Whatever it takes moment?

I haven’t, but I’ll look at it now that you’ve mentioned.

Oh yeah, how can you possibly:

A) Doubt Saul’s returns

…and…

B) Doubt his followers returns

A) above is this: I have owned Berkshire Hathaway since it was a double digit price for A shares.

B) above is thus: What does that have to do with anything associated with Berkshire since Saul’s board was created? Of course absolutely nothing.

Saul is to his followers as was Prince Bonnie with the Scots, he’s led them to the Battle of Colloden where they have been slaughtered.

But really…is Saul about them at all, or is it all about him needing constant admiration?

5 Likes

Point to evidence of my OT posts and we can talk.

Start 0% 100% 0.00%
1993 21% 121% 21.00%

2022 -60% 71169% 24.47%

CAGR is 711.69^(1/28.5) = 25.9%

1 Like

Correction: CAGR is 711.69^(1/28.5) - 1 = 25.9%

Actually, 1993 should be counted as full year, so CAGR is 711.69^(1/29.5) - 1 = 24.9%

So we have a poster who has come to the board having lost 75% of his capital. And then we respond that, “Well, more than once I’ve lost 50% of mine.” Not relevant. This poster has lost 75% of his capital and now sold the porfolio.

So now we enter the new phase where the poster, who has obviously shown minimal investing knowledge, is being exposed to quite alpha’d investment models. Here we go, tread carefully or else…

…we are Saul II and instead of Bonnie Prince Charlie and Culloden we are flirting with being Robert E Lee sending Picket’s men up the hill at Gettysburg?

Seems that way to me. Given we have decided to defend Saul??? Well, if so shouldn’t we send out 75% poster right back to Saul’s board screaming, “Buy the stocks Saul owns and sell them when he does!”

Seems perfectly logical to me. Why in hell would you sell things you believed in that are 75% down to buy things that are down 20%? Oh my…I gotta stand on my head to grasp that.

Saul is the master. Now must be the time to stand tall and charge!

4 Likes

So when the SAAS stocks were about double today’s price almost 60% on that board had lost money.

Chompin, on what do you base this number?

I wouldn’t adopt or even believe in Saul’s method no matter his result is true or not. But I have no interest in discrediting him. His result could due to many reasons: his method happened to align with high tech development in the past 30 years that may not continue, or something I don’t understand and therefore I wouldn’t follow, or pure luck. If 10,000 monkeys throw a coin for 10 times, by probability 10 would get consecutive faceup, that would hardly means those 10 have special talent.

I lost 75% only because of my folly. Like I said, I was Naive…I placed my full trust in Stock advisor and those were the only companies I bought. Companies like Zoom, Fiverr, Lemonade, novocure, Etsy, and so many others that were recommended by Motley fool were the ones that had contributed to my downfall. Upstart was indeed one of the biggest folly of all, but Tom Gardner absolutely was convinced when he pounded the table on it, and said 380 was just a beginning. Yes, Saul’s boards were also euphoric about it, and I think another investment letter by Bert hochfield also said the same…So, I thought with UPSt I had 3 separate groups being extremely bullish…Alas, turned out to be wrong.

If Saul is culpable then the Motley Fool is as well. At least Saul repeatedly tells readers to get to know the companies and make up their own minds. The Motley Fool takes your money for their advice.

8 Likes

If 10,000 monkeys throw a coin for 10 times, by probability 10 would get consecutive faceup, that would hardly means those 10 have special talent.

A) He is 1 “monkey”.

B) As a CAGR of 25% is wildly above the S&P the chance for such a return in any given year is far lower than the 50:50 chance of faceup when throwing a coin. So he is a monkey rather rolling a dice with it’s 1:6 chance.

C) Now please calculate the probability of 1 monkey throwing a dice 30 times, with the “6” up each time.

With 0.5 probability of getting a faceup per flipping, the probability of getting 10 consecutive faceup is 0.5^10 = 0.00097656 ~ 0.001. 10,000 monkeys x 0.001 = 10.

Buffett described a coin-flipping example in this article (page 3):

https://www.tilsonfunds.com/superinvestors.pdf

1 Like

But really…is Saul about them at all, or is it all about him needing constant admiration?

Bingo.

His result could due to many reasons: his method happened to align with high tech development in the
past 30 years that may not continue, or something I don’t understand and therefore I wouldn’t follow, or pure luck.

Don’t forget one other possibility:
He is simply a very skilled investor.

I’m not a fan, nor a detractor. I don’t follow his board.
I just mention it to round out the list of possibilities.

Such a record, assuming reasonably that it’s roughly accurate, speaks of a formidable ability to weather quite a few major shifts of structure and theme in the markets.
Or, less likely, the ability to develop a single powerful approach which has worked through thick and thin.
Either one is impressive.

It may not be a style that everyone wants to tackle, but so what? Investing is about making a buck (without breaking the law). He has.

Jim

20 Likes

Husband: “Well dear, we need to talk.”

Wife: “Oh yea…what about?”

Husband: “I met this stock market guru who made 26% annually for 25 years.”

Wife (smart): “Wow, so he turned his $50,000 IRA into $31 million, that’s just fantastic.”

Husband: “Exactly!”

Wife: “So did you put our 401K money on his stocks?”

Husband: “Of course I did!”

Wife: “That was 5 years ago, so at 26% our $50,000 is now $181,000?”

Husband: “No, it is $12,5000 unfortunately.”

Wife: “Oh no problem honey…no issue at all.”

Husband: “I sold out…now I’m going with the guys that can make 8%.”

Wife: “Nice job, in a little over 17 years we’ll be back to our original $50,000.”

This is precisely why I get fed up with the pathetic bullcrap I read from inexperienced idiots. Losing money in the permanant capital loss arena is serious business. And we do the dance of pretend and extend saying, “Oh, no problem. We know Saul is a investment god…he’s just having a bad day.”

5 Likes

Don’t forget one other possibility:
He is simply a very skilled investor.

Agree.

1 Like

Such a record, assuming reasonably that it’s roughly accurate, speaks of a formidable ability to weather quite a few major shifts of structure and theme in the markets.
Or, less likely, the ability to develop a single powerful approach which has worked through thick and thin.
Either one is impressive.

Saul’s method and value investing are two fundamentally different approaches. Saul’s method is making money from other investors, he has to enter and exit quickly, his gain is other people’s loss, all investors as a whole on those companies couldn’t possibly have similar gains. Value investing method is making money from the profits of the invested companies, price appreciations are supported by the growth of the companies’ profits.

12 Likes

Saul’s method is making money from other investors, he has to enter and exit quickly, his gain is other people’s loss, all investors as a whole on those companies couldn’t possibly have similar gains.

Exactly, which is why having hundreds of acolytes is so important. Price momentum is his game, and generating excitement is how meme investing works.

2 Likes

Don’t forget one other possibility:
He [Saul} is simply a very skilled investor.

Another possibility:
Luck and survivorship bias.

SeekingAlpha, for example, is full of authors who started out big with some investment theory or technique … who eventually went silent when their scheme blew up. Some of them went several years before they blew up.

Looking at the previously posted Saul’s returns by year, those many eye-popping years just screamed out to me “LUCK!” He took high risk/high reward positions and and got lucky.

2 Likes