Filososofía Chowder – Pág. 8

Foros Estrategia Filososofía Chowder - Pág. 8

Este debate contiene 162 respuestas, tiene 19 mensajes y lo actualizó  Mr Perry hace 1 día, 12 horas.

Viendo 20 publicaciones - del 141 al 160 (de un total de 163)
  • Autor
    Publicaciones
  • #26736

    Creo que este no está puesto y es para leer y releer varias veces cada año:

    Today I want to talk to you about ego. The first thing you need to understand is that you aren’t the guru you think you are when things are going good, and you aren’t the failure you think you are when companies turn against you. You had nothing to do with price movement, so get over yourselves.

    I see far too much concern over the colors red and green. You can have a great company, a company that met all of your requirements, provided you did proper due diligence instead of simply following the herd or acting on someone else’s recommendation, and still be in the red. It happens and it doesn’t matter if you pay up for quality or bought at a discount, they all don’t turn green right away.

    You see people who invested in TGT when they thought TGT was a great growth company and then TGT developed some issues, the Canadian market failure, the credit card breach, the threat of AMZN and their positions turned south. They have a legitimate beef, but for those of us who made purchases “AFTER” all of that, and bought because we thought it might be a good turnaround story, then we need to ignore their protestations and focus on the turnaround. They will take every opportunity to show how TGT is not keeping up with the market, price falls every time it tries to rally, but that’s what is supposed to happen with turnaround stories. All of those who were wrong with their reason for buying are sitting there praying to the stock gods for price to come up to their entry point so they can sell and get out with a small profit and then show how wonderful they are not to have shown a loss. … Those of you who bought for the turnaround have to ignore all of that. … Those praying to god people are what is called overhead supply waiting to come to market and if there isn’t enough demand to overcome that supply, then price is going to retreat, form another base, and start to rise once again. At some point that overhead supply will get taken out and then the real turnaround occurs with share price. Until then, focus on the company.

    The recent earnings reports showed improvement in quite a few areas but those who are impatient wanted it bigger and better. Improvement may be slow but improvement is what you want with turnarounds. You have to be patient until all of the praying people up above sell their shares and breathe a sigh of relief. … Ha!

    You have to understand the reasons you buy a company and forget about the colors red and green. Investment psychologists tell us that the person who buys a company isn’t the same person that manages the company. We allow price movement to distract us, to cause us to change our views, to allow us to make exceptions, forces us to wander off the reservation. … Think about it!

    You have to focus on the company operations, are they showing improvement or not? What do they have planned for 2018? Are the moves they are making conducive to them having long-term success?

    Your portfolio, and focus on the colors red and green either manage you or you manage your portfolio.

    I’m not suggesting others buy or sell TGT, I could care less either way, I’m looking to share ideas on how you manage your positions once you own them. I learned this very valuable lesson as a trader when everyone was given the same company, same number of shares, now manage your position. You would be shocked at the wide range of results based on how the position was managed, and that’s what I’m trying to bring to the table here, portfolio management, not whether you should own KO or PEP, T or VZ, PG or CL. You can get that anywhere on SA, but try to get portfolio management techniques elsewhere and let me know what you find.

    I spoke about ego. I see too many people protecting their ego when it comes to results as opposed to protecting their portfolios. In managing my ego, and trust me, I have one, I have to put my faith in the process or my ego takes over. It’s the process that protects our portfolios and it’s the process that allows me to put the ego on the back burner and ignore the red. It doesn’t matter what color I see, the process tells me to manage it and that’s what I have been trying to share in these blogs.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #26737

    A mí me parece un error no querer hablar de core porque la gente lo malinterpreta. También lo hacen con su estrategia y sigue explicándola sin cambiar.

    En cualquier caso y como no lo puede evitar, explica una vez más qué es core para él (y efectivamente, MO no es core).

    Okay, okay! I’ll try this one last time.

    To me, a Core holding is one that does not have any restrictions on how large the position gets. I will continue to keep adding more shares. If it’s 10% of the portfolio value, I don’t mind taking it up to 20%. Who do you own that you are willing to do that with?
    Some of you know Crosetti and his position in KO was what I would call a Core position. He held it for years and years, didn’t trim, kept adding to it and it became his largest position by far. That’s what I would consider a Core type holding and if you are not willing to do that, you don’t have any Core holdings.

    Some of you also know DVK and his public portfolio. He has a rule of not letting a position grow to more than 10% of the portfolio value. He says he has no Core holdings and he’s right. He’ll trim back any company that gets too large for its britches. Thus he doesn’t own anything I would call a Core holding.

    I want a few companies like Crosetti’s KO and Buffett’s top holdings where they represent most of the portfolio value. Who do you own are willing to do that with? I wasn’t with LMT or MO, but they are still some of the largest positions in my son’s portfolio, but I have no intention of throwing more money at them. They can continue to grow on their own.

    I’m willing to build D and KO to positions of size to where they are considerably larger than anything else owned, and thus I considered them Core.

    So again, if you aren’t willing to do that, you don’t need to be concerned about holding core positions and life just got easier for you. … Ha!

