Post New

You know, it's said the last stage of a long bear market is when there finally is Capitulation. I am wondering whether that's what we are seeing currently.

Not here of course, not for Berkshire who is far from a "bear market". No, for a specific group of tech stocks, the ones most here are familiar with under the label "Saas" ("Software as a Service"), the ones "Saul's" board is all about and which last year were sinking like stones thrown in a lake --- and are still far beneath the surface for everybody who bought last year or end of the year before, during the height of the hype.

Why it smells like capitulation? Because on "Saul's" board something unimaginable did happen two days ago: Saul himself posted "I am feeling really discouraged", explaining he "doesn't understand what's going on in the market at this point." and that he is "seriously feeling discouraged."

As most here know on his board Saul allows only posts about "the discussion and analyzing of individual high-growth companies" (Quote from "Rules of the Board"). Absolutely forbidden are expressively posts about "market timing", about "technical analysis", about "what the market is going to do next week" etc. etc. etc.

All such posts are not only "OT" for said board, but utterly taboo and forbidden --- but apparently not for the one who makes the rules.

I always thought "Leading and guiding by example" requires that you are your own model poster, that you demand more from yourself than from your followers, that you adhere super-strict to the rules you set and of which you demand others to adhere to.

Will Saul now excommunicate himself?

Naturally that post did open a gate, caused a flood of equally taboo OT posts about the "craziness" of the market who does not value their stocks as they deserve. Now, two days later, that long thread, initiated by Saul, is still is not deleted, Saul not excommunicated by Saul (Do Gods commit suicide when their world comes crashing down?), he did not even apologize.

As I am regularly watching that board with curiousity, seeing it as an interesting psychological and sociological experiment, I have seen similar before. Since a few months Saul from time to time has posts like this, posts he said should encourage others to stay course and not to give up, posts he would immediatedly ban (+ the poster!!!) in his well-known way if written by anybody else.

What's psychologically most fascinating for me is that this guy is a Psychiatrist, somebody who learned to observe and analyze others --- but himself? Reminds me on Bashar al-Assad, who is a doctor, somebody who once did bind himself by the hippocratic oath, either in it's original form or one of the modern variations to help sick people, to respect and to save human beings --- not to kill them.


Epilogue: Yes, this post of mine is extremely OT. But on the old Berkshire board there were quite some posters interested in Saul's board and in his stocks. Then it was part of the "board culture" to not only post about Berkshire but also about anything stocks and even generally investment related --- oh, and even about "Dave just ordered a Cybertruck".

We then were as I liked to call it kind of an "Old Ladies Afternoon Tea Club" --- with Jim making fun of that with "Whom do you call a bloody tea drinker!".

Yeah, those were the times. We had information and lots of ON Topic posts and discussions. But we also had fun, we had heated arguments (Hi Divi), we had it all. That's gone, together with many posters too.

The board is dying, is getting more and more uninteresting. It's just not possible to regularly post about Berkshire. For that the company is just too boring - luckily. You buy it, you hold it forever or until one day something substantially changes and your thesis for holding it gets cracks. Thanks to Jim and a few others you may discuss strategies how to improve performance by using leverage. But that's it.

Therefore I don't think it works what someone here told me privately, that he hopes for more posts "... that are real content, not just links to article and blogs and interviews". An understandable complaint, as there are more and more posts simply containing links to such ("Link to what super-important guy XYZ wrote: www...."), saving oneself to really work on a post.

That guy did not only complain. He himself does his best to provide real content. But I understand the other side as I myself as many others can't provide "real content" which others find interesting, very especially not about Berkshire, this boring company. I tried, with posts about my thoughts about option strategies for Berkshire, hoping that might initiate longer threads and discussions. I failed.

I think there is only a limited amount of "real content" to create with respect to Berkshire.

And that therefore the lifeblood of this board were content providers who deviated from the straight Berkshire line, highly respected people like Elias who with very thoughtful and elaborated posts shared their investment philosophy, told us what they look for, how they value a company, how they see the market and it's participants etc.

Many of those for me "real content" providers that were highly appreciated on the old board are silent or even gone (Elias, I miss you --- and many others).

The other lifeblood I think was that "Old Ladies Afternoon Tea Time", OT posts among people who knew each other online since many years, finding they coincidentally were both close to move to Southern France (Hi, dwerme) or to Portugal (Hi, Rubic). Gone. No more afternoon tea.

With even the notorious "Deviants" gone who were not appreciated but at least got our blood flowing (Hi, Divi. Goodbye, King) there is not probably not much more to say. Enjoy your Cybertruck, Dave.

