Jurgis

Depends of what kind of poor. Uneducated few-or-no-qualifications/skills poor - America is pretty bad. Educated skilled immigrant poor - America is one of the best. I know a bunch of people in this category who started from zero and are doing good to great.

If you want to live like that Mexican guy from the story in portfolio thread... 8)

Somewhat OT, since I don't watch sports and don't watch live TV with commercials. Like Spekulatius said, watching anything with commercials is just painful. One anecdotal data point is my mother who's not technical at all. She now has cable package with full-auto-DVR functionality for all programs that allows watching past programs, fast forwarding, etc. She's FFing the ads like there's no tomorrow. I was surprised how easy, convenient and simple this is. This is in Lithuania. Don't know if this is available/widespread in US.

oddball, I don't think we are at the pitchforks point in re: banks. I also don't think we are at the pitchforks point re: income inequality, but IMO we are at a point where we should start do things so we don't get to the pitchfork point. At pitchfork point, it is too late to do something. But this is OT on this thread. I think there is recency bias re: WFC. Or like Kahneman says WYSIATI (what you see is all there is). So in one sense, this might be a buy point where people expect it only get worse for WFC - but it won't. OTOH, there is no guarantee that it won't. There is the reflexivity part of WYSIATI, where WYSIATI causes more investigations, more lawsuits, more fines, etc. So it could get worse. In some sense, both sides are right (in some possible future world). In terms of investing in WFC, people just have to decide on possibilities and probabilities of the different future scenarios.

Fidelity. For clients only? Not great interface, limited quotes (Fido inventory only???), some free research.

QFT. 8)

Looks like Pixel is Project Fi phone: https://fi.google.com/about/phones/ - so get the Fi service if you're getting Pixel. 8)

You're saying Munger suggests we should buy Liberties? 8)

Maybe not the best thread to post this, but it came to my mind while reading Kin's advice. 8) My index adventure. 8) I have 401k that can only buy limited set of mutual funds. I allocated it 80% stocks, 20% bonds (a bit over Graham 75%-25% suggestion). Except that I split stocks 40% US indexes, 40% International. 5+ years later (adding money each year): the performance of international stocks is close to performance of US bonds. So in toto I have performance of 40% stock, 60% bond portfolio. Clearly way below 100% US stock index or even 80% US index, 20% bond index. And that's the story of someone who is dedicated and steadfast enough to put money into index(es), keep it there, and not waver from the course. ::) Some people might say "why the heck you put 40% into international", which is a great question, but IMO points in the wrong direction. ;)

rb, that's a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman fallacy. 8)

Perma link under avatar

This is somewhat common for couple of reasons: - Loss aversion bias. - Related to above the belief that losers will outperform the winners going forward. That's not completely wrong/biased, but somewhat. - Liquidity of winners is way higher than liquidity of most losers. It does push the fund into liquidity risk though. Especially if investors read M* and rush for exits.

I think it's a good question. IMO, here's how you do it: 1. Asset allocate all your investable portfolio: how much you put in stocks, how much in bonds, how much in cash. 2. Decide how you split this between accounts. So you might decide that you put 70% into stocks, 30% into bonds. Then you might decide that you'll split both your normal account and your 401(k) 70/30. Or you could decide that all bonds go into 401(k) and stocks go into normal account. Or vice versa. At current rates bonds and cash are not that different, so you can play around how much of "bonds" is in cash. I would not put bond percentage into things like prefs, high yields, since they correlate much more with stocks and you don't want your bond portfolio crashing when your stock portfolio is crashing. My 401(k) is 80% stocks, 20% bonds, my normal account is a bit higher than that in stocks. At current prices I wouldn't go less than 60% stocks/40% bonds. All of this is just IMO, others may disagree, make your own decisions, have fun. 8)

The interesting things is that these issues been around since 1970s and mentioned multiple times in 1990s, 2000s, now 2010s. And very few companies (none? does GM count?) have gone under. Not saying to ignore pension issues, but so far and at least for big cos, the issues seem to have been contained or maybe kicked down the road. Apart from situations where the co was going under for other reasons already. FWIW.

