Warren Buffet's mantra - 'Buy when no one else is'. So, why aren't you?

wolvoman

Reaper wrote: »

This seems to be the current trend. People with large stacks of money (him, Arab sovereign funds etc) are getting stunning investment deals which I would buy if I could. Since I can't the dross that's left looks largely unapealing.

I'm sure you could buy a local business for similar such discounts. There must be dozens who could use the cash to replace withdrawn bank funding, and you could land yourself a nice big equity stake on preferential terms.

It's not about having large stacks of money, it's about having vision and balls.

baileysbattlebus

Davesnave wrote: »

I bought because I saw something that met my needs in an area I liked and at a price that is well inside my budget; in fact it's cheaper than the one I sold. Hopefully, I can now get on with my life.

Frankly, if this place hadn't happened along, I'd have been happy to hang on for another 6 months, or more. There would have been no point in buying something only half-right, regardless of where the market might be.

We bought at the bottom of the last crash - for the reasons stated above.
There was nothing scientific in buying at the bottom - we needed a bigger house and one came along that was exactly what we wanted at a price we could comfortably afford. Interest rates were at a comfortable level. Into single figures for the first time in nearly 5 years. We bought in the 3rd qtr of 1993 and prices went lower than that in only 1 qtr during the following year. In our area that is.

We didn't know it was the bottom until a couple of years later when the slight increases and decreases in prices had stopped and the movement was always upwards.

The not so clever thing was selling at the bottom too!!!

Thrugelmir

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Did Buffet ever say something to the effect of "Sell before the next big thing hits..." ?

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE55127J20090602?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

"Abu Dhabi sold more than 11 percent of Barclays, making $2.5 billion from an investment that helped the British bank through the financial crisis and raising fears more may cash in on a recent rally in bank shares."

A 15% hit on Barclays today...simple, sensible profit taking, or an astute move before the second (or is it third) wave...?

Most likely profit taking as remember they are holding warrants as well which will dilute existing shareholders in the future....... so very astute.

sabretoothtigger

Warren Buffet's mantra - 'Buy when no one else is'. So, why aren't you?

I dont get why you'd mention this when it appears more people are involved in the market in various ways then any time since last sept

Thrugelmir

Conrad wrote: »

Do you know of a very low charge product, probably non managed, which tracks say the FTSE 250? I'm obsessive about charges and nothing I've seen convinces me a fund manager brings any particular value to the party, but from which he and is entourage will take a bit cut in fees.

Never been a fan of unit trusts. Always invested in Investment Trusts over the years. As I like transparency to what the underlying holdings are.
I don't actively trade so like to build my holdings up over a period of time. Average cost and all that. Always with a focus on dividend yield. Also taking advantage of wide discounts for the large funds such as Foreign & Colonial when they occur. It was interesting how many fund managers shunned certain banking stocks prior to the collapse of NR and Lehmans. Even though yields were attractive.

I've never favoured trackers. I never bought any Dotcom shares for that matter. Even to this day I remember having endless discussions about the valuation of LastMinute.com . Prefer investment in tangible cash generating companies.

mewbie_2

Didn't Buffet (the ex sage of anything), have to apologise to his investors at the last meeting? Apparently pursuing the same investment strategy for three hundred years doesn't always pay off.

Thrugelmir

mewbie wrote: »

Didn't Buffet (the ex sage of anything), have to apologise to his investors at the last meeting? Apparently pursuing the same investment strategy for three hundred years doesn't always pay off.

Even so he hasn't done badly over the years!

mewbie_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Even so he hasn't done badly over the years!

Agreed. But it is nice, and cautionary, to know that no one is perfect

sabretoothtigger

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Most likely profit taking as remember they are holding warrants as well which will dilute existing shareholders in the future....... so very astute.

Any future dilution we know about is in the price already or should be, they cant just dodge things like that any more then we can

Lloyds and hbos didnt merge for 3 months but it effected the prices of both the minute peston went on the news about the possibility of it happening


I do agree barclays seemed to be way overvalued by current estimates and obviously sheik watsit thought so to some extent.

The best explaination Ive heard so far is that the lehman assets are producing profit expansion in that division of barclays at a parabolic rate. They are wall streets biggest player, not just a uk bank anymore
Im not sure what their proper worth is, does anyone


Discussion with a negative view :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/questor/5430742/The-Man-City-Sheikh-has-a-winning-investment-strategy.html

I think there is an ETF from ishares which covers the FTSE250

There are lots of all share trackers. problem is its weighted to the big companies and ftse has gigantic companies so all your money ends up with them anyway.
It would be interesting to have an etf that has no ftse100 but all of the ftse350. Also a sector etf but these dont exist any more afaik

Thrugelmir

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

Any future dilution we know about is in the price already or should be, they cant just dodge things like that any more then we can

Lloyds and hbos didnt merge for 3 months but it effected the prices of both the minute peston went on the news about the possibility of it happening


I do agree barclays seemed to be way overvalued by current estimates and obviously sheik watsit thought so to some extent.

The best explaination Ive heard so far is that the lehman assets are producing profit expansion in that division of barclays at a parabolic rate. They are wall streets biggest player, not just a uk bank anymore
Im not sure what their proper worth is, does anyone


Discussion with a negative view :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/questor/5430742/The-Man-City-Sheikh-has-a-winning-investment-strategy.html



There are lots of all share trackers. problem is its weighted to the big companies and ftse has gigantic companies so all your money ends up with them anyway.
It would be interesting to have an etf that has no ftse100 but all of the ftse350. Also a sector etf but these dont exist any more afaik

Still a significant warrant holding.

Sheikh Mansour is holding on to warrants which allow him to buy 780m Barclays shares at 198p until autumn 2013.

Good article in the Guardian. More shares to be offloaded tomorrow as well possibly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/02/barclays-shares-sheikh-mansour