I found Saul's group to be a terrific object lesson for all of us. We were watching a version of Tulipmania that was happening in real time, where the rulers of the board chastised people for ever mentioning valuations because they didn't matter. Anyone who's read Roger Lowenstein's various books, including his Buffett bio, knows that maxim about valuations not mattering always turns out horribly for most people who believe it, especially those who come in near the end when the music stops.

I think some discussion in that friendly social way is fine. I disliked the Tesla nonsense because I found a few of the main posters to have a disingenuous approach. They feigned ignorance about most investing matters and asked for patience in having the basics explained to them and yet got extremely aggressive towards anyone who didn't agree with their blind love for Tesla culture and its stock. They gloated when they were up, up, up and radio silence when they were down, down, down.

I used the frowny face to avoid seeing these posters but so many people interacted with them that it hardly mattered. There were times when I'd visit the old board and see that 90% of the posts were greyed out. Way too off-topic in that case.

I do think we should allow discussion of other stocks that show long-term promise here, since if you visit the boards for other stocks most have no one commenting on them and posting on those boards would be talking into cyberspace with no one aware you've posted there.

Hope this post is accepted in the spirit it is offered, as an honest assessment of what a rank amateur sees and what I'd like to see instead.

By all means, keep up the ON topic posts. I learn from them. Slowly, but I learn, eventually.

SD

Saul's latest posts are getting well over 20,000 views and 1,200 likes. I do not thing capitulazation is anywhere close yet. Unfortunately he bailed on Datadog and a couple of others, which turned up, to buy Enphase which did the 1/4 down dance...all while his other main holding Cloudflare also did the 1/4 down dog.

I've made mention so many times here, and it isn't a popular post, but it is accurate...that the posts with the most likes are almost always the ones we should be fearful of. We too are subject to crowd behavior.

But the Berkshire forum compared to all others is especially good. Thankfully we have a most popular poster (Jim) who is sane and not looking for accolades. It is a good thing here so it should be a culture and model we maintain as long as possible.

Saul's was a royal disaster in the makeing and still is. It is a cult, nothing but cult. Posters spend 90% of their time circling the wagons around Saul and Saul spend 90% of his time breaking the rules promoting himself.

Pardon my spelling...early a.m. mind of an old man!

Hi Said,

Nice rambling post. I bought some Saul stocks for entertainment. Missed the bottom but bought very low and will stay in for education and entertainment. My BRK fluctuates in a few hours in an amount greater than the whole deal, but having a few dollars in it keeps me looking.

Also, this new newfydog guy, who rarely posts, drinks tea, and knows a little bit about oil is the old TMF dwerme. I took the change of venue to remove my name. I'm currently in the south of France, not far from Jim's neighborhood.

Hi dwerme (alias whatever :)

Good to know you are still here. While I was writing my post about Saul it strangely somehow morphed into something else, into kind of a goodbye, with the vague feeling of it being the last post (together with another one I wrote at the same time). But knowing that old pals might still be around, although now with new handles unfairly undercover and hard to recognize, of course changes the picture and gives hope the "Old ladies afternoon teatime" might not be over yet.

I don't mind the occasional OT post at all, including macro stuff or "afternoon tea" posts about the south of France, or whatever.

However I am sure glad that most posters I had on ignore stayed back on the old Fool board. Just so you know Said, I had you on ignore as well, because you chose to engage in endless, pointless, antagonizing discussions with some of those posters and kept feeding those threads. I hope you don't try to bring these discussions here.

If the post volume is lower, some posts are only links to articles, and there is the occasional gem, including substantiated contrarian views, posted by Jim and others, that's totally fine with me.

as I am in the process of buying my home in the S.of France, perhaps we could initiate "old Ladies who drink afternoon pastis " ? I'm sure that would liven up the odd O/T post here :-)

I first tried to buy a place in France during the economic meltdown of 2008. We looked at places for two months, during which we lost all the net worth we had earmarked for a second home. We loved the house we rented however and have rented it every year since.

We crawled back to the US with our wings clipped, and put the cash reserved for a house into BRK. Worked out well.

Think I'll pour a Pastis, and wonder how it turns cloudy upon hitting the ice. :)

We loved the house we rented however and have rented it every year since.

