Market, meaning all the companies out there that people invest in. I don’t compare against the stocks that are already in my portfolio … …or against stocks that are just like the stocks that are in my portfolio, which amounts to the same thing, and which is what these critics are saying I should do. What would be the sense of that? You can only know to compare against indexes of stocks like mine when you already know what I’ve already invested in, and know how well they have done, and then look backward to figure out some index close to my stocks. What nonsense.

Consider an investor who figured out that a certain industry was going to boom…let’s say natural gas, just for an example. This wasn’t at all obvious at the time, but he figured it out, and he changed his portfolio and bought the best ten natural gas stocks he could find, and sure enough, natural gas boomed and his stocks beat the overall market by a mile, and then some wiseguy comes along and says “Oh! That wasn’t so smart. You shouldn’t compare against the Market. You should compare against an index of natural gas stocks, etc.” Isn’t that ridiculous?

Finally, let me point out that I’ve been comparing against the S&P (“The Market”) since I started this board in Jan 2014, over four and a half years ago, long before I ever heard the term SaaS (as far as I can remember) and certainly before I ever invested in a stable of SaaS related stocks. I’ve compared against The Market irrespective of what my stocks have been. They’ve included companies in fields as varied as banking (Bofi, Signature Bank, First Internet Bancorp, and others), biotech (Celgene, Kite and Nektar), real estate (LGIH), a gas station and general store chain (Casey’s General Stores), a 3-D printing company (Arcam), medical device firms (Abiomed, Intuitive Surgical), some solar companies (SolarEdge, Solar City), an electric car company (Tesla), etc, etc. My goal will always be to make money to support my family, and not to beat some index made up of a collection of stocks that’s almost the same as the ones I happen to be in at the moment. That is just so silly as to be laughable.

To simply state my goals, I’m trying to measure my performance against that of the “average return for an investor in the stock market,” not the return of someone who is smart enough to invest in the same stocks I’m in, or the same “kind” of stocks I’m in. It’s as simple as that. I never guarantee to be in the best stocks in my category. I’ve always said there will always be stocks that will do better than mine (or yours). I just want to do well and make a good rate of profit, and a better one than the market as a whole is producing.

Let me remind you that I’m no good on timing the market, and I don’t try. If I did, I would probably have exited all my positions at the end of April 2017, when I was up 26% in four months and was “aware” that “it couldn’t continue” like that. At that time, in just four months my results had already dwarfed those I had in the entire years of 2015 and 2016, so back then at the end of April 2017, up 26% seemed like a ridiculously enormous amount to be up in just four months, and my stocks seemed way “over-bought.”

I continue to believe that intelligent stock picking with a modified buy-and-hold strategy can beat any index or average? How could it not? When an “average” is just that: an average of good, mediocre, and poor companies?

Here’s a little table of the monthly progress of my results so far this year:


**End of Jan 	+16.9%**
**End of Feb	+21.4%**
**End of Mar	+29.1%**
**End of Apr 	+25.8%**
**End of May	+38.3%**
**End of Jun	+44.3%**
**End of Jul	+55.3%**
**End of Aug	+86.0%**

The stocks I’m still in since the beginning of 2018 are Alteryx, Nutanix, and Square. They include three of my five largest positions (Twilio and Zscaler came later), and they make up 41% of my current portfolio, and they are up an average of 115% year to date.

Current positions added since the beginning of 2018 have been:


**Jan -   Twilio, and Okta.** 
**May – 	Pivotal, and MongoDB** 
**Jun - 	Zscalar** 
**Jul - 	New Relic**
**Aug - 	Wix and PayCom** small positions 

Here’s a last four months review:

May In the beginning of May, when Arista sold off, I added a lot of it at about $243. Later in the month, when I wanted money to buy other things that I felt had a longer runway, I sold off most my position at about $258…. MongoDB again! Have I ever been back and forth on Mongo! I changed my mind a bunch of times this year. I finally started a new position in June at about $43.48, and kept it and built it up… I also took a position in Pivotal, thanks to Steppenwulf’s great write-ups…

Finally, I sold out of the remains of my Nvidia position at $248, for cash to buy other things. It had been in a trading range between $215 and $250 for 20 weeks, which is a long time for a company that was supposed to be conquering the world. [At the end of July it was still at $252, nine additional weeks later, while my portfolio had gone from up 38% at the end of May to up 55% then. And now, at the end of August it is at $281, up 13% in three months from where I sold it, while my portfolio has risen almost 50 points from up 38% to up 86%. I know everyone loves Nvidia, and it controls the future and all that, but it’s still a huge company that would be difficult to double or triple in size, and mostly a hardware company at that. I used the funds to buy more stock in other companies that looked better to me. Please remember that companies that I sell often continue to go up, and some stocks I buy go right down. God knows I make mistakes regularly.

June I sold out of the rest of my Arista early in the month… I was reducing Nektar all month, but planning to keep a token position, but sold out of the last of it at the end of June to buy Zscalar… I took a small position in Wix early in June, but sold it back in the same month, to buy Zscalar… I reduced Pure Storage to buy Zscaler.

July I took a small position in New Relic… I continued to reduce my position in Pure Storage, and coincidently was the only one of my stocks that was down in July… I also trimmed a little bit of Pivotal… I kept building my position in New Relic, and added to Zscaler as well… I have also segregated away a certain amount of cash.

