WoV stock portfolio

Quote: lilredrooster

.
the original book that documented the uninspiring performance of Wall Street Money Managers was published in 1973

yes, the book is quite old but I believe that his findings still apply today

what a great book it is/was:

"A Random Walk down Wall Street" by Burton Malkiel

The actual data is interesting but the hypothesis is rather shaky. Whenever Malkiel comes across a legitimate challenge to the random walk theory he argues it doesn't count for reasons - wouldn't make money after commissions, not practical, not liquid, Buffet is a "businessman" not an investor etc etc. It is very contrived.

He really needs to define the concept properly at the start rather than keep saying "this doesn't count because...".

I bought a recent edition and there was nothing much about the computing advances of developments in computer finance and digital signalling. The book is getting dated.

Reading a book on investing in the 1970s is like reading a 1980s book on computers. In 1973, commissions were around 2% each way, so many brokers churned their clients to death and pushed pink sheet stocks with huge commissions. Retail investing was almost nil.

.
well, dated or not his book convinced me that index funds - passive investing - was the way to go for me
I'm pleased with their performance over a great many years
they have easily beaten most of the actively managed mutual funds
I'm not bragging - the picks weren't mine
I wouldn't have had confidence that my personal picks would have done as well
and also, I had no confidence that actively managed mutual funds would match the most popular index
so, while the performance of my personal portfolio has not been spectacular, it's been quite solid

an S&P 500 tracking fund was my my secondary investment - my main investment over the past 10 years has been VGT - Vanguard's technology index fund

VGT has averaged 22.55% per year over the last 10 years

I consider VGT to be quite risky now, because the whole AI thing may be overblown
but I'll stay with it - otherwise I would have to pay a large capital gains tax -
there is a distinct possibility for a large market drop - but who knows when - ? - not me - I'm no market timer

from google AI:

"Vanguard's VGT (Information Technology ETF) selects stocks by tracking the MSCI US Investable Market Index/Information Technology 25/50, passively including almost all U.S. companies classified in the Information Technology sector under the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS), focusing on electronics, semiconductors, and computer industries, with holdings weighted by market capitalization. It uses a full-replication strategy, but may use sampling if necessary, and is known for its broad tech exposure, including large, mid, and small-cap companies, excluding firms like Amazon or Google classified in other sectors.

Yes, the S&P 500 has generally outperformed the average actively managed mutual fund recently and over longer periods, with a small percentage of active funds beating the index,

Long-Term Trend: The S&P 500 consistently beats most active funds over many years; only a small fraction (around 14-15%) of U.S. large-cap funds beat it over the past decade, according to CNBC and Portfolio Adviser."

.

You are confusing me. You seem to be arguing that the S&P 500 index is the best way to invest, even though your Vanguard fund beat it.

Quote: billryan

You are confusing me. You seem to be arguing that the S&P 500 index is the best way to invest, even though your Vanguard fund beat it.
link to original post

no, I'm saying indexes including the S&P 500 have been my preference
the Vanguard fund is also an index - but an index of just tech stocks
the S&P 500 tracker averaged about 15% per year over the last 10 years
it's obvious that your way and my way are not the same
I'm not knocking your way
good luck with that

..

Quote: billryan

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: billryan

Feel free to invest your life savings on the picks of a few monkees. i'm sure it will work out well.
link to original post

I’ve basically done that. I have far exceeded my cohorts that used professional money managers. Let’s say 30 years ago I started with $1,000,000. And paid an ‘expert’ 1% a year. If I’ve just had modest, not good, growth, and it’s $4,000,000. So average $2.5 million. That’s around $750k in fees! So it was EASY for me to beat the ‘experts’. I’m starting with an extra $750k. And of course, I did way better than that, as the ‘experts’ ‘diversified’ my friends accounts with bonds and, gulp, cash!

So, to me, NO QUESTION that the average monkey or cat tossing darts or scratching outperforms most money managers.