May I ask where? DW and I will be in Nice soon (May 10-16) and then in Paris for 4 weeks. We're thinking of spending less time in Paris in the future and more time in the south. I very much prefer to be within walking/biking distance of the sea, if possible.

yes , a weighty question to ponder, is it the water or one's brains that turn cloudy.....multiple experiments are justified.

i have bought in the Herault.. I am not walking distance to sea, but 10 miles from lagoon and 12 from clean beaches...suggest if sea is important to you, in this neck of the woods, Marseillan or Meze. Sete is an interesting option for jazzy, cukturally diverse, but too crowded for me. I prefer cycling the vineyards and explorong wine, food and especially history and architecture. another option is the Narbonne/Gruissan .. if I had not personal reasons to be in another town (pezenas) I would have bought there, plus ist cheaper.
this area is as near as you can still get to La France profonde , and yet be close to the sea,

We stay in the village of Cotinac. Draw a line from Nice to Marseille and it is in the middle. Well inland of the sea, the place is hard to describe in any superlatives'-it is simply extremely pleasant and easy. The mountain biking is fabulous, restaurants decent. Robin Williams used to live there, but the hype is low key.

Akkk! Cotignac, not Cotinac. I had one job in the post and still messed it up!

I don't want to annoy anybody with another post about Saul, but even for traditional Berkshire shareholders it's worthwhile to read this VERY DIFFERENT THAN USUAL piece he wrote just a few hours ago:

https://discussion.fool.com/t/where-i-ve-been-and-...

Some excerpts, so that you can judge for yourself whether it's worthwhile for you to read it:

- I was wrong! But I have pivoted more recently.

- The smart thing to have done was to have taken a lot of the cash out and left the rest in to keep growing. I took some out, but I wish I had taken out more. I was slow to react to the accumulation of factors which piled up on our companies.

- The proportion of my total funds that is in stocks is getting smaller and smaller..... if I add in funds that I have in cash or equivalents elsewhere than with my broker, about 47.2% of the total is in cash or equivalent

- I plan start lending much more of my attention to PE, EPS, FCF, etc.

It's also interesting that someone who did show over many years amazing stock picking skills and instinct for the market is of the opinion "I realize that we are probably close to the bottom, and this isn't such a good time to be in cash" and nevertheless says "but who cares, I have enough of both, and if the investment part goes up it's just gravy." which is exactly my philosophy nowadays, kind of "If you have enough (nearly) the only way to go bankrupt is to be greedy".

I am baffled, and will definitely continue to follow that board, curious about the responses. Unfortunately because of the censoring eventual furious replies will be deleted, so it won't be a true reflection of what Saul's followers might think.

But I am also curious about the future developments, as I am still of the opinion that many highly intelligent and analytical people are on that board, just sometimes a bit naive (typical IT, same as me).

<< which is exactly my philosophy nowadays, kind of "If you have enough (nearly) the only way to go bankrupt is to be greedy".>>

I find this ingeniously framed. I think if a lot of people reflected on it (in the investing context), some major life difficulties and time-wasting stress could be solved.

Greed, and likewise crime, is like a narcotic. It works at first, and then you increase exposure, and when it stops working you wish you hadn't strayed so innocently there to start with.

- Manlobbi

Said's mention of the Saul's experience is to me relevant enough to be posted here on the board. The reason I think it is relevant is that it is completely rational to question very large intelligent people's group/cult-like behavior when it goes to what is always in clear current view and hindsight an illogical manner or place. Saul's erronous thinking was screaming at his huge, and it was really huge, following.

Yes it is irrational and many who knelt at Saul's alter will have a lifetime of poor investment returns because of it. The Berkshire board is not only a place for Berkshire discussion but a Charlie Munger-like place for logical discussion. And we do that here for the most part.

I felt it my obligation to post on the old Saul's forum and of course it was condemned and deleted. Since the post the stocks in that obsession have lost at least 70% and the grand leader marched right out of those stocks into ones that have lost 25%. You can't start investing with $100, end up a couple years later with $20 and think you are going to match a market multiple over 20 years.

But anyway it is what it is, price envy and short term thinking is 95% of all investment forums and at times was the focus of the old TMF Berk board. It seems we've moved from that.

Meanwhile, right here close to home we've had some Brookfield obsessions in the past. Being a multi-decade owner of Bruce's what is now a "yardsale" in my opinion the group has as-of-yet been wrong (based on the stock price...which itself of course may be wrong). But it was against the rules to question the theme, and it is going to be interesting to see if what happens there. I'll probably add to BN today.

Life is great...if you can stand it! I appreciate Said's reminder that a mention of something Charlie Munger would surely mention is not off-topic. It is a glaring, screaming, in-your-face wake-up call to stay rational and patient.

But anyway it is what it is, price envy and short term thinking is 95% of all investment forums and at times was the focus of the old TMF Berk board. It seems we've moved from that.

A remarkable "so am I but what are you" sentence in this post.