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #26738
    Here is an example of one the “circle the wagons” accounts. CVX .. D .. DUK .. GIS .. GPC .. JNJ .. KHC .. KMB .. KO .. MCD .. MO .. O .. PG .. PM .. SO .. T .. UTG .. VZ I try to equally weight them as best as I can and whenever a purchase is made I use the “next man up” concept where the least weighted position by market value gets added to. Based on current weightings, this portfolio has a yield of 3.85%. This portfolio is so easy to manage the average 7th grade student could do it. I don’t get into a lot of the market crap some of you allow to enter your thought process. We don’t even monitor earnings reports for this account. We don’t try to determine who will perform better than someone else. We simply add to each position when it’s their turn and we do it regardless of what is going on in the market

    Sinceramente yo no le compro este concepto de comprar el siguiente valor de la lista independientemente de su cotización. En ese sentido estoy más en la línea de David Crosetti y el concepto de “dividend yield metric” que explica en alguno de sus artículos en SA. Dejo un pequeño fragmento muy interesante del último que publico hace un par de días

    https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/874941-david-crosetti/5075441-finding-value-rising-stock-market-part-2

     

    Miguel Lorca:

    Dave, I love the yield metric concept and it’s one that figures heavily in my stock decision process. Whenever investors say they don’t chase yield, I often think “that’s exactly what I do!” Of course, they are referring to chasing unsustainable high yields whereas I’m referring to chasing after blue-chip stocks that are temporary offering up an unusual yield, one that is unlikely to last for long as the stock rebounds.On one blog that I follow, the discussion seems to center around buying stocks at 52 week highs that have “beat and raised”. This is a tactic that works well for trading and I know it works because I’ve used it many times in the past for no-yield or low yield stocks that I invest in specifically for the capital gains. It helps to have a confirmed catalyst before buying a stocks at a 52 wk high. Overall, though, I find investing in stocks on a good pull back using the yield metric the best way to build an income stream. By definition you will get a yield that will have the most favorable impact on your income stream.

    David Crosetti:

    Miguel, Agreed. This is not “chasing yields” but is looking for one statistical anomaly I believe (opinion) that the reason you don’t have a company like Coca-Cola, yielding 8%, even though they have continued to increase the dividend year after year, is because of that anomaly. Stock prices go up and down. Dividends generally speaking remain dollar constant. It is the dividend yield that changes, in reaction to the price that the market has put on the stock. So, when a company like KO is yielding a 3.5-3.75% dividend YIELD, it is worth looking at as a buy.

    The key to this metric lies in the consistency of the dividend increase, year over year. A company like KO, PG, JNJ, CL, KMB have dividend increase pictures that look like stair steps. Other companies do not have that same stair step phenomena, but instead have a kind of herky jerky picture. I’ve found the stair step companies to benefit me the most with this metric. That being said, the 52 week high and low are not as big an issue for me, as the stock having a current yield that is greater than the 5 year average dividend yield is going to generally be down in price by some multiple to its “mean” number. It’s a fun metric to use, but key is to look at the other fundamentals in coming to a conclusion.

    There is little doubt in my mind that the metric is more of a capital gain indicator and the proof is in the numbers that these stocks have generated in the 12 month time frame. With IBM and a few of the others, I should have considered selling when the charts indicated that the stock was in the overvalued window.Having that discipline would have earned a 29.2% gain on IBM, a 21.9% gain on ADM, a 38.2% gain on QCOM, and a 30.3% gain on HOG.But it’s difficult for a DGI to sell without a real strong reason

     

    Un optimista es un pesimista mal informado

    3 users thanked author for this post.
    #26752

    Con Chowder pasa una cosa curiosa. He leído todo lo que ha escrito el último año, he hecho resúmenes que acumulan un tamaño similar a este post, y aun así sigo sin entender al 100% algunos de sus planteamientos. Creo que entiendo los conceptos y, de repente, en el enésimo comentario sobre el mismo tema termino de comprenderlo. Y nunca era exáctamente como lo había entendido al principio.

    Siento admiración por este tío y siento necesidad de seguir leyéndolo. Tiene las ideas muy claras y se esfuerza mucho en intentar transmitirlas. Pero hay que reconocer que es un mal comunicador o profesor. Y no es cosa de la diferencia de idioma. En los comentarios de seeking alpha salen seguidores suyos de años que son americanos y que también le comentan que tardaron años leyéndole para pillar bien los matices de algunas de las ideas. Aun así hay que reconocerle que se esfuerza erre que erre repitiendo lo mismo de formas distintas para que la gente lo entienda.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #26822

    Nuevo post de Chowder:

    https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/728729-chowder/5079588-index-investing-pfft?app=1&uprof=45&isDirectRoadblock=true

    En contra de la indexación y pone de ejemplo la cartera de su hijo. Tiene una hija y nunca habla de ella 🤔.

    Avanza el objetivo de inversión de 2018:

    “My son is 32 and his portfolio is just approaching $200k. When I post his portfolio breakdown next month, showing his weightings, I will be making some adjustments. A full position is currently $4k and a 1/2 sized position $2k. He has quite a few overweight positions so I will be raising a full position to $6k and a 1/2 sized position to $3k in 2018.”

    ABE, BME, ENG, GAS, MAP, REE, REP, SAN, ADM, CAH, CVS, ETP, FLO, GIS, HRL, JNJ, NGD, OHI, MO, QCOM, T, TGT, VFC, XOM, DGE, GSK, IMB, NG, RDS-B, RIO, VOD, AD, BMW, ENGI, MUV2, NESN, VIE, AzValor internacional FI, Cobas internacional FI, Magallanes Microcaps Europe, True Value.

    #26826
    CVX .. D .. DUK .. GIS .. GPC .. JNJ .. KHC .. KMB .. KO .. MCD .. MO .. O .. PG .. PM .. SO .. T .. UTG .. VZ

    Me parece curioso que MO no la considere CORE y PM, sí.

    También me parece curioso que dos empresas como CL, HRL y MMM no esten dentro de su CORE.