August I had reduced my Shopify position gradually over a couple of months but it was still one of my major positions. However, in early August I sold out of it in shock when their rate of revenue growth, which had been falling every quarter, precipitously fell in a quarter when the economy was very strong and in which Square, in a market quite similar, had huge results, following on top of increasing rates of growth in all the quarters where Shopify had falling rates of growth. My average sale price for Shopify was about $145, about 537% of my initial purchase price which was $27, two years before. By the way, Shopify is currently still about where I sold it ($145.73), while Square has risen enormously since then. In fact, if I look back to my End-of-July post, Shopify was at $160.15 and Square was at $69.85. Shopify is now at $145.73, down 10% for the five weeks, and Square is at $88.64, up 27% for the five weeks.

I also decided to sell my small position in Pure at about $22.50, and I trimmed Nutanix a little (it’s still a 8.7% position), and trimmed Pivotal a little (it’s still a 6.7% position and has never been a very large one). My reasons for trimming these two is alluded to in my Category Crusher post linked to above… I put the money from these various sales and trims mostly in Twilio, Square, Zscaler and New Relic, and a little in Alteryx and Okta, and started small positions in Wix and PayCom, inspired by Bear’s enthusiasm for them over the months…

And, as I wrote last month, I have continued to segregate away a certain amount of cash. Why? You ask. Well, I’m getting not only older, but old, and there’s a limit to the amount of years I have left to live. I have enough set aside for my family. I can cover our living expenses more easily as we live a reasonably simple life. And besides, it’s too much work for an old guy.

Here’s how my current stocks have done in the first eight months of the year. I’ve arranged them in order of percentage gain. I’ve used the start of the year price for stocks I’ve been in all year, and my initial buy price for stocks I’ve added during the year.


**Twilio from 25.70 to 60.71		up  213.9%**
**Square from 34.67 to 88.64		up  155.7%** 
**Alteryx from 25.27 to 58.05		up  129.7%**
**Okta from 29.95 to 61.83		up  106.4%**
**MongoDB from 43.48 to 71.96		up   65.5%** 
**Nutanix from 35.28 to 56.32		up   59.6%**
**Pivotal from 19.18 to 27.75	  	up   44.7%** 
**PayCom from 120.20 to 155.12	   	up   29.1% 	(new this month)**
**Zscaler from 35.84 to 42.79,  	        up   19.4%** 
**Wix from 96.30 to 111.1			up   15.4%	(new this month)**
**New Relic from 102.00 to 102.76	        up   00.7%**

My recent big stars have been:
Square, up 156% this year so far, and quintupling in price (up 506%) since I bought it at $17.50 just a year and five months ago, in March of last year.
Nutanix, which at $56.32, is up 162% from when I bought into it ten months ago at $21.50.
Twilio and Okta, up 214% and 106% from when I bought them in January, just over seven months ago.
Alteryx, up 130% this year so far from $25.27 to $58.05

Exited positions this year showing my gain or loss from the beginning of this year, or from when I first bought if it was during the year, and my average exit price.


**Shopify  from 101.0 to 145.0	up 	43.6%**
**Pure  from 16.72 to 22.50	up 	34.6%**
**Nvidia from 193.5 to 248.0	up  	28.2%**
**Nektar from 59.7.0 to 76.0      up      27.3%  1st time**
**Talend from 37.48 to 47.50      up  	26.7%** 
**Hubspot from 88.4 to 108.0      up  	22.2%** 
**Arista from 235.60 to 274.0,    up     	16.3%**
**MongoDB from 38.00 to 43.50     up 	14.2%  1st time**
**Wix from 102.5 to 98.1		down	 4.3%  2nd time**
**Mime from $32.34 to 30.85	down	 4.6%** 
**LGIH from 75.0 to 71.0 		down 	 5.3%** 
**MongoDB from 41.00 to 38.65	down 	 5.7%  2nd time**
**Wix from 69.2 to 61.8    	down	10.7%  1st time**
**Nektar from 103.0 to 54.0       down	46.6%  2nd time**

Well-intentioned people have been warning us constantly that another bear market and/or recession is coming. “The bull market is too old.” or “The market is too high.” or “This technical indicator proves the market is in a bubble.” All of their charts and indicators proved it in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and again last year in 2017. I’m hearing convincing stories about bond yields now foretelling a crash, and interest rates rising. The only trouble is that I’ve heard similar convincing stories about other technical indicators every year. Eventually they’ll be right, and they will say “See! I was right all along!” They may be right now! I certainly don’t know.

Of course a marked correction or bear market will come eventually.They always do. And rising interest rates, tariffs, and trade wars do eventually stop market rises. Look, the next Bear Market may start on Tuesday for all I know! But we never really know when. And what a price those people have paid by “keeping their powder dry” and staying out of this market for the past nine years, waiting for the big correction that never came.

Picking good stocks makes much more sense than trying to pick good stocks AND trying to time the market too. Just my opinion.

Now let’s look at my position sizes. I’m still trying to keep my portfolio concentrated and streamlined. I’m now at 11 positions, 9 of which make up 95% of my portfolio, and the other two are small positions that I’m just getting comfortable with. By the way, keeping my number of stocks down really makes me focus my mind and decide which are really the best and highest confidence positions. Here are the 11 positions in order of position size. Note that Alteryx and Twilio positions are larger than I usually like, but they are very high conviction Category Crushers.


**Alteryx 	17.2%**
**Twilio		16.6%**
**Square		15.0%**
**Zscaler		 9.4%**
**Nutanix		 8.7%**
**MongoDB 	 7.9%**
**Okta		 7.6%**
**Pivotal 	 6.7%**
**New Relic	 6.1%**
**PayCom		 2.5%**
**Wix		 2.3%**

For this month only, with the exception of Nutanix, which just released earnings this week, I’m going to refer you to my Category Crusher post http://discussion.fool.com/category-crushers-and-my-portfolio-33… which is only two weeks old, and in which I discussed each of my stocks, and I have little new to say.