I’m not sure it ‘will work out well’. I’m sure it did ‘work out well’!
link to original post

You have no way of knowing what a professional would have done with your money. It appears much of your money is in tax-deferred accounts, and you will have a nice tax bill down the road. A professional could have shown you alternatives. You've done very well for yourself, but do you really believe you wouldn't have benefited from expert advice?
link to original post

Absofreakinglutely!

For 15 years one of my retirement accounts was managed by a ‘professional’. I had no choice due to our groups rules. He did the standard a bit more than 1/2 in stocks, 1/3 in bonds, some in cash, etc…. Way underperformed my randomly picked all stock accounts.

‘Expert’ advice would have cost me hundreds of thousands in fees, and hundreds of thousands in performance. As far as the ‘nice tax bill’, yes, if I make it to 72 and have to start taking those wascally distributions I’ll pay some taxes. If not my kids get the money tax free.

No alternative (they weren’t even available, given the nature of my employment) would have done better than 35 years of tax free (deferred) growth.

I did take some advice from people, but not the silly ridiculous fees that a money manager charges.

I’m NOT saying a money manager isn’t good for some people who can’t figure out what to do, but it NEVER would have made sense for me.

It can be pretty bad with a financial advisor. My wife had one when we were working, for some of her stocks. There was a reason for that at the time I won't go into. I felt the advisor was under pressure to pick certain funds that the people he worked for wanted to push, you can guess the reason why. When I finally got control of those stocks, I got rid of them and none could be pointed to for keeping them owing to how good they did. It was a bunch of crap like you never saw before, if I named them no one would recognize any of them. What did it for my wife was his pushing for a real estate fund just before the big crash in 2008.

We had the honor of paying him fees and commissions both I think.

My father spent the last month of his life in terrible pain. At 53, he was 6'2 195 pounds of rock-hard muscle, who ran most mornings and took a three-mile walk with my mom each night. He was experiencing stomach pains that his doctor diagnosed as a stomach ulcer.
After weeks of the pain increasing, the doctor set up an appointment with a specialist. My father dropped dead while loading groceries into his car. His autopsy revealed no ulcer.
It can be pretty bad when one uses a medical doctor.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?


Are there bad financial advisors? Of course. Are there bad doctors? Bad lawyers? Bad plumbers? Would an incident with a bad plumber turn you off from using a professional?

Quote: billryan

My father spent the last month of his life in terrible pain. At 53, he was 6'2 195 pounds of rock-hard muscle, who ran most mornings and took a three-mile walk with my mom each night. He was experiencing stomach pains that his doctor diagnosed as a stomach ulcer.
After weeks of the pain increasing, the doctor set up an appointment with a specialist. My father dropped dead while loading groceries into his car. His autopsy revealed no ulcer.
It can be pretty bad when one uses a medical doctor.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?


Are there bad financial advisors? Of course. Are there bad doctors? Bad lawyers? Bad plumbers? Would an incident with a bad plumber turn you off from using a professional?
link to original post

Not automatically. But a plumber won’t charge me 1% of my net worth to do something I can do better myself.

If my plumbing issue is something I can do myself, then no, I won’t call ‘the professional’ to do it for me at a high cost! If a professional worked out for you because you were unable to do it yourself, then that’s good for you.

Quote: billryan

Are there bad financial advisors? Of course. Are there bad doctors? Bad lawyers? Bad plumbers? Would an incident with a bad plumber turn you off from using a professional?]

I try to explain that to people about new cars. If I try to tell someone something like, Toyota's are probably the most mechanically sound cars that most people can afford. It seems like inevitably someone will say their sixth cousin had one and it broke down all the time. There are bad cars and bad people everywhere, just do your homework and try to find the best one or person for your situation.

BTW, Toyota has definitely had some engine issues the last couple of years.

Quote: billryan

...
Are there bad financial advisors? Of course. Are there bad doctors? Bad lawyers? Bad plumbers? Would an incident with a bad plumber turn you off from using a professional?
link to original post

Yes of course! They're all flakes! Told to me by someone you can trust...

