You didn't blame India for your losses in POT. An oversight? Or an intentional pass by a real man who knows exactly on whom to assign the blame for his losses? I suspect the latter.
Does your multi-year fertilizer enema feel better when you read and disseminate bullish views of the industry?
You're arguably the worst investor I've ever encountered. You couldn't take a 200% profit in 2011; you couldn't get out to preserve capital even when your "doyen" told you in no uncertain terms to sell.
All you had to do was buy index tracking funds. ~20% in 2012. ~30% in 2013. Widows and orphans beat you. And they'll continue to beat you. I couldn't beat my best funds with active investing.
Please don't move. Nurse will be with you shortly to change the bag.
"What's your basis for asking someone that?" asks "phondelic."
You really need to see a doctor, a7. Sending an alias of your usual alias into the ring to do your fighting for you... Don't waste your time trying to deny it.
What's my basis for asking you how many share you have? What's your basis for deflecting the subject and avoiding a direct answer? What are you hiding?
You're given to boasting about the size of your position, how long you've held it, and how long you intend to hold it. A reasonable person can be forgiven for asking the reasonable questions, How many shares POT do you have and what is your basis?
" I own a great deal of POT shares and..."
Enough with the vague implications that you're a player. Put some weight behind your words. Exactly how many shares POT do you own? What's your basis?
cuny, I know we're a long way out from dinner at The Oyster Bar, but this morning I'm thinking about something I rarely do: ordering desert. On your dime, of course.
POT Dec $35 calls? Why? Potash is not iPads. All potash is alike. Ural's is as good as Canpotex's. Ural can deliver cheaper to Asian customers. North American crop prices will not take POT higher. Plus you're going to encounter Dec tax sellng. Are you betting on the cartel's re-forming? That's the only thing that makes sense. I made the same bet. A modest bet on which I'm ready to lose. So explain your logic.
Just playing devil's advocate while I peruse the desert menu. At this moment, the chocolate tiramisu torte is in the pole position.
Mon cher cuny (is that for City Univ, the hallowed halls of C.C.N.Y.?),
I followed a similar route to the hard truth that passive investing in indexes beats active investing. When my father went to his reward, my mother kept bugging me about what to do with her money. To get her off my back, and keep her from second-guessing my picks, I advised her to keep the bonds (munis, for the most part), sell most of the stocks, and buy Vanguard index funds. She did. I should have taken my own advice. Over twenty plus years, she beat me. Her kids thank her.
There's a ton of good data to support the thesis that passive investing beats active. There is no good data to support the opposite view.
abracadabaraman7 isn't paper trading. He's not even trading. He is incapable of taking a superb profit or a reasonable loss. All that patience stuff is cyber-smoke to cover his inadequacies. His fertilizers have done so poorly, they'll never overtake the passive investor who has been sitting on indexes.
He has to answer two questions: 1. how much money does he have in fertilizer stocks? $10k? $50k? 200k? It makes a difference. If he has ten grand worth, he can have the patience of Job, because the outcome doesn't matter. On the other hand, if he has a lot of money in ferts, he's a terrible investor. 2. What's his annualized rate of return? The rest is commentary, angels dancing on the head of a pin.
You have a good price on POT. And yes, I also like to gamble. NFLX @ 98.00. Got back into APPL last month. You can see I favor tech. Mining stocks won't bring in jerks who will pay anything and take you higher (see above; NFLX).
The Oyster Bar ain't what it used to be. I liked it better a long time ago, when it was a dump but the chowder actually contained chowder. But we're on. (I have fond memories of the bar at the top of the stairs leading to Vanderbilt St. I used to rendezvous there with friends. Now the bar is the Apple Store. A Martini trumps a flash drive.
Of course it's above average. You asked a question I answered it. What is your point?
"I guess if they average more than 4.5%, or whatever POT's current dividend yield is, perhaps they would be a better choice."
So far this year the S&P has returned almost 23%.
Guilty, your honor. Those were my words. I see what I see. I see a lot of P & K. I see a busted cartel. I see projects waiting for price improvement. I see CAPEX having exposed a lot of new cheap P for easy mining. I see a bunch of factors conspiring to keep a lid on profits for a good long while. I suspect we'll have some modest stock price improvement (as a demonstration of my agnosticism, I bought calls on the possibility that ferts have bottomed, and of the Asian cartel re-combining), but that wasn't my argument. The subject was owing POT long-term vs. owning indexes.
What is your point, stainless?
Meine Liebe hound,
I was hoping to get Abracadabraman7 to take the bet, but he has no ball$ (and no big sum of money in the market, either. Anyone with a large "field bet" on ferts would have read the sell signals on POT and gotten out two years ago. Anyone with a large investment in ferts who has been holding through the recent Uralkali debacle would be tearing his hair out. But this is the internet, a hall of mirrors. There's no real-life upside to admitting you're a fool who can't exit a bad position. There's no penalty for a lack of integrity. Better to say you've got the patience of Job.).
Fed Chair Yellen will not turn off the faucet any time soon. But yes, one day it will to some degree be turned off. A large correction in equities might very well obtain. I understand that. By 2020, we could experience two or three business cycles. I took all that into consideration. The basis of my argument remains the same: amateur stock pickers don't do as well as people who buy low-fee indexes. You've got to be in tech, and the easiest way for the average investor to be in tech is to be in indexes (that answers your question about balance). There might very well be a major wipeout, but you've got to be in it. Only tech can invent an iPad and command a 50%+ margin. POT can invent nothing. Only tech can yield returns of a $500k/employee.
I'm invigorated by the confidence you display in your belief that POT will outperform the S&P (or the DOW? The NAZ? You name it) by 12/31/2020. l think over-supply will keep a lid on price. POT and the other ferts will improve, but not enough for you to win the bet. l'll take it.
In order that I don't have to meet you in Grand Central Station and give you a check because POT beat the S&P by .02% or beat the DOW in a photo finish: By how much will POT outperform the index(es) you select? I expect the %age you name will be in line with the confidence you place in your logic. If I like the numbers you produce, you've got a bet.
"Assuming that what this guy is saying comes to pass, it is hard to see how those of us who own shares in POT won't prosper, regardless of whatever shenanigans are going on in Russia and Belarus."
A self-serving analysis to further a delusional, self-serving view of your dead money.
For long-term investors in equities, the only business question worth asking is, What will my stock picks have returned to long-term holders by 2020, the date used by you and your wizard, and what will the major indexes have returned? I'd make a good-sized bet, payable in 2020, that the indexes will prove to have beaten 95% of stock pickers, leaving only those who have exceptional market skills and temperament, of which you are not one. By your own admission, you couldn't take a 200% profit when it was lying at your feet. Nor could you get out of a death spiral when it became obvious that that's what ferts had entered. The low-fee indexes were made for people like yourself. Yet you position yourself as a guru of stock picking. Only on the internet. In real life, any widow who bought the S&P with her dead husband's money, and just sat on it, has realized much greater gains than you. That's just playing safe with the S&P, not buying the NAZ.
Fertilizers will not beat the indexes by 2020. They have no intellectual property to monetize at high margins. Investors will not overpay for ferts as they do for tech stocks. The overhang of new mining projects waiting for prices to improve will serve as a constant damper on stock price improvement.
If you think ferts will outperform the indexes from today to 2020, I'm open to a wager.