I feel that my portfolio is made up of a bunch of great companies. But that’s just my opinion, and I can’t say often enough that I’m not a techie and I don’t really understand what most of them actually do at all ! I just know what great results look like. I figure that if their customers clearly like them, and keep buying their products in hugely increasing amounts, they have something going for them and, as I’ve often said, I follow the money, the results. And I listen to smart people about the prospects of these companies.

With regard to Nutanix’s results two days ago, I’ve recently posted my thoughts, but here they are again for those who haven’t seen them. Basically my thoughts about Nutanix’s results are the same as those of Bert and others: the results were misunderstood by robo-analyzers. They were great results! Let’s look at some figures:

Gross revenue was just up 20% from last year, but that’s only because they weren’t counting $95 million of hardware that would have been counted in the same quarter last year. Put that back in for an apples-to-apples comparison, and revenue was up 58%!
Subscription revenue was up 49% as reported, which is the future of the company.
Deferred revenue is huge (more than twice as large as the quarter’s entire revenue) and was up 71% yoy!!! Yes, up 71%. And up 17% sequentially.

Gross billings were “only” up 37%, but Subscription billings were up 66%.

Free cash flow was positive $6.5 million, up from negative $6.5 million a year ago.
For the fiscal year ending this quarter, Free Cash Flow was positive $30 million up from negative $36 million a year ago!!!

Operating cash flow was $23 million up from $6 million yoy.
For the fiscal year ending this quarter, Operating Cash Flow was $93 million up from $14 million a year ago!!!

Is there anyone left who doesn’t think that this was a blow-out quarter?

Adjusted Net Loss was 6% of revenue, improved from 10% of revenue a year ago.
Adjusted loss per share was 11 cents, improved from 17 cents yoy and from 21 cents sequentially, and which is the smallest loss in cents that Nutanix has ever had.

Customers were 10,600, adding 1000 new customers in the quarter. Note that’s not in the year, that’s in the quarter.

They had their biggest deal ever this quarter, a $20 million deal with a part of the Dept of Defense. (We know from previously that it was the US Air Force.)

That’s just some of the information. This was a great report. I added a tiny bit just after the opening at $56.92, but remember that this is just my opinion. Do your own research and make your own conclusions, and I promise I won’t be annoyed if you decide differently.

Finishing up. When I take a regular position in a stock, it’s always with the idea of holding it indefinitely, or as long as circumstances seem appropriate, and never with a price goal or with the idea of trying to make a few points and selling. I do, of course, eventually exit. Sometimes it’s after months, and sometimes after years, but I’m talking about what my intention is when I buy.

I do sometimes take a tiny position in a company to put it on my radar and get me to learn more about it. I’m not trying to trade it and make money on it, I’m just trying to decide if I want to keep it long term. If I do try out a stock in a small position and later decide that it’s not what I want, I sell it without hesitation, and I really don’t care whether I gain a dollar or lose one. I just sell out to put the money somewhere better. If I decide to keep it, I add to my position and build it into a regular position.

You should never just try to follow what I’m doing without making up your own mind about a stock. In these monthly summaries I’m giving you a static picture of where I am currently, but I may change my mind about a position during the month. In fact, I not infrequently do, and I make changes in the position. I usually don’t announce these changes until the end of the month, and if I’m busy or have some personal emergency I might not announce them even then. And besides, I sometimes make mistakes, even big ones! Don’t just follow me blindly! I’m an old guy and won’t be around forever. The key is to learn how to do this for yourself.

Since I began in 1989, my entire portfolio has grown enormously. If you are new to the board and want to find out how I did it, and how you can try to do it yourself, I’d suggest you read posts #4 through #8 at the beginning of the board, and especially the Knowledgebase that Neil keeps for us, which is a compilation of words of wisdom, and definitely worth reading (a couple of times) if you haven’t yet.

I hope this has been helpful.

Saul

For Knowledgebase for this board,
please go to Posts #17774, 17775 and 17776.
We had to post it in three parts this time.

A link to the Knowledgebase is also at the top of the Announcements column that is on the right side of every page on this board.

144 Likes

**SaulR80683:**I’d like to bring up a sort of odd question here for your consideration, because I’ve been wondering about it, and it puzzles me. My question, and it’s a serious one, is how come all the smart guys, with MBA’s, who have studied all this stuff and gotten Masters degrees in it, who understand all those terms in the 10-Q’s, and all those squiggly lines on their technical graphs that I don’t have a clue about, and who probably even understand what these companies are actually doing, how come these guys can’t do what I, and Chris, and Bear, and others on our board are doing??? Why is my common sense investing producing so much better results.

That’s not an idle question; someone just recently linked to an article pointing out that Hedge Funds, for instance, were on average trailing the S&P significantly this year. Trailing the S&P! I was wondering whether these guys are paralyzed by having too much information, too many contradicting facts in face of what is essentially a binary decision (to buy or not)? Whether they are limited in what they can invest in? Or what? These are the guys with the business training and education. And probably a lot of technology education too. I’d be interested in your ideas about this. As far as I know, no one is doing as well as we are doing! No one seems to be as successful as we are, not investing in common stocks anyway. Why? Why? What I am doing just seems like common sense investing.

Saul,

I have been thinking on exactly this question all year. I am not quite up to your YTD return, but still the results are embarrassing and beyond reason from a traditional investing perspective. I am up 55% YTD and 300% in the past 3 years. (As a side note, my return YTD is “rather low” because I stepped away from investing for 3 months to be almost totally away from computers on an adventure. Best trade-off ever, but I can see how it hurt my portfolio.)

I have a few thoughts on why our returns are so spectacular. No clue if any of this is correct but here is what I have come up with as possibilities:

(1) This forum acts as an informal mastermind group centered around finding the best companies for your investing style (hyper growth investing). We have a number of smart people feeding ideas to each other to come up with new ideas none of us would have had individually.