Quote: Zappa

Well we don't get excited when it
Crumbles and breaks
We just get on the phone
And call up some Flakes
They rush on over
And wreck it some more
And we are so dumb
They're linin' up at our door
Well, the toilet went crazy yesterday afternoon
The plumber he says
"Never flush a tampoon!"
This great information
Cost me half a week's pay
And the toilet blew up
Later on the next day-yay-yay

I'm a realist and know that "professional" means "you do it for the money," and if someone with a plumber's license, a medical license, or a financial advisor's license has to choose between serving me in my best interests and making more money, he's going to go for the money. A doctor may or may not treat your ailment, but he always will collect his fee. Money first.

This is my recent experience: when I moved to Vegas I made a dentist appointment to get my teeth cleaned, which is something I regularly do. So I go to one, he examines my mouth, and tells me "Bad news. You have gum disease, and you need a 'deep cleaning.'" That's an invasive and very expensive procedure used for cases of severe periodontal disease. And I tell him "Are you sure? No dentist has ever told me anything like that. How about we just do the regular cleaning?" Then he gives me a song and dance where "Oh no, they'll take my license if I gave you a regular cleaning."

So I walk out and go to another dentist. Same line of crap. Now every dentist who I have ever gone to has told me "Whatever you've been doing, keep doing it. You have very healthy teeth and gums." And I do my own research and look up the symptoms of severe periodontal disease: bleeding gums, pain, teeth loose and falling out- no way, I don't have that, and there's no way I could develop that in a year! Thus I apply logic, and even though I'm not a dentist, logic works the same way no matter who you are, and either all those dentists who had told me my gums are just fine were lying to me, or the one standing over me in the chair right now is lying to me and also degrading me by telling me that I need a procedure that is used for the treatment of years of the neglect associated with ignorance.

Running a dental practice in a city where there's one in every strip mall and half the population is Third Worlders who pull out their own teeth with clamshells or something is a tough way to make a living and I guess that predatory and unethical behavior is necessary for them to stay in business. So I did the other kind of research, asked around town about experiences with dentists and got a few names of hose known for being ethical and not upselling, got my teeth cleaned for $100 and was told me teeth and gums are just fine.

Applying the same reasoning to financial advisors: they are in it for the money, and when they have to choose between them making more money or you making more money, what do you think they're going to do? You might both make money, and your interests might coincide enough that he's doing for you about as good as can be done, but he's going to put his own interests first no matter what else. So if you are capable of doing any of these things for yourself, you might as well.

I see it as a professional worked out for me because he knows more about putting my money to work than I do.
I've only paid an advisor for the money he has at work, not a percent of my net worth. In 2025, I spent about twenty hours a week working on my portfolio and finetuning it. This year, I've put most of my investments into managed accounts, and my charity account is on autopilot. I'm going through a bit of a withdrawal just now, but I'll find better uses for those two hours a day.
Perhaps I can finally get around to fixing the internet.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

I'm a realist and know that "professional" means "you do it for the money," and if someone with a plumber's license, a medical license, or a financial advisor's license has to choose between serving me in my best interests and making more money, he's going to go for the money. A doctor may or may not treat your ailment, but he always will collect his fee. Money first.

Not with me or my profession! I’ve canceled hundreds of cases in my career. You know how much I get paid for a canceled case? Usually ZERO. Most of the cases canceled could have been allowed to proceed. Imagine a case with what should be a 1% chance of something bad happening but I’ve identified a factor that triples the risk to 3%. If it’s something that waiting some time or doing something pre op can fix, CANCELED. And for you thinking ‘I always collected my fee’, there can be no LOUDER LOL than me reading that!



I’m guessing the same can be said for financial advisors. There must be some that are unethical, but likely the majority want to succeed for their clients.

Back to the WoV portfolio. Lost a hunk yesterday after the Greenland/tariff kerfuffle. I wanted to post ‘I should buy now’ as this last year each kerfuffle has been followed by an ‘un-kerfuffle’. Lo and behold, market soars today on the un-kerfuffle.

There is one man who knows when a kerfuffle and un-kerfuffle will be happening, and wow, that knowledge ‘could’ be used to make millions.

Not me. Down a tad from ATH. Moved a little more to MMA.