     

    REE 9,4% ENG 7,3% SEP 6,2% ITX 5,5% TGT 4,8% TEVA 4,3% VIS 4,1% CAH 3,7% GE 3,2% BA 3,2% D 3,0% PG 2,7% IBM 2,6% TEF 2,6% ABBV 2,6% JNJ 2,5% MUV2 2,4% FLO 2,1% TGP 2,1% VFC 2,0% OHI 1,9% MMM 1,7% HRL 1,6% KO 1,5% GIS 1,4% QCOM 1,4% GWW 1,4% T 1,3% EPD 1,3% CVS 1,3% XOM 1,2% MMP 1,2% LOW 1,0% ARYN 1,0% APU 0,8% CMP 0,7% GSK 0,7% IMBl 0,6% AMGN 0,4% KMB 0,3% O 0,3%

    #26835
    Me parece curioso que MO no la considere CORE y PM, sí.

    También me parece curioso que dos empresas como CL, HRL y MMM no esten dentro de su CORE.

    Porque MO solo es USA y la otra el resto del mundo.

    CL y MMM sí son core en muchas carteras que lleva. De hecho, MMM es la única industrial que considera core. En la cartera de su hijo las core que tengo apuntadas:

    Core holdings for my son, age 32.
    CL .. GIS .. KHC .. KMB .. KO .. MKC .. PEP .. PM .. PG .. SO .. D .. VZ .. T .. JNJ .. BDX .. VFC .. ADP .. MMM .. XOM .. O

    Si se tuviera que quedar con un portfolio de 7:
    D, JNJ, O, KHC/GID, PG/CL, VZ/T, MMM/XOM.

    Más acerca de las core:

    The way I go about deciding who is Core is that I look at their product line or service. I need to know what they do for a living. If I like what they do for a living and I think they represent the best recession proof protection, I determine it a Core holding the moment I make my first purchase.

    In industrial’s I only consider MMM a Core holding because it does have consumer spending protection with part of their product line. LMT is 5 times as large as MMM but I don’t consider LMT a Core holding because it depends on government spending and isn’t recession proof. Although MMM is currently a smaller position than LMT, I wll be adding to it soon.

    In Energy I only consider XOM as Core. I think they are the leader in the energy sector.

    In discretionary, I do prefer the clothing line of VFC to other companies and have declared them Core. I could force myself to make GPC a Core due to their Napa store business. I know others might declare NKE as Core and I wouldn’t argue with it, but I only want a couple of discretionary considered Core.

    In healthcare it’s JNJ and ABT. JNJ is an obvious selection but with the St Jude merger I really like the medical supply business of ABT. Although I may invest in biotech or pill companies, I don’t want them as buy and hold forever. Every portfolio I help manage has a full position in JNJ or is overweight. When I start a new portfolio for folks and we pick 5 Core holdings to start and then a few Supportive positions, JNJ is always, always one of the original 5.

    Other than that, about 80% of our Core holdings are in the consumer staples and utilities, businesses that are considered recession resistant.
    I expect that income to flow in all market conditions and that includes during recessions, and the staples and utilities are going to get access to that consumer dollar no matter how squeezed the consumer is.

    Now, what makes a Core position? … The answer to that will vary from person to person. And this is important, just because I don’t consider MCD or SBUX or WBA a Core position, it doesn’t mean I can’t have a large position.

    For me, a Core position would be as close to a “picks and shovels” company as you can get. I hope folks know the gold mining story where it was the people who sold the picks and shovels to the prospectors that made the money.

    A Core company for me is the “supplier” of goods and services. If I own WBA, I only have access to the consumer dollars spent at WBA. But if I own JNJ, I have access to all consumer dollars, in all establishments that sell JNJ products. I own the supplier. The supplier is my Core!

    When I look at the product line of VFC, and the number of ways they can market their product line, it provides what I think is the best access to the consumer discretionary dollar. VFC is the supplier.

    MCD is not a supplier. SBUX is not a supplier. SYY is and SYY could qualify for Core with me, but I wanted to limit the number of Core positions.
    Everything I focus on with the Core centers around maximum exposure to the consumer dollar, not business dollar (for the most part), not government dollar, the consumer dollar.

    If someone wishes to have HRL as Core, or MCD as Core over VFC, I’m not going to suggest they’re wrong for doing so. It depends on their expectations. … What .. do .. you .. want?

    But, here’s the other aspect of what I consider Core, the most important part. Once the portfolio is established with the companies I wish to own, and every portfolio I manage is at that point now, I do not use Core positions as a source of generating cash. Trimming a Core is the most egregious of errors, so select wisely.

    I don’t care how over-sized a Core gets, it won’t get trimmed. I don’t care how over-sized a Core gets, I will continue to add more.
    If I have a need to generate cash for any reason, I’ll trim LMT, MCD, MSFT, SBUX, etc. but I won’t trim MO* or KO.
    * Ahora MO ya no la considera core.

    A Core for me, is a company I wouldn’t think twice about adding to if it drops 40% in value and wouldn’t think twice about adding to it if it’s 20% overvalued. It makes no difference because Core shares are not for sale which is why the number is small in comparison to the portfolio, so choose wisely.

    There are a lot of good companies that can qualify as Core, and managed the way I am managing ours, but you don’t want to have too many of them. Shoot, 20 might even be too many for all I know, but when I decided to use this concept, I took the idea from Focus Funds. Most Focus Funds limit their holdings to around 20 Core companies. Buffett has a fewer number, but I’m no Buffett, so 20 seemed reasonable to me.

    6 users thanked author for this post.
    #26837
    Nuevo post de Chowder: https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/728729-chowder/5079588-index-investing-pfft?app=1&uprof=45&isDirectRoadblock=true En contra de la indexación y pone de ejemplo la cartera de su hijo. Tiene una hija y nunca habla de ella 🤔. Avanza el objetivo de inversión de 2018: “My son is 32 and his portfolio is just approaching $200k. When I post his portfolio breakdown next month, showing his weightings, I will be making some adjustments. A full position is currently $4k and a 1/2 sized position $2k. He has quite a few overweight positions so I will be raising a full position to $6k and a 1/2 sized position to $3k in 2018.”

