I am liking both approaches simultaneously. For me this involves holding these winners, and still having enough capital and a continued interest in exploring for new "value" opportunities.
I've bought some of these good companies that just keep rolling on -- KLAC, AVGO, DAC (How'd that shipping co get in there? -g-) -- and I'm just holding on.
1. That, as Munger (and you) might say, is plenty good enough. Sell when they fail on some level. Perhaps like bruwin, holding decades, only selling when criteria says.
2. But what about somebody like Harshu Vyas just starting out? What companies could he, should he, begin with given all these "great stocks or great companies" are already so way high? I have no definitive answer.
3. We'd want something that can do well, for years, decades. Ideally something in its beginning growth phase. I don't have an idea. But maybe GOOG still? (I'm reinvesting my dividends.)
I know Christmas shopping is with us, and Holy Cow -- Costco is unbelievably busy. The stock's at a 12-mo low, but still so expensive. Seems to have a very good runway - they're still opening stores. In ten years the stock "should be" considerably higher. Buy some, keep as core position. But so difficult to commit to something like this when stock already so high, AND capital to invest is little. Holding a stock like COST that does nothing or even declines for a year, just seems to have a high opportunity cost when your capital is very limited. Some flexibility short term gain though if stock rises here from lows. (No options here on this value subjectmark!).
4. If we are looking for something that has a runway to 100% gain in 18-24 months, my bets are on drill ships (limited supply) for oil exploration, and met coal for steel/infrastructure demand. This for me is the benefit of decades of saving/investing: Having performance that's maybe "just average" or "satisfactory" - having enough capital to keep the great stocks/companies in the portfolio while still having enough "excess" to make these type bets. |