Quote: SOOPOO

Back to the WoV portfolio. Lost a hunk yesterday after the Greenland/tariff kerfuffle. I wanted to post ‘I should buy now’ as this last year each kerfuffle has been followed by an ‘un-kerfuffle’. Lo and behold, market soars today on the un-kerfuffle.

There is one man who knows when a kerfuffle and un-kerfuffle will be happening, and wow, that knowledge ‘could’ be used to make millions.

Not me. Down a tad from ATH. Moved a little more to MMA.
link to original post

I think people are using it to make millions! Yesterday I saw "stocks on sale" so I bought.

It's become a very predictable pattern: a famous person who is known for hyperbole as a negotiating tactic talks about tariffs or embargoes or invasions or whatever says something, then the markets and the financial pundits go into their panic, and I think a lot of that is performative because they need to let everyone know how they feel about that hyperbolic fellow and his policies. Those who understand and like the hyperbolic fellow get the joke, and buy the dip. In this case the pundits had the long weekend to scare everybody while the wiseguys just waited and bought.

Now is the time to buy Netflex (NFLX)

A year from now you will wish you had bought it.

Quote: vegas

Now is the time to buy Netflex (NFLX)

A year from now you will wish you had bought it.
link to original post

Could you expound on that? It did well last year, but do you have any particular thoughts on 2026?

Quote: billryan

Quote: vegas

Now is the time to buy Netflex (NFLX)

A year from now you will wish you had bought it.
link to original post

Could you expound on that? It did well last year, but do you have any particular thoughts on 2026?
link to original post

In 2025 Google was the most undervalued of the mag 7 stocks and it had a great year. I consider Netflix with those big names and it is the most undervalued stock starting 2026.

Netflix has a ton of money and will use it to buy Warner Brothers. While this will eat up some money it will pay back many times over in the future. They have been buying back a lot of their own stock and that is a big bonus to shareholders

They are going to go hard after the international market for new subscribers and once they acquire WB this will entice new subscribers. Netflix makes a ton of money from advertisers. They also have little debt and a strong cash flow.

Netflix also got penalized on earnings and the price has dropped making it the time to buy. They are down 40% from all time highs.

Netflix is on sale right now but not for long. I have been buying hard since the start of the year.

I sold mine over the summer when it hit my target and hadn't been following it. Honestly, I don't understand the finances of the WB deal, although some think it is a great deal- if it goes through.

Quote: vegas

Quote: billryan

Quote: vegas

Now is the time to buy Netflex (NFLX)

A year from now you will wish you had bought it.
link to original post

Could you expound on that? It did well last year, but do you have any particular thoughts on 2026?
link to original post

In 2025 Google was the most undervalued of the mag 7 stocks and it had a great year. I consider Netflix with those big names and it is the most undervalued stock starting 2026.

Netflix has a ton of money and will use it to buy Warner Brothers. While this will eat up some money it will pay back many times over in the future. They have been buying back a lot of their own stock and that is a big bonus to shareholders

They are going to go hard after the international market for new subscribers and once they acquire WB this will entice new subscribers. Netflix makes a ton of money from advertisers. They also have little debt and a strong cash flow.

Netflix also got penalized on earnings and the price has dropped making it the time to buy. They are down 40% from all time highs.

Netflix is on sale right now but not for long. I have been buying hard since the start of the year.
link to original post

I dunno I would probably cancel it if I was price sensitive. It keeps making penny-pinching decisions and canceling good stuff on arbitrary metrics. It is consuming goodwill for the short-term. I would only buy if you plan to sell soon, you can only keep alienating your customers for so long with enshitification.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

It's become a very predictable pattern: a famous person who is known for hyperbole as a negotiating tactic talks about tariffs or embargoes or invasions or whatever says something, then the markets and the financial pundits go into their panic, and I think a lot of that is performative because they need to let everyone know how they feel about that hyperbolic fellow and his policies. Those who understand and like the hyperbolic fellow get the joke, and buy the dip. In this case the pundits had the long weekend to scare everybody while the wiseguys just waited and bought.
link to original post

You think you are being clever. You are picking up pennies in front of a steamroller.

