I would put forward an idea for the board:
It is best not to respond to the naysayers that show up here. We don’t need to justify Saul’s system. It works. We know it does, and we will continue to stay here and learn. If people want to stop by on down days and make noises to the contrary, they should be ignored, lest we get into arguments with them or encourage them to post again.
Please consider this.
Bear
Agreed.
The results and discussions we have over the long-term answer any legitimate questions about our approach here.
Anyone who takes hacks on the down days, weeks, or months most likely is not doing it out of desire for real discussion.
No need to respond. Proof is in the pudding.
I like your thinking on “don’t feed the trolls.” However, sometimes if an argument is not acknowledged at all, it might confuse newcomers who might think that it is not-challenging an argument means implicit agreement. [I am a newcomer myself; only discovered this board less than a month ago.]
How about if there was a standard boilerplate [“troller-plate”] response that could be posted or linked to? Something like:
Saul’s Investing Discussions is dedicated to Saul’s investing philosophy, which focuses on high-growth companies. This is a strategy that has a proven, long-term record of producing high returns. Saul has achieved annualized returns of greater than X % since [fill in year], using this strategy. This is also a strategy that involves exposure to high levels of volatility. It is possible to sustain high losses in a short period of time, but the long-term view is very profitable despite these short-term levels of risk.
This isn’t a place for discussing other strategies, such as value investing, dividend growth investing, options, futures, marketing timing, and Chinese stocks. There are other forums to discuss this, if you are interested in this topic. Don’t post here to say “Your strategy is too risky, and using my strategy is better.” If you aren’t okay with the possibility of your portfolio’s value going down by 50% during a given year, then this investing philosophy isn’t for you.
For more clarification regarding this investing philosophy, please refer to the knowledge base. [link to knowledge base.]
Groupthink is always healthy 
🆁🅶🅱
Groupthink is always healthy
I hear the trolling is better in Florida.
Andy
For what it’s worth, I generally find disagreements to my posts more useful (to me) than agreements. I can consider the counter arguments and see if I’ve made a mistake - this could make or save me money. This of course assumes that the disagreements contain counter arguments - random argumentative or rude comments are worth ignoring…
I like SteppenWulf’s comment:
For what it’s worth, I generally find disagreements to my posts more useful (to me) than agreements. I can consider the counter arguments and see if I’ve made a mistake - this could make or save me money. This of course assumes that the disagreements contain counter arguments - random argumentative or rude comments are worth ignoring…
To put the random and rude comments into perspective let’s review a bit of history that came from the ‘Additional Information’ tab and whose posts have been memorialized.
Saul’s EOY Reviews posted YTD returns with a theoretical 100k portfolio with most recent EOM for 2018.
Year Saul YTD% Saul
2015 16% $116,000
2016 2.50% $118,900
2017 84.20% $219,014
2018* 55.30% $340,128
From the start of 2015 to July 2018 Saul went up a staggering 340% !!!
So what’s a haircut of 10%, 25%, even 35% during a period of high volatility with results like that?
10% loss: $306,115
25% loss: $255,096
35% loss: $221,083
Hmm, even those portfolio haircuts don’t even take the period YTD below 221% !!!
So why troll with doom and gloom that a reckoning will happen when that’s fine and expected? Doom and gloom should be a worry when the current companies Saul and others are invested start reporting a loss of revenue growth, higher costs, deteriorating gross margins, crappy Net promoter scores, terrible founder led management initiatives, terrible strategy (SNCR ?), a conclusive and data-in-hand analysis that SAAS is dead and a wonderful idea that is now a tombstone.
I’ll keep an open mind and wait for good contrarian views as well. But facts in hand are demonstrating Saul is winning…maybe through serendipity, winner winner chicken dinner luck, or a demonstrated method?
I’ll stick with option three and thank everyone here that posts well thought out commentary on growth oriented investing.
~Scott
Doom and gloom should be a worry when the current companies Saul and others are invested start reporting a loss of revenue growth, deteriorating gross margins,
I’m not a doom and gloom guy, but most of these firms are seeing a deceleration in revenue growth, as Saul just pointed out. 75-72-68-61.5% for SHOP. Gross margins also falling. And so it’s off $40.
I mean, the whole point of these stocks is that 1-5% revenue growth is not acceptable, even thought that is still positive!
Hi Naj,
I mean, the whole point of these stocks is that 1-5% revenue growth is not acceptable, even thought that is still positive!
You are right, but we are talking 61.5% growth. If the YoY growth was 61.5% it would still be a double over just a little over a year. But if you look at the last 4 quarters growth was still 68%. That is almost a double over one year. So lets say the next 3 quarters the growth slows to 50%. Well now we have growth of 52.75%, that would be a double in 1.36 years. Now if you have a company growing that fast how could you even think about selling it? This isn’t a company growing at 5% where it would take 14.4 years to double, this is doubling at just a little over a year.
Andy
Who doubled down on Shop today/ 20% of my portfolio.
Now if you have a company growing that fast how could you even think about selling it?
I’m not selling, but valuation always always always matters.
The issue is that, as has been discusses previously, what if growth slows faster than you are predicting. You’ll get the double-whammy of lower revenue growth and compressed P/S and P/E [if any]. How fast is ‘fast?’
You seem to be suffering from a bit of anchor bias by looking at what growth was a year ago. The market doesn’t care. That news is so old it’s practically prehistoric.
You seem to be suffering from a bit of anchor bias by looking at what growth was a year ago. The market doesn’t care. That news is so old it’s practically prehistoric
Hi Naj,
So 61% growth last quarter is prehistoric when the news just came out? That is the first time I have ever heard anyone use the anchor bias comment on a stocks quarterly growth LOL.
I have been buying and selling this stock. I have always had 10% of my money into it but like yesterday, I buy a trading position and then sell it when I think it has extended itself. If you look at shop and study it for awhile you can see good trading positions. It will get wacked and that is the time to buy and then will run up when everyone gets excited and then sell some of it off. Rinse and repeat.
The issue is that, as has been discusses previously, what if growth slows faster than you are predicting.
What if…it accelerates and starts growing even faster and becomes gaap profitable with huge cash flows? I can’t predict anything but I find it hard to believe that it will drop below 50% growth in the next year.
Andy