Adios & thanks for ALL!

[ejman]

Well, now its easy to look at history and say a concentrated portfolio in BofA might not be the best approach to long term ERdom. But I wonder, how many ER have most of their funds in Berkshire Hathaway and feel bulletproof?

 

[haha]

Well, now its easy to look at history and say a concentrated portfolio in BofA might not be the best approach to long term ERdom. But I wonder, how many ER have most of their funds in Berkshire Hathaway and feel bulletproof?

I don't remember anyone here saying that they are in that position.

Ha

 

[Sam]

Well, now its easy to look at history and say a concentrated portfolio in BofA might not be the best approach to long term ERdom. But I wonder, how many ER have most of their funds in Berkshire Hathaway and feel bulletproof?

I don't own Berkshire Hathaway, but I did, I would feel perfectly ok today. BRK is not a single company stock.

Bulletproof? Don't invest, spend every penny you have now, so you can't ever lose.

Sam

 

[ejman]

I don't own Berkshire Hathaway, but I did, I would feel perfectly ok today. BRK is not a single company stock.



Sam

Yes, that's the point, a lot of people feel that Berkshire is just like a mutual fund because of the multiple holdings. BUT the difference here is that Berkshire could bet the store (sort of like that obscure division of AIG that sank the boat by its bets) and most owners would't know it until after the fact. After all, Warren seems to have indulged in some derivatives....

 

[ejman]

I don't remember anyone here saying that they are in that position.

Ha

I don't remember anyone saying so either. Does that mean there aren't any?

 

[haha]

I don't remember anyone saying so either. Does that mean there aren't any?

Nope; and I am not implying that it did establish the aboslute nonexistence of such people. That would be beyond our powers wouldn't it?

Ha

 

[ERD50]

Check out this thread from July 2007 and please give us a summary of your findings...

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f44/bank-of-america-29133.html#post543431

and this one from Oct 2007: http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f44/bank-stocks-29784-2.html#post568417

Maybe I missed something. Someone, I think 2B, said no more than 10% in any one stock. If he followed this VaCollector would be here today. But others were supportive or noncommittal. I notice that I passed on making any post at all. My only investment in BAC in my entire life was for a few weeks fall of 2007. Am I ever glad!

Ha

I was a little surprised that there wasn't more reaction to so much in one stock. However, note that those posts were in the " Stock Picking (Individual Security Analysis)" forum. Many of the diversification proponents don't really pay much attention to individual issues, or if they do, take diversification for granted.

So maybe it's not that surprising. If it was a question in the "FIRE and Money", and he asked about diversification, I think many people would have been all over it.

-ERD50

 

[soupcxan]

There was an annoying guy here a few years back who used to talk about the great yields on his GM bonds, and how he could ignore the price fluctuations as long as he kept getting the coupons.

 

[NW-Bound]

Is anybody else feeling the urge to spend your cash reserves??

Crazy....maybe so.....or (just maybe) this could be one of those "once in a lifetime" opportunites that we've all heard about

.....more than several GREAT stocks at bargain basement pricing....especially those financials that everyone is running away from as fast as they possibly can!!

...

I'm so tempted to go ALL IN that it's scary!!

HELP!....go ahead....talk me out of it ....or into it....I'm all ears.....and I have an AM buy order ready for a few thousand more shares.....'cause this stuff CAN'T keep going down....UGH....but that's what I've been hearing since last October.....

VACollector did ask for opinions, but sadly he was mainly asking for validation and obviously ignoring advices to the contrary. Above was his OP on a thread in "Stock Picking" and not "Fire and Money". The former may not be as widely read, as ERD50 pointed out.

 

[NW-Bound]

I saw the earlier posts talking about concentration in BRK. Could ejman be remembering a post I made?

About 5-6 months ago, I made a "threat" to fire all my mutual fund managers - Dodge&Cox, Weitz, and Third Ave - and to give all those holdings to Buffet. I was upset that these value funds had a high content of financial stocks, hence went down harder than the broad market, and of course Berkshire.

Since then, I did sell some but not all of those mutual fund holdings for tax write-offs, and did buy BRK/B. At this point, I only have 4% in BRK/B, while I initially thought of going to 30%. Instead, I have used some of the money to buy some ETFs and other stocks. So far, so good.

The only time I had more than 10% in any stock was when I had my 401k with my megacorp. Even then, it was only 30% of portfolio. I know some friends who "put it all in" when this megacorp was near bankruptcy in the early 90s. They later RE'ed with a cool $1M+ 401k. Near $2M to be exact.

Yes, they "went all in" while there were lay-offs, and talks of the megacorp going belly up. I am telling you, some people got huge balls.

 

[REWahoo]

I am telling you, some people got huge balls.

...and others are simply nuts.

 

[Running_Man]

VACollector did ask for opinions, but sadly he was mainly asking for validation and obviously ignoring advices to the contrary. Above was his OP on a thread in "Stock Picking" and not "Fire and Money". The former may not be as widely read, as ERD50 pointed out.

I think VACollector had reflected on the idea for quite a while and made a concious decision to take on the single stock risk because of his analysis and presumed stability of the dividend. He was really only additionally interested in hearing Brewer's advice who reinforced his decision by stating he'd be fine with BAC. As BAC fell in price VACollector was admant in holding his stock much the same way my sister was with her Comdisco stock.
He always fully took his lumps graciously and with class even as he issued his concerns over his falling values. That is one huge reason I believe he should be welcomed back with open arms.
Hopefully BAC will not suffer a Comdisco outcome and will eventually recover over time and bring his wealth back to him.

 

[NW-Bound]

That is one huge reason I believe he should be welcomed back with open arms.

VA never blamed anybody, and took full responsibility for his actions. I always felt for him and would like to know he is OK financially and otherwise.