(2) The internet has fundamentally changed investing, but schools are still teaching pre-internet investing models. Fantastic for understanding a business and obtaining returns which match the history of the stock market, not so good at maximizing returns in this new era of the internet.

(3) The internet is evolving into a new type of entity (cloud computing) at a rate of change rarely seen in all of human history (or maybe never before seen). Most people find it hard to keep up with these changes.

(4) Change is hard for many people and harder yet for large corporations. Anyone who can adapt to new the rapid changes of the modern world has a huge advantage. In particular, you (Saul) are more flexible than typical as shown by the evolution of how you invest and the companies you invest in.

(5) Your investing style (Saul’s Methodology as detailed in the Knowledge Base to the right) is designed to be flexible so as to target the current trends of healthy fast growing companies. Most people would focus on business details, but if the business models change (such as with the SaaS companies that are mostly discussed on this board now), those business details become an irrelevant distraction. Someday the MBAs will have new models to evaluate such companies, but for now a more flexible approach of looking at a company and asking “is it healthy” and “is it growing fast” is actually a very good early step at targeting these companies for investment.

(6) Perhaps most important: Common Sense is actually extremely rare in the world, but is the basis of how many of us on this board invest. Relevant:

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/obitcs.htm

I think it is some combination of all of the above, and possibly more. I have more thoughts but my flight is boarding soon so I need to get to the gate and fly away.

Any thoughts Saul?

29 Likes

Saul, I have been thinking on exactly this question all year. I am not quite up to your YTD return, but still the results are embarrassing and beyond reason from a traditional investing perspective… I have a few thoughts on why our returns are so spectacular. No clue if any of this is correct but here is what I have come up with as possibilities:

(1) This forum acts as an informal mastermind group centered around finding the best companies for your investing style (hyper growth investing). We have a number of smart people feeding ideas to each other to come up with new ideas none of us would have had individually.

(2) The internet has fundamentally changed investing, but schools are still teaching pre-internet investing models. Fantastic for understanding a business and obtaining returns which match the history of the stock market, not so good at maximizing returns in this new era of the internet.

(3) The internet is evolving into a new type of entity (cloud computing) at a rate of change rarely seen in all of human history (or maybe never before seen). Most people find it hard to keep up with these changes.

(4) Change is hard for many people and harder yet for large corporations. Anyone who can adapt to new the rapid changes of the modern world has a huge advantage. In particular, you (Saul) are more flexible than typical as shown by the evolution of how you invest and the companies you invest in.

(5) Your investing style (Saul’s Methodology as detailed in the Knowledge Base to the right) is designed to be flexible so as to target the current trends of healthy fast growing companies. Most people would focus on business details, but if the business models change (such as with the SaaS companies that are mostly discussed on this board now), those business details become an irrelevant distraction. Someday the MBAs will have new models to evaluate such companies, but for now a more flexible approach of looking at a company and asking “is it healthy” and “is it growing fast” is actually a very good early step at targeting these companies for investment.

(6) Perhaps most important: Common Sense is actually extremely rare in the world, but is the basis of how many of us on this board invest.

Thanks othalan, that was a very thoughtful response. I was starting to worry that no one who’d respond. I think all your points contribute, and I have some other suggestions: I think also that the MBA’s have been trained to immediately disregard companies with high EV/S ratios and/or no profits, without looking further. I think Portfolio Managers (Hedge Fund, Mutual Fund, etc) may have rules forbidding them to invest in this kind of company. They also may not be allowed to invest in a new IPO until it’s been public for 2? 3? years so they have a certain number of quarters to evaluate. They may not be able to invest in companies with such small market caps without moving the market. And there may be other reasons.

Best

Saul

8 Likes

I’d like to bring up a sort of odd question here for your consideration, because I’ve been wondering about it, and it puzzles me. My question, and it’s a serious one, is how come all the smart guys, with MBA’s, who have studied all this stuff and gotten Masters degrees in it, who understand all those terms in the 10-Q’s, and all those squiggly lines on their technical graphs that I don’t have a clue about, and who probably even understand what these companies are actually doing, how come these guys can’t do what I, and Chris, and Bear, and others on our board are doing??? Why is my common sense investing producing so much better results.

Most of the “professionals” value avoiding losses for their clients more than going against group thinking and investing in unkown stocks to generate oversized returns. Invest in Apple and you keep your job - win or lose. Investing in an unknown company that loses 20% in a quarter and you might find yourself unemployed.

(6) Perhaps most important: Common Sense is actually extremely rare in the world, but is the basis of how many of us on this board invest.

I second this statement. Book smarts and university smarts very often fail to equate to real world smarts.

Wiseguy

6 Likes

I’d like to bring up a sort of odd question here for your consideration, because I’ve been wondering about it, and it puzzles me. My question, and it’s a serious one, is how come all the smart guys, with MBA’s, who have studied all this stuff and gotten Masters degrees in it, who understand all those terms in the 10-Q’s, and all those squiggly lines on their technical graphs that I don’t have a clue about, and who probably even understand what these companies are actually doing, how come these guys can’t do what I, and Chris, and Bear, and others on our board are doing??? Why is my common sense investing producing so much better results.


Tradition - wrongly assuming it always has to be a certain way
Fear of loss - job security concerns regarding “outside the norm” risks for fund mgrs
Education - similar to tradition, but typically the previous gen are the teachers and decide curriculum.
Pro level returns - regardless of your profession(s), these are pro-level returns in the sense that they are likely in the top 1%. It is like wondering why all the thousands and millions of basketball players practicing every day for years can’t be like Michael Jordan. Call it “talent” or “knack” or “luck”, but you seem to have the “it factor” to be the elite in the stock-picking world.

