Bill Wexler. I'll respond these two ways:
The ole Paulie way: A person has to do what a person believes is right at the time. If it comes to some reconsideration as time passes and upon further reflection, and the decision is to do something different from where one is now - as regards how and what one is buying or shorting now - that is perfectly okay and understandable. One must change with the (new) info. and education one gets.
Now...the tougher response. All jmo, and I'm wrong a lot:
Bill Wexler, you are a long-term SI poster with a rather large following. You have said for the first time in 25 years you have liquidated your long positions and are net short. (I have to assume you're not some kid, but a person who has a real $$$ portfolio.) A VERY strong decision in that. One presumes carefully considered.
But NOW, NOW after some one long discussion with a value-fund manager friend, you waiver? That is ridiculous. You still could be very right in your outlook regarding gold and shorting positions. Nobody really knows the future. To take such an 'all in' position, yet after one conversation maybe even only considering changing your mind, is way odd. It just looks like either you are impetuous in going 'all in' or really lack the conviction of your ideas, and thus have no business going 100% in one direction. You've made a big...huge...call and you might very well be right. (Or not) And it's only now you have this conversation with your friend? You have got to get yourself together, man!
----------------------
Oh well, jmo, and I'm wrong a lot. (And I have my own issues.) Maybe my first response above was the better one. -g-
Just a note though that this is (or could be/should be) the Ben Graham kinda thread, so Graham followers would say one ought to move between stocks and bonds/cash in a 75:25 ratio. I.e when stocks are expensive go 75% bonds/cash/equivalents, and when stocks are cheap, reverse: 75% stocks, only 25% others. In no case should or would the defensive investor go 100% in one direction. (If I recall correctly from "Intelligent Investor") |