    Es curioso ver las acciones de la cartera de su hijo que han tenido peor rendimiento que el S&P 500 en los últimos 20 años. Auténticas vacas sagradas de la inversión DGI (T, VZ, PG, IBM, ADP, KO). En mi opinión otra prueba irrefutable de la importancia de invertir cuando cotizan a su precio justo o con descuento. Sigue sin convencerme sus teorías del “next man up” o del “equal weight portfolio”…

    Un optimista es un pesimista mal informado

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #26841
    Nuevo post de Chowder: https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/728729-chowder/5079588-index-investing-pfft?app=1&uprof=45&isDirectRoadblock=true En contra de la indexación y pone de ejemplo la cartera de su hijo. Tiene una hija y nunca habla de ella 🤔. Avanza el objetivo de inversión de 2018: “My son is 32 and his portfolio is just approaching $200k. When I post his portfolio breakdown next month, showing his weightings, I will be making some adjustments. A full position is currently $4k and a 1/2 sized position $2k. He has quite a few overweight positions so I will be raising a full position to $6k and a 1/2 sized position to $3k in 2018.”

    Es curioso ver las acciones de la cartera de su hijo que han tenido peor rendimiento que el S&P 500 en los últimos 20 años. Auténticas vacas sagradas de la inversión DGI (T, VZ, PG, IBM, ADP, KO). En mi opinión otra prueba irrefutable de la importancia de invertir cuando cotizan a su precio justo o con descuento. Sigue sin convencerme sus teorías del “next man up” o del “equal weight portfolio”

    “Sigue sin convencerme sus teorías del “next man up” o del “equal weight portfolio”

    Estoy de acuerdo con lo que aquí planytea Ruindog.

    a) La teoría de comprar _estando casi en máximos- con un beat and a raise, las empresas que están outperforming…. yo no lo practico, no lo hago.

    Ejemplos: Yo no compro -otra cosa es añadir 2 o 3 acciones- ProcterGamble o Basf o Wmt cuando performan mejor que las estimaciones y se van hacia arriba. ¿Por qué? Por que los fondos ya lo saben, han comprado antes que yo, todo mundo lo sabe… y el precio ha subido… y el DIVIDENDO ha bajado =  MI MARGEN DE SEGURIDAD y rendimiento HA BAJADO.

    En contraste, Yo sí compro las Empresas Cuore cuando no han despegado o las ponen en duda o hay minicrisis bajistas: Basf a 58 Wmt a 58, Flo cuando la critican, Apple cuando la critican, MCD cuando la critican, Intel cuando dudan de ella, Pfizer cuando dudan, Abbot cuando dudan de su adquisición, Qcomm cuando tiene problemas con Apple, Cisco antes de que explote su precio, etc … Eso sí lo hago.

    Creo que los inversores particulares nos enfrentamos a varios retos cronologicos personales:

    1. qué brokers elijo, proceso tiempo
    2. cçuantas compañias compro y cuando
    3. 3. invierto todo, guardo, espacio…
    4. 4- que compro, a qué precios, en qué volumen de dinero, cartera etc…

    Para los que a) no hacen analisis de empresas, b) ni tesis de inversión… comprar una empresa outperforming es tan o más arriesgado, IMHO, que una grande en apuros, con más dividendo en el momento de los apuros.

    Ejemplo: cuantas veces se ha hablado si iba a recortar divid. shell y bp desde 2015? Lo ha recortado? No. Mejor comprar cuando tenis un 7-8% dividendo que dentro de unos meses si baja a 4,8% y todo mundo dirá que es segura, que han quitado scrip… y el precio estárá más alto, obvio.

    Una empresa outperforming lo es, IMHO, hasta que deja de serlo. Yo compro hoy Home Depot y triunfo, me digo en tres trimestres, qué bien hice comprando… Al cuarto trimestre incumple expectativas… y baja hasta un 40% INJUSTIFICADAMENTE pues hay dudas y los Fondos venden de mayo a Octubre para hacer Tax losss harvesting… (Cono, yo compro ahorita, no antes)

    Ejemplo CVS a 95$ 100 S estaba outperforming…. el que compró ahí…. ahora ha estado a 60,s $….. Yo no compro antes, y SI compro ahora, despues de leer a MORNINGSTAR y SURE DIVIDEND que explican porqué  a per 11 y a dividenod alto historico, tienen recorrido. He comprado dos posiciones demasiado grandes para mí. ¿Porque? por mi experiencia que acumulo de que cuando compré Ing Basf Wmt PG Intel Legal General Ulvr Diageo PM Abbot Bac Amex cuando estaban más en duda de su performance, me ha dado buen resultado.

    Y lo mismo he hecho con CAH.

     

    (Yo no compro GSK ni IMB cuando outperformen y suba y suba su valoración y su per y baje su rpd y suba la libra… prefiero ir cazando ahora… antes de que vicente y toda la gente reconozcan el valor sorpresivo del segmento consumer staples de Gsk por ejemplo…)

    Creo que no debemos seguir a pies juntillas la experiencia de nadie, aprender lo que nos gusta, e ir formando nuestro propio estilo y criterio. yo cojo lo que me gusta de chowder, y cojo lo que me gusta de mí mismo. Humildemente.

    Hasta nnluego, nnlucas.