SCTY: I don't short, so I can't say if it's a short. The merger may go through, so you'd have to wait until the vote clears at least. (Chanos might be waiting for merger to go through to short - more? - TSLA). It might be possible to run SCTY profitably as runoff - someone would have to do DD if this would work. You probably would not get back the purchase price though. I think Musk won't run it as runoff. There might be a way to run SCTY cash neutral without going into runoff, but this is harder to envision. Anyway, I probably don't have more to contribute on this. :)

I'm not a punchcard guy. That said, I'm interested in punchcard portfolios: what did you guys buy/when, what did you sell/when? How concentrated do you get? Selling is very interesting part for me in punchcard portfolios. Do you ever say "time to sell" and why? Can't be just simple overvaluation if you only have limited number of punches?

How carefully have you guys looked into SCTY? Is your negativity towards the company due to deep research, or based on what Chanos and the rest of the media is saying? I've looked at their reports. It looks bad from cursory review. I understand that leasing accounting complicates things. No, I have not done deep DD into it and I won't do it. It is possible that there are ways to cut the red ink, but I'm gonna be quite skeptical about bullish side of things with solar co results being what they are. Bulls are welcome to make their case though. :)

Great summary.

My Model 3 deposit would be Elon support payment the same way my very small TSLA stock position is. I completely understand people who would rather wait to buy Model 3 when it comes out to everyone and not make a deposit now. I took a look at Model S, but decided that I am too cheap to make that level of Elon donation. 8) I see pros and cons of getting Model S now vs getting Model 3. :)

Personally, I am planning to make Model 3 deposit soon. I won't withdraw it if merger comes through. I know that I may lose it. I will vote my very small position in TSLA against merger if/when we get the vote.

From another thread: Chanos' thinks SCTY is gonna be the end of TSLA: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000554841&play=1 I'm all for Elon, but IMO buying SCTY in current situation is rather irresponsible. As a separate company SCTY can sink just itself. As a part of TSLA it could sink both companies. I understand the big visions and everything, but IMO at this point it would be more important for TSLA to get through Model 3 launch without having to deal with SCTY financing issues...

Thanks, Picasso. Great post as usual. 8) I'm not so sure your capital base would so easily go with 20 punchcard strategy. I think with any kind of capital base you gonna lose money if your punch goes down/sideways for a long time. Though perhaps then it should not have been a punch. ;) I don't manage OPM, so you might be right. Especially if you have a great record from the past and your 20-punchcard years also show good/great results.

Purchase or sale is counted as 1 punch. We could go more liberal and count purchase+sale as 1 punch. I doubt that's gonna make much difference. I expect huge majority in "Not following punchcard strategy", but interested in people who follow it or somewhat follow it. Comments from both sides welcome. :)

scorpion, I think you missed his point completely. He doesn't say that "find 30-40 stocks that might be mediocre to great, trade in and out, keep an eye on it all the time, and sprinkle it with a few short positions" is easier or better strategy. He says that it's a strategy that may earn you assets-under-management, while the 20-punchcard strategy won't. Anybody has examples of OPM managers that have 5-6 positions with 1-2 trades over the last 5 years max? I'll say Munger @ DJCO, but that's pretty much it. And Munger @ DJCO doesn't have to care about investors leaving because he has 4 positions that have not changed in last 6 years. OTOH, by that rule even Buffett is a "Buffett phoney" ;) ---------------------------------------- There are other points in his post that apply even to people who don't manage OPM. About how difficult it is to buy 5-6 positions and sit on them for ages. Once again, it's not that it's better to trade more often or diversify more. It's just that it's easier. And most of us - OK, at least I - do that easy thing.

Isn't the risk that NAI dictates terms and not Moonves? Or NAI dictates crappy strategy post merger?