For more than 20 years, Saul's investments have AVERAGED 29% CAGR.

Then in November of 2021 they spent 6 months going back to levels they hadn't seen since, wait for it, 2019. They have spent the last year in the doldrums, hanging around at levels they haven't see since 2019, but still a substantial gain over where they were at the beginning of 2019.

So Mr. "long term thinking" looks at the gains of the last more than 20 years, and looks at the gains in the last 5 years and... ignores them!

Instead Mr. "long term thinking" climbs on his high, but obviously extremely near-sighted horse and professes whatever he professes.

It is a remarkable thing to see such irrationality all in under the banner of rationality. If I could be so bold, I commend the nearly presidential quality of it!

****

OK know that I have deservedly lost you all by being a bit of flame-nut, let me talk to people who actually care to look at what is going on rather than praying to the local deities. Indeed, the last 2 years have not been a good time to be a Saul investor, although the last FIVE years are just fine and the last TWENTY years is truly remarkable. So what is going on?

Indeed as some of the more thoughtful commentators on this board have pointed out, Saul is NOT a value investor. His method consists of identifying growth stocks that he thinks will OUTGROW the other growth stocks, and then buy them. Saul does NOT attempt to pick between which Saul stocks are cheaper than others, he is simply betting that 50%/year growth will eventually prevail over any mispricing at his entry points.

And this has been right, on average, for a long time for Saul. One could say that on average, he has managed to harvest 30%/year (nearly) CAGR by buying companies that are growing at 50%/year. He doesn't manage to make 50%/year on companies growing at 50%/year, but seriously, 30% isn't good enough efficiency for a portfolio?

There are undoubtedly plenty of good reasons to prefer 13%/year from BRK over 29%/year from Saul Stocks. But pretending that there are not plenty of good reasons to prefer a lumpy 29% return over a smoother 13% return is, well, perhaps overplaying your hand.

AND not even realizing that the Saul Port has TROUNCED BRK as a stock over more than 2 decades, well how do you argue with something like that?

R:)

PS: yes it hurts and I am very sad that I am down by 2/3 or so from my peak on the Saul part of my port. But I'm pretty sure that "buy when it is fun, sell when it hurts" is the opposite of good trading advice, assuming by "good" we mean making money. -R

Obviously no capitualation yet.

Obviously no capitualation yet.

Y'all do realize that the point of the observation about the market not turning until the last bull turns bear (i.e. capitulates) is that if you DON'T capitulate, you get to make money on the market turning bull?

"Be greedy while others are fearful". Isn't that just French for "don't capitulate"?

Y'all do realize that the point of the observation about the market not turning until the last bull turns bear (i.e. capitulates) is that if you DON'T capitulate, you get to make money on the market turning bull?

"Be greedy while others are fearful". Isn't that just French for "don't capitulate"?

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I thought that Saul was a value investor until he found saas.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I thought that Saul was a value investor until he found saas.

Probably not a deep value investor, rather a growth at a reasonable price (GARP) kind of strategy before 2018.

That said, he must have changed his style several times, if his historical results are to be believed.

Someone should ask him how he (supposedly) made 46.9% in 2001, 19.7% in 2002, and 124.5% in 2003, after the dot-com bubble burst. That was a tough environment for growth, what worked at that time was pharma, high dividend and deep value.

It is strange that he never mentions succesful stocks from the past, it's as if there are no lessons from the dozens or hundreds of investments he must have made in 30+ years.

Probably not a deep value investor, rather a growth at a reasonable price (GARP) kind of strategy before 2018.

That said, he must have changed his style several times, if his historical results are to be believed.

Someone should ask him how he (supposedly) made 46.9% in 2001, 19.7% in 2002, and 124.5% in 2003, after the dot-com bubble burst. That was a tough environment for growth, what worked at that time was pharma, high dividend and deep value.

It is strange that he never mentions succesful stocks from the past, it's as if there are no lessons from the dozens or hundreds of investments he must have made in 30+ years.

I read his knowledge base. It was written before he was hypergrowth. He talked a lot about 1 year peg ratios. That sounds like garp. Someone said he produced his brokerage statements going back to 1993. Jim Simons does 66% a year, so there are a very few who are exceptional. Certainly not me.

In my perspective it doesn't take long reading Saul, particularly when he's flying high or supposed has flow high (always long ago), to see the obvious insatiable need for admiration. I've never seen anyone online post his accomplishments anywhere close to as many times as "Saul" does. I can't help but wonder at times if it is a group experiment by some research organization to see how well the Cialdini 7 manipulators work.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.