     

    "Atrévete a Vivir la Vida que has Imaginado" Henry James

    6 users thanked author for this post.
    #26845
    Es curioso ver las acciones de la cartera de su hijo que han tenido peor rendimiento que el S&P 500 en los últimos 20 años. Auténticas vacas sagradas de la inversión DGI (T, VZ, PG, IBM, ADP, KO). En mi opinión otra prueba irrefutable de la importancia de invertir cuando cotizan a su precio justo o con descuento. Sigue sin convencerme sus teorías del “next man up” o del “equal weight portfolio”…

    Todo depende del objetivo. Si quieres tener un flujo seguro y creciente de ingresos, creo que esa estrategia es muy acertada y sin ningún tipo de complicación. Tiempo dedicado mínimo. De las 20 core pocas te fallarán y esas son la mitad o más de la cartera normalmente. ¿Qué mas te da el rendimiento del precio si no vas a vender las acciones?

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #26852
    Es curioso ver las acciones de la cartera de su hijo que han tenido peor rendimiento que el S&P 500 en los últimos 20 años. Auténticas vacas sagradas de la inversión DGI (T, VZ, PG, IBM, ADP, KO). En mi opinión otra prueba irrefutable de la importancia de invertir cuando cotizan a su precio justo o con descuento. Sigue sin convencerme sus teorías del “next man up” o del “equal weight portfolio”…

    Todo depende del objetivo. Si quieres tener un flujo seguro y creciente de ingresos, creo que esa estrategia es muy acertada y sin ningún tipo de complicación. Tiempo dedicado mínimo. De las 20 core pocas te fallarán y esas son la mitad o más de la cartera normalmente. ¿Qué mas te da el rendimiento del precio si no vas a vender las acciones?

    Por algún motivo no compramos T cuando está a 40$ y llenamos las alforjas cuando cotiza a 30$.  En la segunda opción consigues más acciones con un yield superior. Si eso no marca una gran diferencia a largo plazo en nuestros ingresos por dividendos entonces apaga y vamonos. Lo que se paga por una empresa importa y mucho independientemente de que tu estrategia sean los dividendos o el retorno total. De lo contrario todos estaríamos ahora mismo comprando MMM, PEP, CL y tantas otras con total despreocupación.

    Yo prefiero comparar el yield actual con el histórico de los últimos 5-10 años (“dividend yield metric”) en empresas de calidad para encontrar buenas oportunidades de inversión. Así lo he hecho con HRL, GIS, SJM, CVS, WBA, ENB, EPD recientemente, Nada de “next man up” ni “must own stocks”, al menos no para mí.

     

     

    Un optimista es un pesimista mal informado

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #26853
    Todo depende del objetivo. Si quieres tener un flujo seguro y creciente de ingresos, creo que esa estrategia es muy acertada y sin ningún tipo de complicación. Tiempo dedicado mínimo. De las 20 core pocas te fallarán y esas son la mitad o más de la cartera normalmente. ¿Qué mas te da el rendimiento del precio si no vas a vender las acciones?

    Hola Investing.

    Suelo hacer comments largos pues pienso ke en la vida y entendimiento importan mucho los Matices. Aun asi no me caben todos los matices y me explico mal o a veces no me entienden supongo ke porque no explico bien aunque por mis extensiones se ve que lo intento.

    No reflexionaba una mocion a la totalidad de la filosofia chowder.
    Solo es una reflexión mocion parcial.

    Compartir podemos el objetivo income- años vista-precedibe…

    No se por que discuto a veces con values total returns… pensando en el pekeño como nosotros que empieza ahora a hacer cartera…

    Para este… y para nosotros es Vital es factor Sicologico.

    El precio a mi no me da plusvalia pues aun no vendo ganancias, que sí pérdidas…
    El precio comprado mas abajo creo nos aporta mas margen deseguridad y mayor rpd. Y sobre todo Alegria de espiritu o menor incertidumbre (cada persona en sus rangos particulares)

    Por eso digo ke prefiero comprar CVS CAH SHELL IBM TGT cuando leo que asume retos y ha bajau su precio 40%… que comprarlos cuando digan que ya ha superado los retos y haya recuperado el 30%… ( y aki podria venir el compañero Vash y lapidarme escuetamente: “¿y si no supera los retos?”

    Ahi estan nuestras lecturas e indicios sobre si la reaccion a la baja es excesiva.

    Creo que Chowder tambien es capaz de escribir: aumento cvs cah ibm cisco tgt vfc ahora porque confio en ellas y llevan 20 dividend years… en vez de esperar a que los analistos hagan subir su precio…

    Si compro hoy MMM puede ser un acierto… pero si no cumple expectativas de los analistas… me comere una bajada de precio solo por un 2,7% rpd del que me quitan ya el 15%…

    El ke tiene objetivos mu claros y diversificados… puede asumir ver rojo… pero veo compañeros que expresan su inquietud por ver rojo… y estamos en fase alcista… por lo que yo en su caso no compraria los que outperforman, en maximos y a baja rpd…

    Sí compraria aun shell imb gsk cvs cah tgt ibm… alerian mlp etc…

    Lo que Ruindog y Me queremos decir es: mejor comprar unas de las oportunidades que en cada momento se dan…

    Porque yo no tengo Mmm pero cuando performe mal y haya dudas solubles… la compraré… sobre todo porque la reaccion Sé que será exagerada a la baja…

    Ultimo ejemplo…. yo compraria hoy Tgt y no Wmt. (En sept 2016 creo compré Wmt y no Tgt)
    Compraria hoy Ibm pero no Microsoft ( En 2016 deberia haber comprado Mcsft y no lo hice)

    Creo compartimos el tronco. Pero podemos subir al arbol por distintas ramas y con distinto calzado, a veces…

    :))

    Por cierto, me tienta Celgene para la subcartera biotech hoy a 100$. No me tentaba hace pocos meses a 146$. ¿ke piensas d celgene?