Say the KIng of Awesomeland says he thinks he will invade ruritania and wink to your friends a profitable trade is to be had. Then one of your soldiers takes what you said literally and a border incident starts WWIII. You lose everything.

Or, say the King of Awesomeland keeps walking back provocative statements like this and you make money for a while. You are now conditioned to do this. One day the King decides NOT to walk it back and hold while the market is conditioned to assume he will. You lose everything.

And believe me the King WILL one day not walk it back, because he has no loyalty to you or anything other than money. You are the mark in this story.

I love the smell of tacos in the morning. It smells like success!

Quote: vegas

Quote: billryan

Quote: vegas

Now is the time to buy Netflex (NFLX)

A year from now you will wish you had bought it.
link to original post

Could you expound on that? It did well last year, but do you have any particular thoughts on 2026?
link to original post

In 2025 Google was the most undervalued of the mag 7 stocks and it had a great year. I consider Netflix with those big names and it is the most undervalued stock starting 2026.

Netflix has a ton of money and will use it to buy Warner Brothers. While this will eat up some money it will pay back many times over in the future. They have been buying back a lot of their own stock and that is a big bonus to shareholders

They are going to go hard after the international market for new subscribers and once they acquire WB this will entice new subscribers. Netflix makes a ton of money from advertisers. They also have little debt and a strong cash flow.

Netflix also got penalized on earnings and the price has dropped making it the time to buy. They are down 40% from all time highs.

Netflix is on sale right now but not for long. I have been buying hard since the start of the year.
link to original post

I don't see any long term upside to it. Maybe a little in the short term. But everyone who wants a Netflix account already has one, and some people are starting to be turned off by their offerings and cancelling. And this is not a good century to be in the business of selling information of any kind.

And I'm a little cautious about buying the stocks of trendy brands. Some of the younger people, they know nothing about investing and finance and they buy the stocks of the brands they know. So the Apple, the Google, the Netflix and Facebook, that brand recognition is priced in already with a factor that is nothing but brand recognition. We saw this effect taken to absurdity with the GameStop adventure. That actually did have a legitimate strategy backing it, they were going for the short squeeze, but it was remarkably easy to get young dudes for whom that brand is part of their nostalgia to buy and hold.

Buying stock in companies you use and like is a proven strategy.
A few years ago, I owned stock in a casual dining company that my friends and I enjoyed. Management changed, and the food began to suffer. I sold my stock while it was still on the rise, but starting with the next quarter, it lost almost half its value. The company no longer exists.

If Netflix completes the WB sale, it should be a boon for the stock, but it is far from a sure deal.
I pay for an account with ads, and I think it is around $8.50 a month. I'd have no problem with them raising the price by a dollar or two. How buying WB will improve my Netflix experience is unknown.

I bought 2K shares of NFLX this week. I agree that it's undervalued. I think it's "spinning" because of the uncertainty around the WB deal, but without the WB deal, it's still a great buy. If they don't get WB hopefully they refocus on stock buy backs. If they do get it, their domestic production opportunities open open and there is the potential of a decrease in streaming costs if I don't have to pay for HBO Max (assuming they don't upcharge for that inventory). At $82, I think it's hard to lose anything except other opportunities with the stock.

When Netflix gets the WB deal done you will see lots of Warner Bros subscribers sign with Netflix. Also Netflix is really targeting the international market this year. The stock might not have reached its bottom but is getting close.

Big Slick made a good post above this one.

Quote: billryan

Buying stock in companies you use and like is a proven strategy...

Few brands had loyalty like Blackberry.

And remember when everybody had a Yahoo account and you could use it for everything? Only problem is, they forgot to monetize it.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: billryan

Buying stock in companies you use and like is a proven strategy...

Few brands had loyalty like Blackberry.

And remember when everybody had a Yahoo account and you could use it for everything? Only problem is, they forgot to monetize it.
link to original post

I didn't say it was a great strategy, but it is one that's used to teach people about the market.
When I was teaching my stepsons about investing, their first portfolio had Disney, Pepsi, Hasbro and Apple- stocks in products they used on a daily basis.