An analogy I think is similar for a few reasons, is Kevin Kelley, HS football coach at Pulaski Academy. You may have seen specials on him. All of football, at HS, College, and NFL levels, tends to punt on 4th downs in most situations. Kelley attempts onside kicks instead of kickoffs, every single time and almost never punts. His unorthodox manner works for him. Similar to how you have critics for being “risky” and being abnormal in your approach, Kelley predictably has tons of critics too, all trying to explain why his success isn’t real and that it will all blow up on him someday.

https://sports.yahoo.com/americas-daring-high-school-coach-t…
https://vimeo.com/36312722

There is almost a dogma set down for investing just as there is in how you are supposed to coach a football game. And like with religion, when you go against the ingrained dogmatic principles, you get pushback. It is much easier to go with the flow than to publicly be a rebel.

And there are people making much greater returns than all of us. Someone invested millions in Zscaler pre-IPO. Genius, luck, right place right time? I would also offer that others that are widely successful at individual stock-picking may be private individuals and just don’t want to advertise their life/decisions/trades online. Finally - the public actions of a fund mgr don’t have to mimic their own personal trading/trades…they may be willing to take much greater risks with their personal wealth than with the wealth of others.

I wouldn’t over-think it either way. :slight_smile:

Dreamer

16 Likes

“have a few thoughts on why our returns are so spectacular. No clue if any of this is correct but here is what I have come up with as possibilities:”

I have a simpler explanation which basically sums it up in one word. Obviously have to have the right companies to start with but Saul your TIMEING is incredible. I have mentioned this before and we all know about not ever falling in love with a stock regardless of where it might end up but you have this ability to seek faster returns(I mean 30% up in August!! And that includes a near 8% uncalled for drop in Ntnx on Friday) is just remarkable but so very well deserved. And yes, for us over 60, we are not getting any younger, take some off the table.

Happy Labor day and weekend to all. And again, a big thank you to this board and TMF.

4 Likes

Thanks Wiseguy and Dreamer Dad, both of you gave very good added explanations. The one you both gave of recommending safe stocks to make sure of keeping your job, I think is a key one.

Saul

2 Likes

As a small counterpoint, there is at least one hedge fund that follows the Saul Saas approach to a degree. I find reviewing their holdings every 6 months interesting for idea generation

https://whalewisdom.com/filer/light-street-capital-managemen…

13 Likes

I’d like to bring up a sort of odd question here for your consideration, because I’ve been wondering about it, and it puzzles me. My question, and it’s a serious one, is how come all the smart guys, with MBA’s, who have studied all this stuff and gotten Masters degrees in it, who understand all those terms in the 10-Q’s, and all those squiggly lines on their technical graphs that I don’t have a clue about, and who probably even understand what these companies are actually doing, how come these guys can’t do what I, and Chris, and Bear, and others on our board are doing???

Lord Keynes answered your question almost a century ago (Published in February 1936)

“Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally.”

? John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/801915-worldly-wisdom-teach…

Why is my common sense investing producing so much better results.

What you are missing is the survivorship bias. How many tried thinking outside the box and failed?

There is an age old argument that suggests that your success is pure luck. The oldest reference to the argument that I have found dates to 1932 I believe. Having watched you operate I’m convinced it’s not luck. Yesterday I watched a video about ten billionaires who went bankrupt. They were winners until they weren’t. It’s he who dies with the most chips that is the winner. Only then can he claim victory for sure. LOL

Several of the bankrupt billionires were heavily in debt. That is one mistake you are not making. At least one didn’t pay his income tax. Some ran Ponzi schemes. There are many ways to foul up. In 2000 I ran up my portfolio to a couple million dollars and though I was pretty sharp. Alas…

I think the fun is in the adventure but beware the wheel of fortune.

Denny Schlesinger

15 Likes

Saul-

I’d like to chime in on your question. My thesis is less charitable than those proffered so far, perhaps bordering on conspiracy theory. Academia, the financial services industry, and economics have numerous recognized “experts” that have developed investing theories over the years. Concepts like efficient markets, asset allocation/diversification, etc. have volumes of self serving data to essentially discourage individual investors from thinking for themselves, instead, taking their money to “professionals” and paying for management.

Almost every financial services firm, bank, broker,mutual fund, hedge fund,etc. I know of has as a primary business mission of generating fees for the company. I’m including what some would term as more altruistic firms in this indictment. The names that come to mind are so entrenched in this status quo that thoughts and actions outside of gathering assets for fees are not only ignored but discouraged. Using dogma paid for by the institutions, analysts and managers are expected not to deviate from venturing away from “traditional” analysis and thus will always fall close to the top of the bell curve.

To be fair, there are some hedge funds and managers who use alternative valuation and investing strategies. However, in most cases ego and biases are so strong as to render most of these efforts futile. Other “investors” (i.e. Carl Icon and others) are more about extracting money from companies rather than making a positive difference for the company and other investors.

Color me skeptical.

Gary

4 Likes

The core answer is simple (1) it is not their money and they cannot do what we do because of liability, and (2) even if they could they are moving around billions of dollars. You cannot invest like we do while moving around billions of dollars.

Therefore they are taught portfolio theory, and the average managed investor gets the market return for it.

Hedge funds are mostly different. They still have the huge amount of money issue, but they also are contractually required to produce a certain return annually, no more, no less. They therefore run very sophisticated financial schemes.

Thank the heavens for them all I say, it creates opportunities for us on the micro-scale from those who have to act on the macro-scale.

