@hank : PS - A stock or fund that’s up 10% one day and down 10% another day is difficult to deal with.
+1
"You can't win them all" , Derf

@hank : Did you have a stake in DK, I see it popped this week. Article in Weekend WSJ.

@Derf - I bailed from DKNG at just over $14 some time ago. Had been as low as $10.66 during the time I was averaging in. Didn’t do bad - but would have made a whole lot more if I’d held it. Also had some ARKK at very attractive prices for a while. So there’s 2 big fish still in the pond if you want to go fishing. :)
PS - A stock or fund that’s up 10% one day and down 10% another day is difficult to deal with.
(Ask Cathie)

@MAV
I'm assuming your question is in regards to the individual stock holding. My portfolio is comprised of a taxable account, and a rollover IRA...both approximately the same size. Between them I hold 17 individual stocks. Within each account, a holding may generally account for anywhere between 5-7% of that account's total...and about 3% or so of the overall portfolio total. With only 2 exceptions, they all generate dividends and contribute to cashflow for spending purposes. With the exception of the REITs, their dividends are tax advantaged so it really doesn't make a difference in where you hold them. From an overall portfolio perspective, individual holdings account for 57.5% of the total.

Added NLSAX to my alternative sleeve last week. Replaced GATEX. I think it will be a good fit. Held up quite well 1st quarter 2020. I’m very diversified. Largest single holding (DODBX) is at 8.7%. NLSAX is 7.95%.

@Crash, @Mark, @rforno, @PRESSmUP
What percentage of your portfolio do you allocate to these companies? Also, is it beneficial to hold them in retirement accounts, IRAs, if they have special tax consequences if held in a normal account?
Thank you

They're large positions (10%+), but I have several large positions. I don't worry much about percentage allocations of individual holdings per se since I prefer concentrated holdings in quality names which can lead to 'overweight' or 'majorly overweight' sector allocations ... which drives financial analysts/brokers/algos crazy when they run the numbers and go "OMG you have XX% in [stock/sector$] that's horrible!"

Sequence of Return Risk is discussed which may play a significant part in determing a SWR:
the-hidden-peril-in-sequence-of-returns-risk

global value investor Tom Russo says today’s investment environment is the most challenging of his 40-year career. He explains why his core companies are up to the challenge.

Also, is it beneficial to hold them in retirement accounts, IRAs, if they have special tax consequences if held in a normal account?
Thank you.
In particular, I know that ET generates a K-1 IRS form, which many people find burdensome to deal with. (Limited Partnership.) Not me. I'll just pay my tax guy, like every year, to do our 1040. But the K-1 form typically arrives very late! (Harumph.)
With regard to the K-1, I'm told that dividends amount to "Return Of Capital." Technically, they're giving you back your own money, non-taxable----- until they give you back so much that your own total cost basis is covered; then it becomes taxable. There are others here at MFO who know more than I do about it. Maybe they can contribute here, and tell us if I'm all wet and full of shit. ;)

@Crash, @Mark, @rforno, @PRESSmUP
Presently:
What percentage of your portfolio do you allocate to these companies? Also, is it beneficial to hold them in retirement accounts, IRAs, if they have special tax consequences if held in a normal account?
Thank you

@Mav123
Thanks for the question.
Presently: BHB= 3.6% of portfolio total.
ET = 3.09% of total.
RGR = 1.26% of total.
Tonight, they are 7.95% of portfolio. They all did badly today.
They are all in taxable account. In retirement, there's no Earned Income that makes contributing to the T-IRA a sensible thing to do. Our household income leaves us paying zero federal tax, anyhow.
I will be gradually growing my stake in single stocks. I keep an extensive watch-list. I'll never have enough money to own them all. But I'll pick up some, here and there, when the opportunity allows. Diversification is still important to me, and with options available which cover the waterfront, I'm right now looking at Marine shippers GRIN and PCFBY. .......Perennially, the big Canadian banks are on my list, but currently, I'm already 34% in Financials. (CM. BMO. RY. TD. BNS.) .....Also: CLF. And QAT. How much do I devote to these single stocks? Not enough. I don't think I'll ever reach a point where I must LIMIT my proportion of single-stocks, compared to funds. If I were younger and working, I suppose I'd try to strike a balance. Funds are inherently less risky. (See more in the very next post.)

Prob buy more Meta qqqm xlf tsla lcid spy vang2050 monday
Bottom likely in
Becareful of double dip/stagnation and another 10% -15% leg down next 3 6 wks
Very difficult to tell so far but odds little lowered compared last wk
Good news usdollar downtrends and oil commodities little downtrends also last wk
https://mobile.twitter.com/WillieDelwiche/status/1553056509747236864?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jpmorgan-says-market-bottom-near-120000886.html

The market appears to have a toping feel now.

