Thanks very much for your time and help. On the charts I pulled up, there was no average volume info, and I couldn't figure out how to get it. But going back to your link above and comparing, I got it now. Thanks!
I don't see average volume on stockcharts.com. Am I missing it, or where's the best place to find that info? Do you just look at the volume bars and guestimate? Thanks again.
"Wall Street has done a wonderful job of conditioning our minds to always be cognizant of share price."
Sometimes people are in a position where they can realistically need the money in a few years, but they do not need it now. Then, price does matter now, in that such an investor ("speculator") will not want to lose on his principal. Would you recommend to just park the money in an FDIC-insured account and let inflation eat away?
"That "margin of safety" simply isn't true if you are buying companies as opposed to buying stocks."
I feel like margin of safety can apply to DG, as well. You like KO because it has a certain reputation, which builds your expectation. In addition, it has financial strength, product moat, global reach, etc etc etc. If KO with the *same exact* metrics was priced at $1,000.00 per share, you likely would not buy it, you would not reinvest the dividends into such a position, and you might even think about lightening the position. Thus, your margin of safety has been lost. I think of it as you just have a different guide for defining safe. (Perhaps 6 of 1?)
RAS- I have never come across anything. If and when I do, and I remember this comment stream, I'll post it ;)
See http://bit.ly/17HQwNI (on the first page)(if for some reason the link doesn't work, google "graham chapter 39: newer methods for valuing growth stocks") and http://bit.ly/11fpeL5 (control f "concentration," in that paragraph), Graham seems to have been heavily invested in GEICO.
Nevertheless, I was way off - I was vaguely remembering http://bit.ly/17HQwNL which is a Buffett Partnership Limited letter, pages 10-12. I have heard that this was referring to GEICO, but I don't know where I heard that, and I'm too tired to continue looking for it.
Certainly could be, thanks for pointing that out. After reviewing my notes, I saw that in Intelligent Investor, Graham recommends between 10-30 holdings. That's not to say he didn't operate his own funds differently. But I did not find anything about GEICO, so I'll now say it over in Buffett's name :)
I knew you'd have a source, but I didn't expect it so quickly. Your problem is you know too much, always reading and learning stuff!
The GEICO investment seems to have been during the 40s. But it could've been an exception. I absolutely agree in the value of having a broad-based diversification.
As you said, you don't get a full 50 overnight. It could take years to properly diversify. But until then, my portfolio suffers from un-diversification risk. I assume there's no actionable advice you can give, but how about some emotional strengthening?
thanks again for your insights. the more i read from you (and from others about these topics), the more you make sense. and this style, too!
I distinctly remembering reading (could be Intelligent Investor or Security Analysis, but could be somewhere completely different) that he kept his positions to a minimum. I want to say that he had 5 positions at an average of 20% of his portfolio at one time, with the exception of when he invested mightily in GEICO (before it was even public) at over 40% of his portfolio - in 1 position! He admitted that this was much higher than normal, but he felt the opportunity couldn't be passed up. Anyway, for value investors, it makes sense to hold less positions, because there will be a point where the quality of "margin of safety" will drop, thereby raising the risk profile. Out of sincerest curiosity, can you cite something for the Graham's 75 positions, please? I wonder if there was a certain point in time when he changed portfolio styles (obviously, within "value").
This New Budget Proposal May Limit Your Annual Retirement Income [View article]
"An IRA is not "tax-privileged"." My understanding is that the advantages are simple math equations based on the abilities to compound at tax-free rates (assuming you're not using the IRA wrong, e.g. contributing at the age of 65 to withdraw at the age of 65). Otherwise, nobody would invest in it at all, and then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Secondly, just as it's your money, the government (your elected representatives) can tax it at any rate they choose. I'm not saying let's raise taxes to 110%; I'm saying it's a simple truth about living in an organized community. That organization costs money. If you don't want to pay taxes, go some place where there isn't this form of organization. Whether your agree or disagree with the tax rates, or what your elected officials are doing is a different question then their ability to do so. (I, for one, didn't vote for ANY of the elected officials who represent me and I disagree with how they're spending the money they take from me. I'm not happy about it, but I've also made the decision not to move to a more republican city/state/country, because it's more beneficial to me to live where I do than it is costly. There, I gave away my party affiliation.)
The Truth About The Impact Of Dividend Reinvesting [View article]
pfifla-
People will definitely continue to need those consumable goods you mentioned, but it's at least questionable from where they will purchase 10, 20 and 30 years from now.
