Wasn't referring to your info.
On a side note - per the article, funds with deep losses are good for future investors should the fund do well in the future; they reap the benefit of the capital loss carry (assuming taxable accounts).
And why I asked and don't believe everything I read on MBs, especially here:
[and note he keeps repeating over and over again?]
Good to know. It was starting to stage a comeback. I suspect MU volume was much more homogeneous or up front.
Yeah I saw a bit on the rebalancing and QRVO did undergo some sort of index shift recently.
P.S. It's the 10x volume that scares the P out of me, nothing like that over at SKWS. This one held by a bunch of paranoids.
You noticed that too sk? Yeah I compare daily against SWKS, the place to 'have' been. Me thinks the higher volatility is due to the RFMD side, as in more recent years past they were the problematic red-headed step-child; I don't recall TQNT being as dangerous.
They don't have anything to do with phones anymore. But you're a spammer (check post history) so probably don't even know that.
He doesn't make predictions, therefore he didn't say the market will drop 50%. They're probable outcomes based on historical statistical metrics.
But he'll never admit it but I could see the writing on the [WMC] wall. Seems to use 'our' a lot too.
Yep. And everyone here probably knows that's what I think happened during that so-called Depression-era data phase. Speaking of which, notice he's recently started talking Depression-era lately? (at least it's during an over-valued market!).
I wonder what the fund would have done on auto-pilot? Shareholders should demand this graph be added to the charts in the annual and semi-annual reports. lol
From a different H view:
Speaking of contrarian signals, enjoy:
Yeah I remember the 10% and thought that was odd not to at least taper in. Depression huh?
And to think he's a liker of Benjamin Graham.
The valuations got too high for him by then. He always throws that bone out there that if there's 'some' pullback followed by good market action then he'll do that (which should have been the case in the correction during that time period); I suspect this is just fodder to keep the investors hopeful. He never likes the market action in these situations and then valuations get too high again. Even after the market started turning after the last big crash he didn't like the market action despite obvious signs of capitulation (I guess 5-10x volume wasn't strong enough!). I'm under the impression there is nearly zero weighting on the market action term of the formula.
And he desires too deep of value IMO.
And that's nonsense talk that he would ever go long at high valuations in some sort of contrarian misstep. His contrarian missteps are limited to the opposite condition. lol
Companies tend to undergo big changes to improve the bottom line when they make those kinds of moves. Of course now it looks like they never should have let them go.