""That argument applies to some, but surely not so many. Aren't...

  1. 16,379 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 7935
    ""That argument applies to some, but surely not so many. Aren't you concerned that sounds a little too close to some comments from folk over on the MSB threads?"

    Not sure what made you raise the topic of MSB, but if you think any stock I own has traits even remotely similar to MSB, then it is patently clear you are not properly researched.

    For starters, I would never even begin to contemplate owning a business that is not commercially self-sustainable, and is dependent on the kindness of strangers to stay alive.



    "Because when you start talking about not worrying about what share prices do over "even a year" that sounds a little too close to "I haven't lost any money until I've sold". Careful you don't start talking about paradigm shifts"

    Well, if the companies in question are achieving the shareholder value creating milestones that I envisaged in my initial thesis for buying those companies, then I certainly have not "lost money"; on the contrary, in my book of intrinsic valuation accounting, I have definitively made money.

    The difference between me and people like you is that while you take your cues about how well your investment is performing from what share prices happen to be doing at any given point in time, my measure of wealth creation is how much my assessment of the intrinsic value of the companies I own is increasing over time.

    Which is not at all a shift in paradigm for me; it's what I've done my entire investing career.

    Testimony to this is that - aside from my 2021 foray into oil and coal (which is out-of-character for me) - the weighted average holding period for the stocks I own is many years, probably as long as a decade.

    In that context, what happens in any 12 month period in terms of share price action, is clearly largely irrelevant.



    "Because in some of those companies they can keep growing on a trajectory for a while (and everything looks rosy) but the underlying competitive landscape is moving. Not one of yours but a good example, TYRO is still doing what they do but their share price isn't what it was."

    True, but in the overwhelming majority of cases before I buy a share in a company, a critical part of my due diligence process involves assessing the ability for that company to remain perpetually current due to attributes such as unique and differentiated products or services, high industry barriers to entry, first-mover advantage, impossible-to-replicate IP, management adroitness, etc.

    And if the world for a particular company does change - which it sometimes does - then I, too, change my opinion.

    As for TYR, I do follow the stock and my assessment is that the reason for TYR's under-performance has little to do with perceptions around the durability of the business; instead, its peak valuation - $2bn - was far too high to begin with. So unless you include valuation into the discussion, it is a bit of a nothing example.


    "I'm not meaning to be provocative as I do respect your talents, discipline and generosity to some others on here. But I do not share the same high opinions on some of your holdings."

    Oh, I never doubted that for a minute.

    And you're far from alone in that view.
    The vast majority of people don't share my opinions on my holdings.

    Which is why I came to own them in the first instance.

    Part of my life's role is to protect and enhance the value of my family's capital, for purposes of doing good.

    And the way the value of my family's capital is enhanced is because other people disagree with me, not despite it.

    Because if everyone agreed with everyone else, publicly traded securities would not become mis-priced

    .
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.