For example, all the big store chains, be it retail, warehouse, pharmacy or grocery are all producing generic products which compete with the likes of DG champions (I'm excluding companies like wmt, because I don't really consider them a stalwart dividend payor because of Sam's Choice water). It may not be fatal to these companies, but I think it makes it a little more difficult to predict long term.
Furthermore, rising dividends is by-product of rising earnings which is a byproduct of rising revenues (and/or cost reduction). But, as AAPL (even if not a DG yet) saw in its February earnings report, growth is limited by the size of the planet (for now). Eventually, dividends might necessarily stop rising specifically because of a company's outstanding success.
Finally, this is something I've been wondering for a little while and I would appreciate information about it. A lot of people throw around historical numbers, like "if you would've bought PG or KO, etc, 30 years ago, you'd be rich!." (I have no problem with throwing around historical facts to support theories.) My point is, 30 years ago, these companies were only maintaining streaks of 20+ years. What companies historically paid out rising dividends for 70, 80, or 90 years? In 1970, what companies were paying dividends for 50 years at that point and maintained them for *another* 20 or 30 years? I briefly checked the CCC list and the largest current streak is 60 years DBD. How much higher have streaks gone, and how commonly?
Perhaps the best we can do is try to find companies likely to continue growing revenues, earnings and dividends, and pay attention for when they're about to top out?
(I feel like SA has become more hostile as of late, so allow me to clarify - I am genuinely curious, not snide and pessimistic.)
This New Budget Proposal May Limit Your Annual Retirement Income [View article]
It's just a matter of perspective. I think saving is "right;" nobody can stop you from doing as you please with your money. Saving in a tax-sheltered account is not a "right" per se. You may view it as an "entitlement," in that since the government extended your ability to exercise your right, you feel that the government is now encroaching on your abilities.
If the initial legislation had a maximum cap on distributions or account value, would this have been such a big talking point?
If anyone chooses to disagree, please, explain your points or disprove my points (preferably both) as clearly as you can; I would like to understand your position.
This New Budget Proposal May Limit Your Annual Retirement Income [View article]
mjs- Good story. I never heard of it, but I found it and read it this morning. Tell me please, how was it received back in the '60s? I know from the past few years that it's a little too possible (read: we're headed there!) But what about back then? Was it too progressive?
TVP- Thanks for taking the time to clarify. I think our viewpoints are pretty aligned. Unfortunately, the older generation that has seen an erosion of rights over the past 25-50 years and is rightfully warning about it is ignored by the people they're trying to protect, specifically because of their (the old folks') knowledge.
This New Budget Proposal May Limit Your Annual Retirement Income [View article]
TVP- I agree with you completely. I am concerned with what this (and many other things the President has done in the last 4+ years) could lead to. My point was that, by itself, this proposed legislation is not so outrageous. Perhaps you are all upset with me because you are thinking longer term and broader than I am.
David- Should I be concerned that you're calling me a non-thinking, hating liberal? Or are those general implications of disdain with where this country is headed?
Condition Of The Market - April 2013 [View instapost]
Condition Of The Market - April 2013 [View instapost]
I don't see average volume on stockcharts.com. Am I missing it, or where's the best place to find that info? Do you just look at the volume bars and guestimate? Thanks again.
Condition Of The Market - April 2013 [View instapost]
Thanks.
Monitoring A Large Portfolio [View instapost]
Sometimes people are in a position where they can realistically need the money in a few years, but they do not need it now. Then, price does matter now, in that such an investor ("speculator") will not want to lose on his principal. Would you recommend to just park the money in an FDIC-insured account and let inflation eat away?
"That "margin of safety" simply isn't true if you are buying companies as opposed to buying stocks."
I feel like margin of safety can apply to DG, as well. You like KO because it has a certain reputation, which builds your expectation. In addition, it has financial strength, product moat, global reach, etc etc etc. If KO with the *same exact* metrics was priced at $1,000.00 per share, you likely would not buy it, you would not reinvest the dividends into such a position, and you might even think about lightening the position. Thus, your margin of safety has been lost. I think of it as you just have a different guide for defining safe. (Perhaps 6 of 1?)
RAS- I have never come across anything. If and when I do, and I remember this comment stream, I'll post it ;)
Don't Believe The Stories That The Markets Are Down Today [View article]
We should give king the benefit of the doubt. He was probably referring to black sheep!
Monitoring A Large Portfolio [View instapost]
http://bit.ly/11fpeL5 (control f "concentration," in that paragraph), Graham seems to have been heavily invested in GEICO.