Yes, indeed. Good discussion. I couldn't have made your point any better than you stated it, hank. But I have learned not to stay MARRIED to selections which are not serving their purpose any longer. Most obviously: losers. I don't need to wallow at the bottom of the well while the water is being drawn out past me, under my own nose. And it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing, either. I don't have to divest 100% from a fund because I'm dissatisfied with it. Patience. :)

Yes. TUHYX. down a penny, or -0.12%. Junk bonds. And of course, I had to log-in to my TRP account to make sure of that. What Morningstar is showing is inaccurate AGAIN. I called up a quote from the WSJ webpage which confirms the one penny loss today, to $8.47/share.

"...no science or art needed...."
But, but, but..... LIFE is an Art. Enough said. ;)

Hi Crash, I agree with you, BUT, the beauty of investing is the fact it can be extremely easy. Suppose someone decides to invest $1000 monthly in a target fund(made of indexes) for 40 years in Roth 401K, makes 8% annually, and never touch this money until retirement. She retires with about 3.2 million, not bad. At age 65, she takes SS and another 2-3% from her Roth for living expenses...DONE.
Of course, she can do better and invest more.
I believe the above can beat most investors, and even pros. KISS and effective, no science or art needed. I also think many people who participate in investing forums make things too complicated, including my own (system). Financial advisers make it complicated to confuse their clients.

Sounds like folks are talking past each other here …

Well, yes and no. I won’t disagree with LB. Made some excellent points. I’m into Marks’ thinking more on a philosophical level than his performance as an actual practitioner. I’m convinced that valuations at any given time are significantly elevated or depressed owing to public perception. If I can gain an edge by understanding that basic market dynamic (be it in preserving capital, reducing risk or making money) so be it. Marks is like a broken record ISTM. His is not a complex philosophy - though one most difficult to execute for some of the reasons Lewis points out. Not interested in owning his or any high fee hedge fund. He is one of dozens of successful investors today. Learn what you can from them all.
@FD1000 - Is there any professional fund manager (hedge fund, mutual fund, ETF) to your knowledge who is / or has ever been a more successful investor than you? If so, who might that be?

@Derf +1

Concur with LB.
More, I read many of Marks articles over the years and they are long. Lots of fluff with contradicting reasons of what to do and what not. The end result is hardly any specifics of what to do and when.

......Sounds like a very common reaction from years ago on this Board re: The Zurich Axioms: complaints about the Axioms containing contradictory observations and advice, making them virtually useless. I think the response here from @FD1000 illustrates perfectly the fact that we are all put together differently. We confront the world from different perspectives, operating with very different assumptions, fundamentally. Our various approaches to making sense of things will be different. My own reply is simple: investing is not a cut-and-dried process, like following a recipe. If that's the way one invests, I assert that it must be a method arrived at after much PRIOR investigation and analysis. Because not only the Markets, but the entire world, is a jumble of contradictory signals and noise and extraneous incidentals. Each of us must sort it all out for ourselves. I am very much in touch with the line of thought which says that investing is always some combination of both Science and Art. Very little in this life is all-or-nothing, either/or, or black or white. It's complicated. Anything which is important enough to matter is complicated.

You are absolutely right @yogibearbull. The average 12%, most accounts, invested in cash has been a drawback in returns, but on the other hand has been beneficial in 2022. I've always understood the cash investment is how they keep expenses at zero. Also, early on I thought they seemed to invest more than needed in EM and International while the U.S. was blowing the doors off every other geo-sector. I admit I had second thoughts on holding the robo at that time, but I'm glad now that I did.
Thanks for the post.

Just an FYI - on the question of commissions, most brokerages appear to charge a commission (e.g., 0.01%) in buying and selling Agency bonds. Today, Agency short term bonds were yielding nearly 50 pbs higher than Treasuries of the same maturities. If there is a wider interest in exploring Agency debt, we should open a separate thread to keep this thread on topic.

@MikeM, you probably know the story on Schwab robo-advisor better than others. Schwab took some flak on its aggressive ads for its robo-advisors being "free" (ER 0%) but it keeps more in cash at its own Schwab Bank (which lends that money and throws back some profits to the brokerage side). Other industry members complained to the SEC. Barron's excluded Schwab from its 2020 and 2021 rankings noting this mess. At the end, Schwab settled with the SEC, paid some $xxx millions in fines, but so minimally tweaked its ads that it is hard to see what all the fuss was about. And it joins Barron's ranking in 2022 - OK, at #9, but at least it is there. And now that it is "rehabilitated", it will probably move up on these rankings in future. AUM-wise, Schwab + TD Ameritrade have huge assets in robo-advisors.