S&P 500 at 5,000?

[EthicsGradient]

So "quality" doesn't have to include "avoided catastrophic bad decisions that would have seen them go bust if the government didn't think they were too big to allow to fail". I think this means the word "quality" is effectively useless for this purpose.

Sorry, you're addressing the wrong audience here. I named my kid after the terrorist Nelson Mandela.

GS

Are you saying that you're just trolling in this thread?

[GoSeigen]

<EDIT>

Sorry, you're addressing the wrong audience here. I named my kid after the terrorist Nelson Mandela.

GS

Are you saying that you're just trolling in this thread?

Nope, I'm saying that I am a believer in redemption and forward-looking, which hopefully explains my view of UK banks.

</EDIT>

Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC and RBS for a start. But their prices are well off their lows, how brave do you feel?




GS

Already got 3 of those. This is (the?) one area where I suspect we are in broad agreement

I don't much like giving tips and you probably don't like taking them but it's a bull market** and they're in a bull trend.


GS
(**) Oh.... sorry!

[simoan]

Not at all. Nokia was a rubbish company with poor profitability metrics. Under Steve Ballmer as CEO, Microsoft actually bought its handset business to its great financial detriment. I understand survivor bias all too well and you can cry about it all you want. Buying quality compounding companies is a well proven long-term winning strategy. Buffet and Munger have been doing it for decades before the likes of Fundsmith.

Please do enlighten us with a list of quality companies we should be investing in right now.

BoE

Basic comprehension of English seems to be a struggle for you. Perhaps it's not your first language, in which case I apologise. What do you (and the other poster crying foul of "survivorship bias" ) NOT understand in the post I made earlier in this thread that you also seemed to not comprehend back then either:

The problem with these kinds of observations, is that investing is about the future, not the past. FWIW my own US portfolio has beaten the S&P500 because of very overweight positions in Apple and Microsoft, plus more latterly a large position in the US listed shares of Cameco. But that's not big or clever. Who would've predicted such performance? Not me, especially when Steve Ballmer was CEO of Microsoft and he thought it'd be a great idea to buy Nokia. FWLIW my largest position is in Fundsmith Equity which has managed a not too shabby 15.4% since inception in late 2010, although some of that gain will be due to Sterling depreciation.

If only you and your HYP chums were so honest about their performance.

[simoan]

Not at all. Nokia was a rubbish company with poor profitability metrics. Under Steve Ballmer as CEO, Microsoft actually bought its handset business to its great financial detriment. I understand survivor bias all too well and you can cry about it all you want. Buying quality compounding companies is a well proven long-term winning strategy. Buffet and Munger have been doing it for decades before the likes of Fundsmith.

You can't say Nokia was a rubbish company. They dominated the mobile phone market with excellent hardware. But they didn't change fast enough to the new form factor. I'm not sure anyone could see their demise coming when they were at the height of their dominance.

Well, you need to be more specific about the period of time you are referring to? For a time before the GFC it had pretty good profitability metrics, although gross margins never got above 40% which is about the line I draw in order to a call a company good quality. I admit calling it "rubbish" is another bias you can point to with at least some justification this time