    "Atrévete a Vivir la Vida que has Imaginado" Henry James

    5 users thanked author for this post.
    #26877
    Por algún motivo no compramos T cuando está a 40$ y llenamos las alforjas cuando cotiza a 30$. En la segunda opción consigues más acciones con un yield superior. Si eso no marca una gran diferencia a largo plazo en nuestros ingresos por dividendos entonces apaga y vamonos. Lo que se paga por una empresa importa y mucho independientemente de que tu estrategia sean los dividendos o el retorno total. De lo contrario todos estaríamos ahora mismo comprando MMM, PEP, CL y tantas otras con total despreocupación.

    Yo prefiero comparar el yield actual con el histórico de los últimos 5-10 años (“dividend yield metric”) en empresas de calidad para encontrar buenas oportunidades de inversión. Así lo he hecho con HRL, GIS, SJM, CVS, WBA, ENB, EPD recientemente, Nada de “next man up” ni “must own stocks”, al menos no para mí.

    Yo creo que estamos en el 80% de acuerdo. De hecho, nuestras estrategias son parecidas (incluyo a preike y alguno más que participa en el hilo) y nos gusta comprar más cuando están baratas.

    Pero hay empresas de esas de la lista que no han superado al SP500 que compras a un yield alto, que no vas a obtener un total return como otras empresas, pero ese yield alto lo tienes garantizado por muchísimos años, y eso es un seguro. Y por eso se paga un premium también.

    Con lo del next man up también vas comprando cuando más baratas en relación a las otras están. Pero sé que no es una estrategia que nosotros vayamos a seguir, está pensada para otro tipo de inversor.

    Además, me parece que esa estrategia no es tan mala como parece y que nos sorprenderíamos de sus resultados. Te obliga a seguir añadiendo a empresas que lo siguen haciendo mejor cada año y que de otra manera puede que estés esperando a entrar durante mucho tiempo.

    Entrando en empresas que pasan por dificultades puede que nos sigamos comiendo más caídas y que tarden mucho en recuperar, con lo que tampoco está tan claro que la estrategia sea superior. Porque la tentación es buscar empresas baratas y con seguridad acabar con peor calidad. Y al final añadir mucho menos de esas empresas core que queremos llevar en cantidad.

    Sobre CELG, te comento brevemente (si quieres más info hablamos en el hilo del sector de farmas). Yo entré después de la caída con un poquito y es posible que esta semana aumente depende de cómo se menee. Riesgo/recompensa bastante bueno en mi opinión. Pero es arriesgada, tiene muchos estudios en los próximos 2 años que pueden variar su valor de manera drástica. Otras interesantes en la misma línea de precios castigados y buen R/R son INCY y REGN por si les quieres echar un ojo.

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #26879

    Alguien le ha comentado algo parecido a lo que estamos hablando y contesta más o menos lo que argumentaba. Tengo interiorizada su filosofía, la práctica ya es más complicada, jajaja. Pongo sus últimas intervenciones que tocan varios temas que venimos desarrollando últimamente:

    >>> I don’t own KO but I would not be happy with that 20 year return either <<<

    Chowder:

    I get that, it’s ingrained into our heads as investing professionals have indoctrinated us well in order to create chaos and uncertainty in order to prove you are unworthy of investing on your own. … Ha!

    I asked myself, what difference does that low total return make if all I’m after is the income, and if I’m after the income, I’m certainly not going to be selling my shares. When I sell shares I give up an income source.

    I also get that you can sell shares here and there to generate cash if you need to. You’re talking to a former trader, so I get it.
    I changed my mindset on how I look at the market after having gone through 3 serious recessions and many, many market corrections. Market conditions are not always favorable for selling and a lot of times the need to sell comes at the worst time as to market conditions.

    If one wants to trade, learn how to trade. Every single person here at some point thought that the buy low, sell high concept was a great concept until it came time to put it into practice.

    People look at KO or T and say oh my god, that’s not good enough and I say in a portfolio of 55 companies, if those are the only two you have a problem with you are doing great.

    Every time I think about selling KO, the dividend shows up and oh boy, now I’m spoiled because I know that puppy is safe. It may not grow a whole lot over the next couple of years but it is safe and safety is job 1. To me, it’s part of the basket, not held out way over here by itself.

    The problem is hindsight analysis distorts our views about the here and now and looking forward. Most people are surprised at the past result but who can accurately predict what the next 20 years will do? I’ll bet nobody here can identify and go 3 for 3 on who their best 3 performers are going to be in 2018, just 3! Oh, they know the history damn well, but let’s get some forward looking analysis and all of a sudden it’s not so easy.
    I don’t know what KO or T are going to do just as I don’t know what some of our top performers so far are going to do, so my job is to focus on safety and get the companies properly sized. The rest is up to the market and I have no control over that.

    My job is to grow the income stream and I have some control over that. The market has its job which I have no control over. So I don’t let the market tell me how to do my job and I don’t tell the market how to do theirs. In time we’ll be on the same page, but I have to give the market time. It’s a slow learner. … Ha!

    >>> Valuation affects income. <<<

    Chowder:

    Yup! In both directions. Ying and Yang babee.

    If you don’t get the valuation you want, hero and heroine price, you don’t buy. You just affected your income to the downside. Brilliant.

    I may not get as much income when the valuation is higher, but I am getting income. And when those valuations come into play, guess what? I’m buying that too. I’m playing both ends against the middle to insure I don’t have a bad income year and Miss already knows what that feels like.