Tinker

27 Likes

From FlyGal via Saul:
Cloud computing is so much more efficient. One of the big things that I think people miss, when evaluating companies related to cloud computing, is the efficiency with which they operate compared to enterprise computing. There are lots of enterprise shops, but all new endeavors go to the cloud because it’s just that much more efficient. Legacy systems still run at the enterprise level, but even those enterprise businesses will start most NEW functions in the cloud.
And, I, Saul, just want to remind you all that in general, our companies are built for the cloud from the ground up, and they provide the picks and shovels for enterprise companies switching over to the cloud.

Maybe there’s a nomenclature issue, but as I interpret the above, if you believe it then it’s time to sell Nutanix (NTNX), as that company’s business is literally based on getting companies moving existing applications from the public clouds to enterprise servers, and in having new applications start up on enterprise servers. As that quote is stated, it would also be a reason to invest in Amazon and Microsoft, but neither of those are even close to Saul recommendations today (although both have done well recently as applications have indeed moved from enterprise to cloud).

Maybe what FlyGal meant by “cloud” isn’t “public cloud,” but any cloud, which includes self-hosted clouds like those managed by Nutanix. If so, then what are the “legacy enterprise systems” if not applications run on enterprise-owned-and-operated servers? If you’re talking about J2EE applications from early in the 21st century, then yes, many of those are better off being migrated to more modern infrastructures, but that’s not large enough to fuel the big growth Saul’s stocks are seeing.

I really struggle with an insistence that ‘cloud computing is so much more efficient than enterprise computing.’ Especially since Nutanix’s whole raison d’etre is that enterprise owned and operated servers are cheaper to run for many (most?) applications. Unless one defines “enterprise” as the old pre-internet world of IBM and DEC computers where users connected via terminals, but then the big gains were mostly achieved before the word “cloud” really entered our lexicon.

Put another way, if you’re looking to make money on the shift to cloud (from desktop or enterprise), then I think you’ve missed the boat. People talk about Microsoft making money on Azure following Amazon’s lead, but the real success for Microsoft was moving their legacy desktop Office products to the cloud-based Office 365 suite - a super-successful product with a very sticky recurring revenue (typically $20 per employee per month depending on your business scale and desired features). Similarly, it’s a decade too late to invest in Salesforce, which disrupted enterprise-run SAP applications. Heck, Amazon invented the public cloud almost 15 years ago. I know Saul was invested in Amazon previously, and it’s arguable whether he got out too soon or not.

This is not to say that Saul’s current companies are bad. Far from it. But, I think it’s wrong to characterize their success as taking advantage of a shift from enterprise to cloud, especially with an analogy from central steam engines to local electrical motors. In my view, these companies are simply leveraging the cloud (public and private) to either provide needed services in a better way, or to help companies write and deploy their own applications. To back that up, let’s look at what Saul’s companies do.

I think Saul’s current stocks fall into 3 categories:
1) Services. These are applications that businesses want, but those businesses don’t care how they do what they do.
Alteryx - Self-service data analytics. Helps companies extract value from the data they collect.
Twilio - Make/Receive phone calls & Text messages via web service APIs.
Square - Financial services, including mobile payments and credit card handling to smaller businesses.
PayCom - Payroll & HR services provider, competing with ADP, Workday, etc.

2) Development Software. These help a company’s own developers write their own applications:
Mongo - Database software.
Pivotal - Sells software to help developers write their cloud applications.
Wix - Software to help create websites.

3) IT Infrastructure. Software to help a company’s IT department deploy applications (now know as DevOps):
ZScaler - Internet security as a service.
Nutanix - Software to setup & manage your own private clouds.
Okta - Identity management, including Single Sign On (SSO).
New Relic - Service to help monitor your AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, or Rackspace deployments.

I can see people disagreeing with these categories, and maybe I’ve glossed over some salient aspect of their business that’s more unique than I’ve expressed, but overall I think the groupings are fair. It’s no coincidence that they all involve the internet in some way - although Mongo stands apart as not needing the internet to work. Interestingly, Services are not new applications (there have always been payments and HR and understanding your data needs since the days of the Industrial Revolution), but these companies are better due to how they take advantage of the internet. On the other hand, both Development Software and IT Infrastructure are completely new businesses catering to a world where companies need to write and deploy their own applications, whether on enterprise servers or on cloud servers. And notably, except for Wix, those needs existed in varying degrees with enterprise applications as well.

So the “newness” of these depends on your timeframe. New since 1985? - sure. New since “enterprise servers?” - not so much. Back to my original point, I think the success of Nutanix shows that computing infrastructure is a bit like the circular fashion of men’s tie widths. Computing used to be all central with wired terminals connected to a central mainframe, then it went to individual personal computers, then back to central via enterprise servers, and now to cloud central. But, today we see not only a resurrection of enterprise-run computing via companies like Nutanix, we see, in what today is called “edge computing,” a push towards moving computations away from a central deployment back down to the point of application. Applications of the future like Autonomous Driving mean your car has high local computational needs, and even the less fancy IoT world is moving towards smarter and smarter end devices to reduce bandwidth cost and latency.

Think about it. Look at how computing power has moved from cell phone company central servers to your cell phones, and now how that’s moved to your cell phone’s peripherals like fitness bands and smartwatches. Smartwatches now already have SIM cards not only for phone calls, but for uploading data, and that’ll move to screenless/small screen fitness bands as well. With 5G coming, latency will drop and so I expect we’ll see computing move to a mix of local and central in the future, where the central aspect is for information sharing rather than actual computational power - at least for many applications.

