Camera & Stock
As previously mentioned, my camera died after a skydive from about 7 feet onto a concrete floor. I've dropped it many times in the past with no problem, but this proved a little much for it. It works sometimes, but barely.
So here's saying goodbye to my old camera, it had a great run:
On another note....
While I don't keep up with the stock market all that frequently anymore, it seems everything has been doing really well lately. My current holdings are as follows:
It's Friday, so it's once again time to party!
-Nev
So here's saying goodbye to my old camera, it had a great run:
On another note....
While I don't keep up with the stock market all that frequently anymore, it seems everything has been doing really well lately. My current holdings are as follows:
It's Friday, so it's once again time to party!
-Nev
posted by Neville @ 5:35 PM
29 comments
29 Comments:
Most college students your age don't think past the weekend!
The point is Nev, if you really knew anything about investing and investing for the long term, you would know not to tire up your investment portofolio in just 4 stocks. Read some more sophisticated investment books about diversification, about security valuations, about portoflio design...and then you can talk about holding for the long term...dont just spit back naive one liners, because holding onto shit for the long term, is way worse then holding good companies for the short term...
And I for one would definitely own more than 4 or 5 if equity was greater than $50,000. But, spot on with Nev's current equity level around $11,000.
Of course, I'm not addressing the other valid points you are making such as diversification factors and portfolio design. It's clear from just a cursory look that Nev needs some rebalancing in his positions with the current portfolio breakdown of:
DYN: 28% of equity
FO: 27% of equity
GE: 14% of equity
SYNT: 31% of equity
Nev, why the much larger percentage holding in SYNT and the much smaller percentage holding in GE? Seems kind of strange unless your position sizing risk on the SYNT was small and risk on the GE was large.
Another valid point made is the holding onto long-term verbage you expressed. The key to the studies of holding a small select group of stocks is cycling out of losing or even stale stocks and riding the winners for as long as you can.
It's also best to keep the percentage levels consistent across positions. So, when the winners become a larger force in your portfolio...you reduce your size in that winner which will reduce drawdowns and free up money for other investment opportunities.
MT
Do some reading on what one of the worlds richest men thinks about diversification.
Nev, Ignore these negative people. I for one think you are inspirational, and although this is the first time I have posted I check your page every day for updates and eagerly await every post.
I just wish I had a blogger account so I could post properly and more regularly.
In short, you should "do some reading on what one of the world's richest men thinks about diversification".
Study first, talk later.
people always get so emotioanl over investing strategies for some reason, especially over other people's portfolio.
ncnblog
erin
Holding long-term means nothing even to Warren Buffet. Buffet has always operated a hedge fund and anyone who still believes otherwise has not done his homework on the guy.
Anyway, money management, exit strategy, risk management are very important for any portfolio, that is where the real learning and work comes in. Otherwise, it is "market giveth, market taketh away". I thought anyone would have known that after the last 6 years of market events. If you take making money and keeping it seriously, you cannot afford to be lazy and you cannot afford this "holding for a long-term BS".
Thanks for the stock advice. I am sure you are a big-time investor on wall-street hob-knobbing with Mr. Buffet on a daily basis.
Thank you for taking time out of your busy investing life to anonymously comment on my blog.
I've tried every investing style there is for my situation, and I've found long-term to be the most enjoyable and profitable...FOR ME.
So chill the hell out.
-Nev
If Joe-Blow 12-year old in middle school tells me how to manage my portfolio, I probably will not listen. However, if Warren Buffet gives me a tip, I will take it into consideration.
Whenever someone anonymously posts, and I cannot find out any more background information about them....how am I to know their credibility?
-Nev
P.S. I'm not lashing out, I find it funny how riled up people get about MY finances!
I like your site. I am invested in both individual stocks and broad index funds ... For me personally, I find indices more attractive for long-term investments, because it takes quite a bit of work to be constantly re-evaluating your individual companies. How one particular company performs in the stock market, in the long run, depends a lot of the industry it's in, it's management and strategy compared to its competitors, etc etc. Many professionals working full time dealing with a lot of money have tried to evaluate companies' current value and their future performance. It seems quite unlikely that you or I would be able to more accurately access these companies, even if we worked for them!
On top of that, holding four individual companies seems extremely risky. If just one or two of the companies disappoints Wall St expectations, your portfolio can lose significant value (or alternatively, it can gain significantly as it seems to have so far in your case). I think you will find that when you compare investing in 4 individual stocks to a broad index, the 4-stock holding will be quite a bit more risky but not with any higher expected returns.
Anyway, I encourage you to read up on ETFs or index mutual funds. As someone else mentioned, for the amount of money you are investing, the strategy you pick will not make a huge difference in your lifestyle, but the biggest value you get is the experience of investing that you will use as you accumulate more wealth.
Good luck
Stock Market can make you poor as well as rich. We call that gambling where I come from. Nev is going to need to buy a house, settle down, and have kids soon. He is assumming to much risk. Just cause you are young does not mean it is wise to assume alot of risk.
I am going against the conventional wisdom but sometimes it is older folks who already have their ducks in a row...are better suited to assume more risk then a young man.
Let's suppose I-bonds are guaranteed to perform better than stocks (or other investment vehicles) with less risk. If this were the case, no one (or no one who works in the financial industry, at least) would invest money in anything else!
What you'll actually find is that for all the investment choices out there, there is a tradeoff between risk and reward and they may have different correlations to each other. This is not like Vegas! In Vegas, you actually take negative expected returns in exchange for more risk. On Wall St, you expect greater returns for taking on more risk (otherwise you wouldn't buy that product, the price of that product will decrease, so the expected returns go up).
Neville is young, so it is understandable to me why he would want investments that he won't touch for 40+ years to be in higher risk, higher reward investments. I'm not necessarily saying that 100% stocks is the right move, but I don't think 100% bonds is either. Also realize because Neville is at a different stage in life than you, he probably is willing to take on more risk than you, because over many years the risk becomes smaller and the returns substantially larger. In any particular year, the stock market can go up or down quite a bit ... but historically, over any 30 year period, the stock market has not lost value. Plus, the historical returns on stocks has been greater than bonds. This doesn't make stocks any better than bonds, only another choice for the risk/reward and the correlation between the two.
I'm personally of the opinion that holding 4 individual stocks will bring Neville more risk without any added expected returns. Over a 30-year period there are many companies that lost ALL of their value. But, I believe my reasoning still holds.
I believe you should identify yourself and your credentials as a financial adviser.
I also believe that you should offer concrete alternative investment vehicles to what Neville uses.
What should Neville Invest on? How? Share your knowledge, please.
I for one like to invest in banks. USB, C, BAC. I also like vice: MO and MCD. Do you have any good suggestions?
All:
I do believe in diversified portfolios. Apparently Neville has a portfolio composed of stocks and revenue generating websites. Over time he will probably acquire a real estate property (a house maybe?) or some other alternate investment. That would be three asset classes. That would probably be diversified.
People! You have to understand that there is no single correct investment strategy. Most people don't invest at all. Neville is investing. Neville is trying investment strategies that could be good or bad... Either he wins money or he doesn't. But in the end... chances are he will certainly end with a lot more money than the average American that doesn't even have other investments than his/her home (assuming he/she didn't got an equity line to pay up credit card debt).
Neville:
Keep investing.
Use whatever strategy you believe on. Diversify smartly.
Let us know how good is the digital camera. I might have to buy a new one in a year or so (the one I have is kind of old).
-- Jose
Money and Investing
Post a Comment
<< Home