    When retirees or people planning for retirement tell me they want a safe income flow to count on, there are at least 3 companies who have continued to pay a dividend, without interruption, for 100 years or more, and some of you want to tell me this time is different. … Ha!
    GIS, KO and IBM are on that list.

    I know, I know, some of you are going to say there’s no growth, these companies are dead, and I will tell you that not everything you own is going to provide the growth you want. How many of you have positions in the red? Uh-huh, thought so.

    I look for balance. I want the safe income so that I don’t have to worry about a paycheck, and then if I want some growth I can add a V or HD or any other company you may want to buy, but where a lot of people screw up is that they lack balance.

    100 years or more of paying an uninterrupted dividend and you want to tell me that’s not good enough. … Ha! Ha!

    I was locking in 3.4% yields with KO and GIS and that’s a good yield in today’s market. As an income investor it makes no sense to me not to take advantage of that. There are other companies out there with 100 years or more of cutting share owners a paycheck without ever cutting their pay, ED would be another.

    Everything you own won’t live up to expectations but everything you own should provide a safe income if income is your objective.
    Think about it.

    >>> I guess the main difference between our approaches is I’m looking at add on 52 week lows, or even 2-3 year lows. You are looking to add on momentum. <<<

    Chowder:

    Nope! That’s not how I look at it. You are looking to buy weakness and I’m looking to buy strength. You limit your options to where your strategy doesn’t work in all market conditions, my strategy does, based on my objectives.

    Looking for 52 week lows under current market conditions means you are buying under-performers. If you wish to wait several years to buy accidental high yielders that meet your buying requirements, then you have nothing to add here. We have people who don’t have 7-8x the income they need and they need to do something now. That’s who I am trying to help, not you. These people don’t care what your situation is, they want to know if you have anything to say that helps them now. Why can’t you see that?

    You act like I won’t be buying during recessions and that couldn’t be further from the truth. I buy in all market conditions. When I see that 70% of the companies reporting are beating on earnings and revenue expectations, I assume the market is going higher and I’m buying strength. Don’t worry though, I’ll be buying the dips when they decide to show.

    Sobre la gente para la que escribe (que como ya dije, no es un inversor como nosotros, que no tenemos miedo de entrar fuerte si vemos una buena ocasión cuando hay miedo generalizado; no hemos parado de comprar cuando todo caía en los sectores con problemas):

    Most people do not go in large when prices drop, they ease in. You and I may go in large, but most people reading here won’t and that’s who I am addressing. So, I buy small on the upside, add even more on the downside, provided it comes, and I don’t miss out on anything.

    For others it’s the level of comfort it provides when the market corrects. There’s a huge difference in how people view their holdings when they are red or green.

    If one is up 247% on LMT and it’s drops 30% in value, it has a different effect than if they bought it new and it dropped 30% in value. The same price drop has different psychological reactions, and managing the psychology of the market is everything in investing.

    I assume that every person buys shares in a company hoping that at some point the value of those shares are going to rise. So in order for those share prices to rise, at some point they are going to have to have some upside momentum, a dirty word by some, but none the less it’s necessary.

    So when a company comes out and says we just beat earnings and revenue expectations and we expect do to even better going forward, am I supposed to step aside and say I don’t want any part of the additional upside you are going to provide on any new shares I buy because their last name isn’t value?

    If I have a company who has performed well for me and they tell me they expect to do even better, I want more of that company. Why wouldn’t I? And if they are going to do better than even they expected, what makes you think you can sit around and wait for their share price to decline?

    I don’t care what the last name is, value or momentum, I just want my companies to do well and when that momentum starts to take off, I want to be on board with a position of size.

    Everything I buy is a good value, it’s just that some people don’t see it yet.

    With current valuations as high as they are, it takes a beat and raise for me to justify paying up for companies, momentum is ruling the market at this time and I invest based on the condition of the market.

    #26923

    Por completar la discusión:

    Today’s subject is lower prices. This is really getting old for me. I’ve been hearing about waiting for lower prices for 5 years now.
    Comment: I would rather buy GIS at $52 than $72. … Ummm, I did! Where were you? I’m in a position to add more now. And if price drops, I’ll buy some more.

    Comment: I would rather buy MMM at $200 than $240. … Ummm, I did! Where were you? I’m in a position to add more now. And if price drops, I’ll buy some more.

    The problem with this thinking is one, it’s in hindsight, two, a lot of people were saying the same thing when GIS was at $52, they would have preferred to buy at $42. Then why didn’t you? It was there, where were you?

    If GIS doesn’t come down to $52 do you not ever buy it? If MMM doesn’t come down to $200 do you ignore it forever?

    I bought both at much lower prices than the target prices listed above by one commentor. I can probably suggest his lower price targets are too high if I want to use my cost basis as a pivot point.

    I bought at lower prices, I bought at even lower prices, I’ll buy if they return to lower levels, I’ll buy at today’s prices and I’ll buy at whatever price is available 5 years from now. That’s the power of position building.

    In a comment above in this stream, one person said … A good company is a good company… I would rather buy GIS at $52 than $72.
    I don’t want to let this go! I don’t think this person has followed along enough to understand what I’m doing, especially for you young people.

    I have clearly stated that I thought the better approach for young people is to invest small amounts into a wide range of companies … build out.
    You pick the number as to how many companies you want to own, 20, 30, 40, you choose. By the time you build out, you know who is performing well and who isn’t, and for those performing well, you don’t have to worry about today’s valuations. It’s crap!

    Let’s use GIS as an example since this person brought them up, not me, so no cherry picking here. My son owns GIS, he is up 52% on his position. The person in the comment above said he would buy at $52. My son’s cost basis is $37.66. I can add a 1/4 sized position to his GIS position today and his cost basis rises to $41.31. … Hello??? Well below what the person above is willing to pay for GIS.