Viewed in this context, I think the analogy to power delivery via belts migrating to electricity is more appropriate for what happened in the 1980s, not to what is happening today. Energy to motion conversion went from a large central steam-powered device (think mainframe) and delivered by belts (think hardwired serial terminal connections) to smaller, local conversion based, electric motors (think personal computers) located at the point of use. Motors got smaller and more efficient, so you got hand held drills instead of drill presses, and eventually those became independently powered via batteries - same as as happened with computing power moving from mainframes to desktop PCs and then to held held phones and tablets and now to watches. The difference now is that thanks to wireless and both intranet and the internet, computing power can be placed where it’s most suitable - whereas the central to local motor analogy flexibility kind of runs out of steam (pun intended).

So today, if we’re looking to make money on upcoming trends, I think we should be looking at how a low bandwidth, moderate cost, pervasive network like 5G will shape the future. In the future, we won’t be looking at central computing (enterprise or cloud) for raw computational power (hand held or IoT devices will be able to handle most computational loads given the rate of chip development), as much as using central servers mostly for data amalgamation and analytics. For instance, today, voice recognition in cars and Amazon Echo-like devices is powered by central computing since it takes a lot of computational power, but I’ve already seen demos of very good voice recognition running on small boxes without an internet connection that have NVidia chips inside them. So, instead of sending an audio file of your voice command to the server, your local box will not only convert the audio to text, but also be able to handle those commands that don’t need central data/control without pinging the server - for instance, setting a timer or turning on your lights. Only those commands needing central data (not computation) will go to the cloud.

This is the future trend, IMO. In this new way of operating, low latency (the time it takes to get an answer back from a server) is far more important than the bandwidth (how much data can be transmitted quickly). Back to autonomous driving as an example, it’ll be important for the car to know that the light is going to change, or that a car next to you wants to change lanes - both of which come from a connected world. But, it won’t go to the cloud to perform shape recognition from the cars cameras and sensors - that’ll be computed locally in the vehicle.

The danger with investing in trends, of course, is being too early. And, of course, it’s easy to be too late. Here’s where Saul’s investing agility is so important. I think I’m pretty good at technology and recognizing trends, but profiting off of that has been only moderately successful for me thus far.

60 Likes

“Why is my common sense investing producing so much better results.”

One of my very best friends was a very successful money manager. He maintained for his clients a portfolio of not less than 50 stocks with initial starting positions in each stock of 1-2% each. (Large institutional money managers commonly use portfolios of 100-130 stocks.) My friends’s personal portfolio by contrast was 90% invested in 1-2 stocks at a time-- his high conviction list. He amassed a $50 million net worth before his recent death. His clients did well by Wall Street standards- they matched or slightly exceeded the results of the S&P 500. But having one multi-bagger stock which was only 1-2 % of your portfolio does not create the type of wealth that my friend was able to create for himself.

Most money managers are uncomfortable with and/or are prohibited by their firms from maintaining for their clients extremely concentrated accounts.

Beyond concentration however, what is truly amazing is that you ( and this Board) have been able to find so many High Conviction Stocks. Brokers use to say that having 1-2 multi-baggers in a life time was sufficient. You list 10-11 multi-baggers in one post.

11 Likes

Saul:Here’s how my current stocks have done in the first eight months of the year…

Twilio from 25.70 to 60.71		up  213.9%

This should be up 136.2%.

1 Like

I’d like to bring up a sort of odd question here for your consideration, because I’ve been wondering about it, and it puzzles me. My question, and it’s a serious one, is how come all the smart guys, with MBA’s, who have studied all this stuff and gotten Masters degrees in it, who understand all those terms in the 10-Q’s, and all those squiggly lines on their technical graphs that I don’t have a clue about, and who probably even understand what these companies are actually doing, how come these guys can’t do what I, and Chris, and Bear, and others on our board are doing??? Why is my common sense investing producing so much better results.

I’ll at least take a crack at this. A few thoughts come to mind:

  1. Many of us are still very aware of 2000 and 2008. Even though this has been a historically long bull, almost everyone seems to be waiting for the other shoe to drop. There’s always the psychological fear of too far, too fast. The recent crypto craze just reinforces that mindset. Many of the “culprits” for these past drops were misunderstood internet and/or tech stocks viewed as high flyers with no profits. At first blush the current SaaS craze feels like a lot of the same. However…

  2. The recurring revenue model stressed on this board appears to offset that dynamic. While some of these businesses don’t yet have profits, they aren’t the traditional rainbows attached to the ever-elusive pot of gold (the Knowledgebase story stocks). These future revenue commitments make many of these companies coiled springs with much higher probabilities of very real, very fast growth. In that broad respect, this time might really be different. I hope I’m not oversimplifying it, but I think a huge majority of investors simply haven’t come to that realization yet. At least that’s one of my main takeaways during my time perusing this board.

  3. There’s really not much critical thought to what most of your aforementioned MBA’s are doing. Their main pitch and flashy brochures are more of a sales and marketing script than an actual investment plan. Their business model is geared more toward fees than the actual growth of my portfolio. Those fancy degrees aren’t being put to use studying how to beat the market. They’re being put to use maximizing fees instead. That’s their recurring revenue.

  4. The masses have been conditioned that beating the market is too hard. They’ve been told to stay out of the way, focus on the other parts of their lives and let the pros do their thing. Therefore, most pros don’t need to stay ahead of smart, focused investors. They simply need to stay ahead of the masses. That obviously creates inefficiencies that can be exploited by those willing to put in the time and effort. As you said it seems like common sense as long as your goal is maximizing returns. I’d argue that’s not the true goal of most market participants even if they themselves believe it is.

