Scottish mortgage trust: a buy or a trap?

Thrugelmir

Quotes always need to be read in the full context that were originally made. As form part of a much broader statement.

Peter Lynch also said "“Know what you own, and know why you own it.”

If there is a stock of the moment that this applies to, then SMT is certainly it.

The more volatile a stock, the more risky it is – with the rewards being potentially very high, or disappointingly low. Lower volatility stocks change less often and more gradually, and as a result tend to generate lower but more consistent returns. 

adindas

Thrugelmir said:

Quotes always need to be read in the full context that were originally made. As form part of a much broader statement.

Peter Lynch also said "“Know what you own, and know why you own it.”

If there is a stock of the moment that this applies to, then SMT is certainly it.

The more volatile a stock, the more risky it is – with the rewards being potentially very high, or disappointingly low. Lower volatility stocks change less often and more gradually, and as a result tend to generate lower but more consistent returns. 

I posted the link of the video about what his view on volatility come directly from his mouth as a result from an interview in this thread. Search it

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6167293/suggestions-for-a-speculative-punt/p1

Of course he will also query you why you bought it in the first instance. This is certainly make sense as if you want to sell sell you will need to strat form this thesis why you own it is there any fundamental change ???

Thrugelmir

adindas said:

Thrugelmir said:

Quotes always need to be read in the full context that were originally made. As form part of a much broader statement.

Peter Lynch also said "“Know what you own, and know why you own it.”

If there is a stock of the moment that this applies to, then SMT is certainly it.

The more volatile a stock, the more risky it is – with the rewards being potentially very high, or disappointingly low. Lower volatility stocks change less often and more gradually, and as a result tend to generate lower but more consistent returns. 

As a long-term investment professional (I remember you mention it in one of your posts) you do not actually know well who Peter Lynch is. I posted the link of the video about what his view on volatility come directly from his mouth as a result from an interview in this thread. Search it

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6167293/suggestions-for-a-speculative-punt/p1

Of course he will also query you why you bought it in the first instance.

He wasn't talking about SMT though.  You are falling into the trap of using confirmation bias to reinforce your personal views. After decades of investing personally. I've plenty of first hand experience of volatility, changing economic and market conditions and the world of corporate finance. 

Thrugelmir

adindas said:

Thrugelmir said:

adindas said:

Thrugelmir said:

Quotes always need to be read in the full context that were originally made. As form part of a much broader statement.

Peter Lynch also said "“Know what you own, and know why you own it.”

If there is a stock of the moment that this applies to, then SMT is certainly it.

The more volatile a stock, the more risky it is – with the rewards being potentially very high, or disappointingly low. Lower volatility stocks change less often and more gradually, and as a result tend to generate lower but more consistent returns. 

As a long-term investment professional (I remember you mention it in one of your posts) you do not actually know well who Peter Lynch is. I posted the link of the video about what his view on volatility come directly from his mouth as a result from an interview in this thread. Search it

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6167293/suggestions-for-a-speculative-punt/p1

Of course he will also query you why you bought it in the first instance.

He wasn't talking about SMT though.  You are falling into the trap of using confirmation bias to reinforce your personal views. After decades of investing personally. I've plenty of first hand experience of volatility, changing economic and market conditions and the world of corporate finance. 

Well, people are using their knowledge to make money. By the end of the day, it does not really matter how long you have been investing, how long you have been as professional what matter is did you beat the market consistently or not if not than what is the difference with those who know nothing then just blindly throw their money into index fund like S&P500, a well-diversified fund and forget it ?

Keep in mind doing such thing you do not need to waste time learning a lot of things you do not need to listen to UpToDate news, etc.

Can I ask how many years you've been investing? 

masonic

Thrugelmir said:

adindas said:

Thrugelmir said:

adindas said:

Thrugelmir said:

Quotes always need to be read in the full context that were originally made. As form part of a much broader statement.

Peter Lynch also said "“Know what you own, and know why you own it.”

If there is a stock of the moment that this applies to, then SMT is certainly it.

