Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of BRK.ABest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of BRK.ABest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (30) |
Author: mungofitch 🐝🐝🐝 GOLD
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 21944 
Subject: Re: Ot scaling back stocks
Date: 01/09/25 10:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 11
This is gambler's fallacy. ...
Short term, IV stays the same, price pops up by a random number. Why should it go back to IV? Slot machines have no memory.


Because the stock market isn't a slot machine, it's a weighing machine. Prices aren't random, they are mean reverting (admittedly slowly and weakly) to fair value. Most stock prices visit it from time to time. And even if they stay far from it for a long stretch at some high or low value, there will be oscillations about that abnormal level.

It's easy to prove to yourself: Pick any stock history for which you have an estimate of fair value, which is presumably fairly smooth. Let's say you use your cyclically adjusted EPS estimate as an example.
Check the buy and hold returns for some long stretch of time.
Check the return for the same stretch of a strategy that periodically (weekly, whatever) rebalances to a dollar value equal to a constant times your smooth EPS number.
The second strategy will have a higher IRR. And of course you will have much better risk control: you'll never own a bubble-sized allocation to a bubble-priced stock.

In the degenerate case of a stock with no change in its intrinsic value estimate you will have a constant number of dollars invested in the stock, and the breakeven price on that block of stock will gradually fall because you will be periodically selling a small piece at a higher price and buying a small piece at a lower price over and over again. Over time the position will be throwing off a slow net stream of cash.

I'm not saying this is the best strategy in the world, but it does what it says on the tin. The biggest drawback is that it presupposes that you have a material cash allocation and you don't have a strong opinion on exactly how much of your portfolio it accounts for: not everyone is in that boat. Oh, and don't try it with a stock which has any conceivable chance of actually falling in intrinsic value! As you note, intrinsic value can change abruptly--you can lose money on those no matter what your position sizing strategy is. Just use the strategy on picks where the trajectory of IV (though not necessarily the slope) is the steadiest you can find.

Jim
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to mungofitch here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 21,448 posts about Berkshire Hathaway. The article-length ones it recommended most:
BRK: Why Not XOM? · 62 recs · 2024
Second quarter comments · 60 recs · 2023
Berkshire's Profit Contributors · 57 recs · 2023
Summary of 2Q 2026 · 54 recs · 2026
3Q Summary · 53 recs · 2024
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (30) |


Announcements
Berkshire Hathaway FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of BRK.A | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community