Nevertheless, I was way off - I was vaguely remembering http://bit.ly/17HQwNL which is a Buffett Partnership Limited letter, pages 10-12. I have heard that this was referring to GEICO, but I don't know where I heard that, and I'm too tired to continue looking for it.
Monitoring A Large Portfolio [View instapost]
Monitoring A Large Portfolio [View instapost]
The GEICO investment seems to have been during the 40s. But it could've been an exception. I absolutely agree in the value of having a broad-based diversification.
As you said, you don't get a full 50 overnight. It could take years to properly diversify. But until then, my portfolio suffers from un-diversification risk. I assume there's no actionable advice you can give, but how about some emotional strengthening?
Monitoring A Large Portfolio [View instapost]
I distinctly remembering reading (could be Intelligent Investor or Security Analysis, but could be somewhere completely different) that he kept his positions to a minimum. I want to say that he had 5 positions at an average of 20% of his portfolio at one time, with the exception of when he invested mightily in GEICO (before it was even public) at over 40% of his portfolio - in 1 position! He admitted that this was much higher than normal, but he felt the opportunity couldn't be passed up. Anyway, for value investors, it makes sense to hold less positions, because there will be a point where the quality of "margin of safety" will drop, thereby raising the risk profile. Out of sincerest curiosity, can you cite something for the Graham's 75 positions, please? I wonder if there was a certain point in time when he changed portfolio styles (obviously, within "value").
The Truth About The Impact Of Dividend Reinvesting [View article]
This New Budget Proposal May Limit Your Annual Retirement Income [View article]
Secondly, just as it's your money, the government (your elected representatives) can tax it at any rate they choose. I'm not saying let's raise taxes to 110%; I'm saying it's a simple truth about living in an organized community. That organization costs money. If you don't want to pay taxes, go some place where there isn't this form of organization. Whether your agree or disagree with the tax rates, or what your elected officials are doing is a different question then their ability to do so. (I, for one, didn't vote for ANY of the elected officials who represent me and I disagree with how they're spending the money they take from me. I'm not happy about it, but I've also made the decision not to move to a more republican city/state/country, because it's more beneficial to me to live where I do than it is costly. There, I gave away my party affiliation.)
The Truth About The Impact Of Dividend Reinvesting [View article]
People will definitely continue to need those consumable goods you mentioned, but it's at least questionable from where they will purchase 10, 20 and 30 years from now.
For example, all the big store chains, be it retail, warehouse, pharmacy or grocery are all producing generic products which compete with the likes of DG champions (I'm excluding companies like wmt, because I don't really consider them a stalwart dividend payor because of Sam's Choice water). It may not be fatal to these companies, but I think it makes it a little more difficult to predict long term.
Furthermore, rising dividends is by-product of rising earnings which is a byproduct of rising revenues (and/or cost reduction). But, as AAPL (even if not a DG yet) saw in its February earnings report, growth is limited by the size of the planet (for now). Eventually, dividends might necessarily stop rising specifically because of a company's outstanding success.
Finally, this is something I've been wondering for a little while and I would appreciate information about it. A lot of people throw around historical numbers, like "if you would've bought PG or KO, etc, 30 years ago, you'd be rich!." (I have no problem with throwing around historical facts to support theories.) My point is, 30 years ago, these companies were only maintaining streaks of 20+ years. What companies historically paid out rising dividends for 70, 80, or 90 years? In 1970, what companies were paying dividends for 50 years at that point and maintained them for *another* 20 or 30 years? I briefly checked the CCC list and the largest current streak is 60 years DBD. How much higher have streaks gone, and how commonly?
Perhaps the best we can do is try to find companies likely to continue growing revenues, earnings and dividends, and pay attention for when they're about to top out?
(I feel like SA has become more hostile as of late, so allow me to clarify - I am genuinely curious, not snide and pessimistic.)
This New Budget Proposal May Limit Your Annual Retirement Income [View article]
If the initial legislation had a maximum cap on distributions or account value, would this have been such a big talking point?
If anyone chooses to disagree, please, explain your points or disprove my points (preferably both) as clearly as you can; I would like to understand your position.
This New Budget Proposal May Limit Your Annual Retirement Income [View article]
TVP- Thanks for taking the time to clarify. I think our viewpoints are pretty aligned. Unfortunately, the older generation that has seen an erosion of rights over the past 25-50 years and is rightfully warning about it is ignored by the people they're trying to protect, specifically because of their (the old folks') knowledge.
This New Budget Proposal May Limit Your Annual Retirement Income [View article]
David- Should I be concerned that you're calling me a non-thinking, hating liberal? Or are those general implications of disdain with where this country is headed?