    Now try and convince me that raising the cost basis to $41 when you’d buy at $52 is a bad idea.

    This is the benefit of building out before building up! And you won’t find many people showing you this concept because they are too busy worrying about valuations today as opposed to putting today’s valuations into proper perspective as it relates to your specific situation.

    I look at my son’s portfolio, see what the weightings are, then when it’s time to build up the lower weightings I do so and I don’t worry about the price, not when he’s investing $1k at a time.

    I can tell you today what the next 5 purchases are going to be in 2018 and the market doesn’t have anything to do with those choices. Any price he pays today will be irrelevant 30 years from now so I don’t worry about it.

    Instead of worrying about more, more more … I worry about having enough, enough, enough. … How sure are you that it will be there? I have a high conviction level that it will be.

    #26926

    “I can tell you today what the next 5 purchases are going to be in 2018 and the market doesn’t have anything to do with those choices. Any price he pays today will be irrelevant 30 years from now so I don’t worry about it”

    No es cierto. Si pagas en exceso por una acción tu rendimiento en el largo plazo (llámese dividend income o total return) se resentirá. Otro tema es que nades en la abundancia y no te quieras calentar la cabeza para sacarle el mayor jugo posible a tu cartera.

    ¿Daba igual comprar Cisco en el 2000?

     

    Un optimista es un pesimista mal informado

    #26929

    Hay un matiz ke debemos tener en cuenta:

    Para Chowder que lleva posiciones en +200% +300% +400% añadir 1000$ a precio de hoy a una Cuore… SI es irrelevante el precio…. y elige las ke beat & rase!!!

    Su colchon de latex tesla ya lo tiene hecho!!!

    "Atrévete a Vivir la Vida que has Imaginado" Henry James

    #27144

    Hola,

    Chowder es muy relevante dentro de la comunidad de Seekingalpha, cuando comenta culquier cosa capta toda la etención en los artículos. De los buenos siempre se puede aprender algo. Para mi no deja de ser  una de filosofía basada en la gestión pasiva, elije sus piezas y les mete pasta pase lo que pase. Parece muy sencillo hacerlo así una vez todo está en marcha y ya han pasado 15 ó 20 años años y se lleva un 200% 300% de revalorización. Hay algo que no entiendo de su filosofía, si por poner un ejemplo, este año toca aumentar 2k las posiciones core, bla bla bla, si una acción que no estuviera en cartera, por ejempo Unilever, estuviera a un precio interesante y cumpliera los criterios fundamentales , ¿no consideraría añadirla a la cartera?

    #27146
    Hola, Chowder es muy relevante dentro de la comunidad de Seekingalpha, cuando comenta culquier cosa capta toda la etención en los artículos. De los buenos siempre se puede aprender algo. Para mi no deja de ser una de filosofía basada en la gestión pasiva, elije sus piezas y les mete pasta pase lo que pase. Parece muy sencillo hacerlo así una vez todo está en marcha y ya han pasado 15 ó 20 años años y se lleva un 200% 300% de revalorización. Hay algo que no entiendo de su filosofía, si por poner un ejemplo, este año toca aumentar 2k las posiciones core, bla bla bla, si una acción que no estuviera en cartera, por ejempo Unilever, estuviera a un precio interesante y cumpliera los criterios fundamentales , ¿no consideraría añadirla a la cartera?

    En principio no, Jorge, pero simplemente porque el lo primero que hace es formar cartera con TODAS las acciones que quiere tener, estén al precio que estén. Luego, con el tiempo, va ampliando. Siguiendo tu ejemplo, igual él compró 1/4 de posición de UNILEVER hace unos años y no compró más porque no tenía claro si el valor de la acción era el adecuado o no. Si ahora la acción bajara, el compraría más. Pero no incorpora acciones nuevas porque todas las que quería tener, las tiene desde el principio.

     

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #27147
    Hola, Chowder es muy relevante dentro de la comunidad de Seekingalpha, cuando comenta culquier cosa capta toda la etención en los artículos. De los buenos siempre se puede aprender algo. Para mi no deja de ser una de filosofía basada en la gestión pasiva, elije sus piezas y les mete pasta pase lo que pase. Parece muy sencillo hacerlo así una vez todo está en marcha y ya han pasado 15 ó 20 años años y se lleva un 200% 300% de revalorización. Hay algo que no entiendo de su filosofía, si por poner un ejemplo, este año toca aumentar 2k las posiciones core, bla bla bla, si una acción que no estuviera en cartera, por ejempo Unilever, estuviera a un precio interesante y cumpliera los criterios fundamentales , ¿no consideraría añadirla a la cartera?

    En principio no, Jorge, pero simplemente porque el lo primero que hace es formar cartera con TODAS las acciones que quiere tener, estén al precio que estén. Luego, con el tiempo, va ampliando. Siguiendo tu ejemplo, igual él compró 1/4 de posición de UNILEVER hace unos años y no compró más porque no tenía claro si el valor de la acción era el adecuado o no. Si ahora la acción bajara, el compraría más. Pero no incorpora acciones nuevas porque todas las que quería tener, las tiene desde el principio.

    Creo recordar que Chow. escribe haber ampliado Unilever en los últimos 4 o 5 meses y se enorgullece de haberlo hecho antes de la subidita pegada éste año cuando intentó comprarla KHC.

    Ahora, no lo voy a buscar entre sus 18.000 commentarios.  :))

    "Atrévete a Vivir la Vida que has Imaginado" Henry James

Foros Estrategia Filososofía Chowder - Pág. 8

Viendo 20 publicaciones - del 141 al 160 (de un total de 163)

Debes estar registrado para responder a este debate.