The more volatile a stock, the more risky it is – with the rewards being potentially very high, or disappointingly low. Lower volatility stocks change less often and more gradually, and as a result tend to generate lower but more consistent returns. 

As a long-term investment professional (I remember you mention it in one of your posts) you do not actually know well who Peter Lynch is. I posted the link of the video about what his view on volatility come directly from his mouth as a result from an interview in this thread. Search it

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6167293/suggestions-for-a-speculative-punt/p1

Of course he will also query you why you bought it in the first instance.

He wasn't talking about SMT though.  You are falling into the trap of using confirmation bias to reinforce your personal views. After decades of investing personally. I've plenty of first hand experience of volatility, changing economic and market conditions and the world of corporate finance. 

Well, people are using their knowledge to make money. By the end of the day, it does not really matter how long you have been investing, how long you have been as professional what matter is did you beat the market consistently or not if not than what is the difference with those who know nothing then just blindly throw their money into index fund like S&P500, a well-diversified fund and forget it ?

Keep in mind doing such thing you do not need to waste time learning a lot of things you do not need to listen to UpToDate news, etc.

Can I ask how many years you've been investing? 

Adindas has declined to comment on this earlier in the thread, but is a forum regular. Certainly no less than a decade: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3504847/how-to-cash-my-share

adindas

Thrugelmir said:

adindas said:

Thrugelmir said:

Quotes always need to be read in the full context that were originally made. As form part of a much broader statement.

Peter Lynch also said "“Know what you own, and know why you own it.”

If there is a stock of the moment that this applies to, then SMT is certainly it.

The more volatile a stock, the more risky it is – with the rewards being potentially very high, or disappointingly low. Lower volatility stocks change less often and more gradually, and as a result tend to generate lower but more consistent returns. 

As a long-term investment professional (I remember you mention it in one of your posts) you do not actually know well who Peter Lynch is. I posted the link of the video about what his view on volatility come directly from his mouth as a result from an interview in this thread. Search it

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6167293/suggestions-for-a-speculative-punt/p1

Of course he will also query you why you bought it in the first instance.

He wasn't talking about SMT though.  You are falling into the trap of using confirmation bias to reinforce your personal views. After decades of investing personally. I've plenty of first hand experience of volatility, changing economic and market conditions and the world of corporate finance. 

https://novelinvestor.com/happy-hour-peter-lynch-volatility/

Peter Lynch View on Volatility.

I also posted the link to the video on another thread when he talked about volatility.

But anyway, it is just a view of one of a successful fund manager. Other fund managers or we might have a different view.

adindas

Alexland said:

The video replay of Jerome Powell yesterday was a bit like a funeral for what little hopes there were of any overall return occurring in the near future with strong earnings growth being carefully offset by increasing interest rates to control inflation. But if they don't give investors enough hope or reason to be in the market then valuations will continue to decline particularly at the more speculative end of the market. On the bright side the next few years should be a good period to be making regular contributions.

But it will contradict to the general view 

“Not try timing the market” but you should instead favour “time in the market” ??

Another quote: “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.”??

masonic

adindas said:

Alexland said:

The video replay of Jerome Powell yesterday was a bit like a funeral for what little hopes there were of any overall return occurring in the near future with strong earnings growth being carefully offset by increasing interest rates to control inflation. But if they don't give investors enough hope or reason to be in the market then valuations will continue to decline particularly at the more speculative end of the market. On the bright side the next few years should be a good period to be making regular contributions.

But it will contradict to the general view 

“Not try timing the market” but you should instead favour “time in the market” ??

Another quote: “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.”??

Most people get drip fed their income, so making regular contributions is maximising time in the market. There is no contradiction in this case. You can't invest what you've not yet earned.

Prism

Most people invest through their pension contributions. No market timing, just monthly contributions over many years. 

Alexland

masonic said:

You can't invest what you've not yet earned.

Well I guess most of us do, or have done, some upfront leveraged investment via the use of a mortgage but it would be a strange world if everyone calculated their expected lifetime investment account contributions and borrowed a lump sum to invest at the start which was calculated at a level for the loan to be only just affordable for the remainder of their workling lives.