[CrushinFelt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will try to rephrase things differently. If there are stocks where my theory isn't true and my technique is unnecessary, then it is also unnecesary to have anywhere near the 50% cushion you require, when investing in these stocks, as long as you have any sort of reasonable value assigning skills.

The above is pure logic. You don't even need to know what a stock IS for it to be true.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unnecessary for what? Unnecessary for who's goals, yours or his? You don't make your argument correct by invoking magical phrases like, "Amen", "Right on", or "It's pure logic". Let's suppose that, as you say, your theory is not true and your technique is unnecessary. Why does this imply that DC's strategy of only buying bargains at 50% discount to Instrinsic Value is by "pure logic" now obviously too conservative? You use the phrase 50% "cushion". "Cushion" is not the idea. The idea is to do research to find the best bargains possible without insisting on such rare super bargains that you can't find them often enough to put your money to work adequately.

You have to decide on some cutoff point which you think is optimal. DessertCat has settled on buying bargains at a 50% discount. There's no reason why supposing your theory is untrue should imply a change in the optimality of that cutoff point.

If buying at 40% discounts to DC's evaluation of intrinsic value amounts to pulling the cash trigger too fast and missing out on the adequately plentiful 50% discounts that a little more patience and research will uncover then supposing your theory to be untrue does not change that fact. Your Pure Logic is Pure Baloney in this case.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

PTB,

The 50% number isn't an arbitrary number set by DC that is meant to say, "I want a minimum 50% return on my investments." I believe it is a cushion that is used to protect himself from variance. What DS is trying to say is that there needn't be such a large cushion if you can more accurately determine which of the investments is more likely to do well, which his "accounting for the other side of the market" is meant to do. The misleading thing about the title of this thread is the fact I can guarantee there's zero chance that successful FAs take this into account at least somewhat.