  5. Bringing what little expertise I have to this board, I’d also say there’s a very strong magnifying effect in the work done by this group (led obviously by Saul). This board is NOT the usual blind cheerleading or groupthink supporting the original poster. Instead it’s an honest conversation within a set of disciplined, clearly-defined guidelines. Having studied and managed groups for over two decades, I’ve seen firsthand how very common biases can kill productivity (anchoring, bandwagon effect, confirmation bias, etc). This board has not only outwardly identified those biases, but also isn’t afraid to point out when those biases might be inadvertently creeping in. Given my experience that’s a rare and powerful group dynamic that shouldn’t be underestimated. Kudos to all of you for creating such an environment.

As an aside, the consistently thoughtful quality of the posts and interactions here is amazing. The candor and honesty makes many of you come across as real people rather than mere screen names. That’s both impressive and rare in the flame war age of internet anonymity.

In that spirit I’ll give a brief intro. I’ve been lurking for the better part of a month, mostly because I’ve had little to add at this level of substance. I’ve been a MF member since 1997 and am much older than stocknovice might suggest. I rarely post (maybe a couple times a year), and only then when I feel I have something to offer. I’ve thought about changing my screen name to intermediateinvestor but MF tells me that’s too many characters. C’est la vie.

Regardless, I’d view myself as a medium term buy and hold investor (that seems to fit here). I’ve been investing since the mid-90’s and have always run my own portfolio, mostly through MF recs and reading on my own. Like most investors sell decisions have always been tougher for me than buy decisions (my gut says this board is going to help that). I’ve been tracking my portfolio since 2002 and my good ol’ MF tracker calculates my XIRR vs the S&P over that time as +2.20% a year. That’s nothing like some of you here, but I have no complaints. However, as my portfolio gets larger and I begin to get at least within shouting distance of retirement I’d like to pay more attention to making sure our nest egg lets us do the things we’d like to do. That’s ultimately why we spend the time, isn’t it?

Anyway, sorry for the ramble but I appreciate the time any of you might have spent following along. I do look forward to learning from this group and hope I can give back at least every once in a while along the way.

Joe

45 Likes

The ability of members of the board and Saul in particular to identify the most important information and correctly attach the appropriate amount of significance is hugely important. I do not think this is a simple skill or common sense. This is of course critical in evaluating the vast amount of information now available and making decisions. I think this is a large contributor.

Pete

1 Like

Maybe there’s a nomenclature issue, but as I interpret the above, if you believe it then it’s time to sell Nutanix (NTNX), as that company’s business is literally based on getting companies moving existing applications from the public clouds to enterprise servers, and in having new applications start up on enterprise servers.

As I interpret the news, there are two reasons to move from cloud to premises:

1.- Security, the cloud is more vulnerable to attack so you take strategic, security sensitive apps back to your premises.

2.- Latency, apps that require massive data transfers suffer the most from cloud latecy so you take AI apps back to your premises.

With tools like Pivotal that can deploy anywhere it’s not a problem. Score one for Pivotal!

Denny Schlesinger

3 Likes

Hi Saul,

And, as I wrote last month, I have continued to segregate away a certain amount of cash. Why? You ask. Well, I’m getting not only older, but old, and there’s a limit to the amount of years I have left to live. I have enough set aside for my family. I can cover our living expenses more easily as we live a reasonably simple life. And besides, it’s too much work for an old guy.

Curious what instructions you have for your spouse after you pass away (e.g. liquidate all stocks and put them in an S&P 500 index fund).

If I died today the named beneficiaries of my portfolio would take one look and say, “What am I supposed to do with this?” So, need to fix that.

Don’t want to take the conversation far off track, but seemingly everyone here manages a portfolio and is affected by this.

-Chris

8 Likes

So today, if we’re looking to make money on upcoming trends, I think we should be looking at how a low bandwidth, moderate cost, pervasive network like 5G will shape the future. In the future, we won’t be looking at central computing (enterprise or cloud) for raw computational power (hand held or IoT devices will be able to handle most computational loads given the rate of chip development), as much as using central servers mostly for data amalgamation and analytics. For instance, today, voice recognition in cars and Amazon Echo-like devices is powered by central computing since it takes a lot of computational power, but I’ve already seen demos of very good voice recognition running on small boxes without an internet connection that have NVidia chips inside them. So, instead of sending an audio file of your voice command to the server, your local box will not only convert the audio to text, but also be able to handle those commands that don’t need central data/control without pinging the server - for instance, setting a timer or turning on your lights. Only those commands needing central data (not computation) will go to the cloud.

Generally investing in trends I find not of much help vs. investing in actual companies that may or may not be involved in the trends. But if we are talking trends, then Zscaler is absolutely the enabler of this trend. Making the internet the network, and security at the end user point of use.

This is another reason why Zscaler’s multiple may be so high. Zscaler is the enabler of this trend on the enterprise side of things. As for the consumer side, that will be somebody else or something else.

Tinker

3 Likes

Hedge Funds, for instance, were on average trailing the S&P significantly this year.

Real hedge funds, ones that actually hedge, will underperform bull markets and outperform bear markets, so said the King of Hedge Funds, Steven Cohen.

Peter Lynch disclosed amply how mutual funds shoot themselves in the foot.

Warren Buffett started out as a money manager running a private fund. Once a fund has over 100 members they have to follow stricter security regulations. The way around these regulations for Buffett was to operate a regular corporation instead of a mutual fund but his managemnt style is not typically corporate but as an acting fund manager. One additional advantage for Buffett is that shareholders cannot redeem their shares which is a big problem for mutual funds that have to sell, sell, sell in a bear market to fund redemptions then they have to buy, buy, buy in bull markets when funds rush back in.

For the gory details read Buffettology: the Previously Unexplained Techniques That Have Made Warren Buffett the World’s Most Famous Investor by Mary Buffett, I probably learned more about Buffett reading this book than from any other source.

https://www.amazon.com/Buffettology-Previously-Unexplained-T…

Denny Schlesinger

5 Likes