 

[ejman]

I saw the earlier posts talking about concentration in BRK. Could ejman be remembering a post I made?

About 5-6 months ago, I made a "threat" to fire all my mutual fund managers - Dodge&Cox, Weitz, and Third Ave - and to give all those holdings to Buffet. I was upset that these value funds had a high content of financial stocks, hence went down harder than the broad market, and of course Berkshire.

Since then, I did sell some but not all of those mutual fund holdings for tax write-offs, and did buy BRK/B. At this point, I only have 4% in BRK/B, while I initially thought of going to 30%. Instead, I have used some of the money to buy some ETFs and other stocks. So far, so good.

The only time I had more than 10% in any stock was when I had my 401k with my megacorp. Even then, it was only 30% of portfolio. I know some friends who "put it all in" when this megacorp was near bankruptcy in the early 90s. They later RE'ed with a cool $1M+ 401k. Near $2M to be exact.

Yes, they "went all in" while there were lay-offs, and talks of the megacorp going belly up. I am telling you, some people got huge balls.

It's certainly possible that triggered the BRK comment.

Regarding the "all in" on Megacorp, I had a far more modest investment in the stock of a company I worked for in the 80's through my 401K (A fortune 500 company). When I left that company, I decided to keep my shares since they looked "solid" Inside of 2 years they were bankrupt and of course I rode the stock all the way down to zilch. That's when I learned my lesson on the virtues of stock concentration.

Some people do get lucky with concentrated investments but I ain't one of them

 

[NW-Bound]

There were probably some Enron employers who bought more of the stock on the way down. It is not unusual for "insiders" to have a strong but false conviction of their company. It does not just apply to rank-and-file employees, but to higher management too. A few "insiders" lost hundred of millions in Bear Stearns, which would not be unusual except that they were committing fresh money just a month or two before bankruptcy.

 

[kumquat]

Because then he would go from being a passive-aggressive kumquat to an active aggressive one.

Hey, I resemble that remark.

 

[samclem]

VACollector did ask for opinions, but sadly he was mainly asking for validation and obviously ignoring advices to the contrary. Above was his OP on a thread in "Stock Picking" and not "Fire and Money". The former may not be as widely read, as ERD50 pointed out.

So, a poster asks for advice, but because it is in the Stock Pickers forum (well known as an off-to-the-side, seamy hotbed of contentious bickering that is not frequented by respectable members of this community), the poster does not benefit from the full input of the group and possibly suffered a worse outcome as a result.

I think it is clear that more people (VA Collector at least, and who knows how many others) have been harmed by the Stock Pickers Forum than were ever harmed by the Soapbox. It is a blight, a scourge, and repulsive to all right-thinking people.

In fact, by providing a place where testosterone-poisoned investors could pass the hours and leave their investments alone, it could be argued that the Soapbox did a tremendous service to the financial health of the members of our community.

 

[Westernskies]

...(well known as an off-to-the-side, seamy hotbed of contentious bickering that is not frequented by respectable members of this community.

As a respectable member of this community, now I am really confused...

 

[Nords]

So, a poster asks for advice, but because it is in the Stock Pickers forum (well known as an off-to-the-side, seamy hotbed of contentious bickering that is not frequented by respectable members of this community), the poster does not benefit from the full input of the group and possibly suffered a worse outcome as a result.

Sam, I see the sarcasm, but I sent you a PM...

 

[samclem]

Well, VACollector probably feels great about the latest revelation concerning the new "relationship" between our government and private businesses.

According to a news story today, BofA CEO Ken Lewis has provided sworn testimony that as the deal to acquire Merrill Lynch was being explored, the government (specifically Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke) instructed him not to disclose to shareholders the huge amount of red ink that was known to be on Merrill's books.

Mr. Lewis, testifying under oath before New York's attorney general in February, told prosecutors that he believed Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke were instructing him to keep silent about deepening financial difficulties at Merrill, the struggling brokerage giant. As part of his testimony, a transcript of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lewis said the government wanted him to keep quiet while the two sides negotiated government funding to help BofA absorb Merrill and its huge losses.
Under normal circumstances, banks must alert their shareholders of any materially significant financial hits.

The Wall Street Journal previously reported, in a page-one story on Feb. 5, that Mr. Lewis agreed to proceed with the Merrill merger only after Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke said that he and his board would lose their jobs if Bank of America backed out of the deal. Mr. Lewis's testimony with the New York attorney general's office corroborates that account.

How could the government have threatened their jobs? Seems incredible, doesn't it? Ask former GM CEO Waggoner about how this works.

"Regulators are supposed to tell you to obey the law, not to disobey the law," said Jonathan R. Macey, deputy dean of Yale Law School. "If you're the CEO, your first obligation is not to your regulator, it's to your institution and shareholders."

So, I wonder how all those BofA shareholders feel? As VACollector heads back to the cubicle for a couple more years, hopefully it warms his heart to know that he didn't lose money on the stock simply because of the normal market processes. He lost money, at least in part, due to a government-directed information management policy which deliberately withheld information from him and others about an upcoming business deal. BofA couldn't back out of the deal, and they couldn't disclose to shareholders how rotten it was.

Religion and government are both better off when they each stay in their lanes. It's the same with business and government.

Oh, and thanks for your contribution, VACollector. I hope you and the other shareholders are right now obtaining a very good lawyer.

 

[NW-Bound]

Religion and government are both better off when they each stay in their lanes. It's the same with business and government.

Oh, and thanks for your contribution, VACollector. I hope you and the other shareholders are right now obtaining a very good lawyer.

I thought the last time a government got this deeply involved with businesses, we called them Communists.

How does one sue Uncle Sam?