Hm... it's always a question of who copies whom, who chases the current favourites more and loses the most money in the end. You're late for SMCI, but buy while you can. After all, it would be by far the cheapest.
Since the start of when? Since I started monthly recaps? That would be below:
2019 54.7%
2020 196.5%
2021 30.0%
2022 -64.7%
2023 24.5%
My math has that at +162.0% vs 77.5% for the S&P (I don't have the dividend numbers, just the straight S&P). Better than some and worse than others, but definitely all mine both good and bad. All the details are in past links.
As for companies, why am I late on SMCI? What's your opinion of it?
Thank you for the summary! If it is true, then of course congratulations! You know best how your portfolio has developed. I respect of course your back and forth, but find it a pity that after the few years you still run after everything what Saul and Co buy and trim what they trim. It's a shame you can't find a nuance for yourself and set yourself up a little healthier, but sorry of course: it's your money.
On SMCI : I had actually found an early entry here. But it was only planned as a trade. The position was manageable. I just took the bet out and let it continue. I am surprised that you are now interested in SMCI, as it does not fit your strategy (business, gross margin etc) except for the price momentum. But I don't think SMCI is a flagpole that will be sold off, just given a fair revaluation.
Since the returns are true, then thank you. No use arguing with you over it though. You either believe them or you don't.
As for the style, why wouldn't Saul's coalesce around a similar group of names? Many of the filters are the same. It's only the investment decisions themselves which vary. This is no different than a group which settles on some combo of Berkshire, REITs, and the most attractive municipal bonds. Since it's a self-selected strategy, the range of final choices will always appear somewhat limited if not kept in context.
Even then I think you are painting with too broad a brush. As I wrote recently when someone noted the differences in some current portfolios at Saul's:
"This board often gets accused of groupthink when in reality it is a collection of independent thinkers who just happen to practice a similar investment style. I think those 'differences in risk appetite and the love of the hunt' have always been here. For the longest time, however, those differences still settled on the same companies as the cream of the crop. That’s why the top handful of holdings in most recaps were so similar. That’s also why I was always more interested in what others were doing with the back halves of their portfolios. To me that’s where the differences in flavor showed up and I learned the most about alternative ways of thinking.
Every company is some combo of growth, execution, cash flow, and profitability metrics. For a long, long stretch the hypergrowth metric ruled all and profitably so. With that dynamic gone we’re starting to more clearly see our differences in style even if the board’s focus remains distinctly growth. For example, you, @GauchoRico, and @FinallyFoolin are all heavy SNOW. Me (0%) and @PaulWBryant (0.9%), not so much. Likewise, Bear, Gaucho are I are heavy BILL. You, Saul, and FinallyFoolin are 0%.
Who’s right? Well, it doesn’t matter because it’s not a competition. It’s about sharing the best info you can and standing back as everyone makes their own decisions. I personally see that as a good thing."
Full disclosure, I too have traded SMCI via Jan '24 $200 calls in a smaller account outside this writeup. If in my regular account it would currently be a roughly 1.5% position up ~30%. The reason I haven't added it in my larger account is (to your point) the current business trends indeed fall short of my preferred style. However, the potential for accelerating revenue, margins, and/or profits very much DO fit my style off any baseline. Of course, you'll have to take my word on that as well. If it helps any, I have already chosen to believe YOUR unverified online claim of an early entry and profits in SMCI. Congratulations to you too.
And if you'd like to balance out some wins, you can always read about how my mismanagement of MNDY led to the loss of literally years worth of future living expenses. I'm not sure if I experienced any bigger percentages drops in 2000 or 2008, but the dollar amounts of 2022 were my most painful ever and it's not even close.
In the end, these write ups and the comments attached are nothing more than information exchange. As for your pity, I'm sorry you feel that way. My family and I are quite happy with my returns despite the numerous mistakes along the way. If your returns over that period are better, I'd love to hear some of your key learnings I might use going forward. If not, maybe my nuance is healthy enough as it is and you should replace some of that pity with curiosity. After all, that's the best way to learn from each other. Regardless, I appreciate the non-echo chamber engagement.
Hm... it's always a question of who copies whom, who chases the current favourites more and loses the most money in the end. You're late for SMCI, but buy while you can. After all, it would be by far the cheapest.
How is the performance since the start?
Since the start of when? Since I started monthly recaps? That would be below:
2019 54.7%
2020 196.5%
2021 30.0%
2022 -64.7%
2023 24.5%
My math has that at +162.0% vs 77.5% for the S&P (I don't have the dividend numbers, just the straight S&P). Better than some and worse than others, but definitely all mine both good and bad. All the details are in past links.
As for companies, why am I late on SMCI? What's your opinion of it?
Thank you for the summary! If it is true, then of course congratulations! You know best how your portfolio has developed. I respect of course your back and forth, but find it a pity that after the few years you still run after everything what Saul and Co buy and trim what they trim. It's a shame you can't find a nuance for yourself and set yourself up a little healthier, but sorry of course: it's your money.
On SMCI : I had actually found an early entry here. But it was only planned as a trade. The position was manageable. I just took the bet out and let it continue. I am surprised that you are now interested in SMCI, as it does not fit your strategy (business, gross margin etc) except for the price momentum. But I don't think SMCI is a flagpole that will be sold off, just given a fair revaluation.
Since the returns are true, then thank you. No use arguing with you over it though. You either believe them or you don't.
As for the style, why wouldn't Saul's coalesce around a similar group of names? Many of the filters are the same. It's only the investment decisions themselves which vary. This is no different than a group which settles on some combo of Berkshire, REITs, and the most attractive municipal bonds. Since it's a self-selected strategy, the range of final choices will always appear somewhat limited if not kept in context.
Even then I think you are painting with too broad a brush. As I wrote recently when someone noted the differences in some current portfolios at Saul's:
"This board often gets accused of groupthink when in reality it is a collection of independent thinkers who just happen to practice a similar investment style. I think those 'differences in risk appetite and the love of the hunt' have always been here. For the longest time, however, those differences still settled on the same companies as the cream of the crop. That’s why the top handful of holdings in most recaps were so similar. That’s also why I was always more interested in what others were doing with the back halves of their portfolios. To me that’s where the differences in flavor showed up and I learned the most about alternative ways of thinking.
Every company is some combo of growth, execution, cash flow, and profitability metrics. For a long, long stretch the hypergrowth metric ruled all and profitably so. With that dynamic gone we’re starting to more clearly see our differences in style even if the board’s focus remains distinctly growth. For example, you, @GauchoRico, and @FinallyFoolin are all heavy SNOW. Me (0%) and @PaulWBryant (0.9%), not so much. Likewise, Bear, Gaucho are I are heavy BILL. You, Saul, and FinallyFoolin are 0%.
Who’s right? Well, it doesn’t matter because it’s not a competition. It’s about sharing the best info you can and standing back as everyone makes their own decisions. I personally see that as a good thing."
Full disclosure, I too have traded SMCI via Jan '24 $200 calls in a smaller account outside this writeup. If in my regular account it would currently be a roughly 1.5% position up ~30%. The reason I haven't added it in my larger account is (to your point) the current business trends indeed fall short of my preferred style. However, the potential for accelerating revenue, margins, and/or profits very much DO fit my style off any baseline. Of course, you'll have to take my word on that as well. If it helps any, I have already chosen to believe YOUR unverified online claim of an early entry and profits in SMCI. Congratulations to you too.
And if you'd like to balance out some wins, you can always read about how my mismanagement of MNDY led to the loss of literally years worth of future living expenses. I'm not sure if I experienced any bigger percentages drops in 2000 or 2008, but the dollar amounts of 2022 were my most painful ever and it's not even close.
In the end, these write ups and the comments attached are nothing more than information exchange. As for your pity, I'm sorry you feel that way. My family and I are quite happy with my returns despite the numerous mistakes along the way. If your returns over that period are better, I'd love to hear some of your key learnings I might use going forward. If not, maybe my nuance is healthy enough as it is and you should replace some of that pity with curiosity. After all, that's the best way to learn from each other. Regardless, I appreciate the non-echo chamber engagement.
Is your spreadsheet until June 15 or June 30?
Oops. June 30. I forgot to change it. Percentages are correct. I'll edit it now.
Thanks for the heads up.