In the 1990s, Warren Bufett bought Dexter Shoe, which caused him to lose over 90% of his total investment. If someone as brilliant as Warren Buffett can screw up, I’m not going to proceed with the expectation that I will have a perfect investing career. Instead, I diversify so that a few complete screw-ups along the way won’t derail my plans.
7 Me gusta
In order to never become a financially independent dividend investor you need to think short-term, get carried away by other faddish strategies that are currently making more money, and react to adversity with any of your investments poorly.
5 Me gusta
Para los bancos hay un antes y un después de 2008
Y luego Credit Suisse…
Y del SAN 
Rescato este artículo publicado en su blog en 2013.
Over the course of those ten years, his annual investments totaled $50,000 in money earned from his labor. Nine of those investments, totaling $45,000 in value, went completely bankrupt.
After all, the only decent investment he made in his life amounted to a measly $5,000 set aside into Johnson & Johnson in 1983. That measly $5,000 investment in Johnson & Johnson grew into $304,000 today (December 2013).
Think about that. Nine out of the ten investments went completely bankrupt, and he still saw his total wealth increase from $50,000 in out-of-pocket money into over $300,000 in total net wealth. A tidy, six-fold increase.
With investing, you don’t have to be perfect to get richer. You truly can fail your way to success by holding onto just a couple high-quality assets over the course of your lifetime.
4 Me gusta
“Three or four times in your life, value investing will have a short-term fling with the most dominant companies in existence, and if you load up on the Coca-Colas and Johnson & Johnsons during the 1973s and 2009s of your life, the world will be yours”
1 me gusta
"Your ownership rights over a stock are not conditional upon any type of performance. They generate money because you are the owner. With a job, your ability to generate money is always conditional upon you performing in a way that satisfies some superior. It is the most limited, conditional kind of love there is, and it can end instantaneously the moment you do something wrong.
That is scary because it means third-party people have complete control over your quality and standard of life. Recognition of this fact is why some people approach investing with a seemingly religious fervor. These people recognize that the possession of full power leads to freedom, and that power can only be attained through ownership interests. It’s the only way you can get off the treadmill of measuring success by your ability to satisfy others."
1 me gusta
"Most of the world is wired to only think in terms of stock charts. A company traded at $X dollars then, it trades at $Y dollars today. That kind of logic does not connect to reality because we have dividends and stock spinoffs. On a year-to-year basis, it may not seem like much—but when you start measuring things out in decades, you start to see a difference.
In the cases of the cases that seemingly document blue-chip failures (General Motors, Wachovia, Lehman Brothers, etc.) there is usually a long record of dividend payouts that preceded them. Oftentimes, collecting a growing dividend for 15+ years can be enough to guarantee that you breakeven from a “failure” scenario."
Many of these failures (Kodak, Sears) also spun off other holdings along the way, and if you held on to them, a hold-it-and-forget-it strategy would have created a lot more wealth than the failure in a few specific cases might initially portend. Even with failure, there is often a backstory that indicates more wealth gets created than you might initially think.
1 me gusta
Si compras 15 años antes de que quiebren y no reinviertes en ellas ni un céntimo puede que salgan las cuentas … o no
Más que salir o no las cuentas lo que intenta es desmitificar el gran peligro que supuestamente corre uno cuando hace stock picking. Cuantas veces hemos oído aquello de “ten cuidado de no acabar con una Kodak en la cartera”.
Resulta que alguien que invirtió en Kodak en 1993, cobró los dividendos durante 20 años hasta que se declaró en bancarrota y mantuvo las acciones del spinoff de 1994 (Eastman Chemical) batió al S&P500 en ese periodo. No está mal para lo que aparentemente es la “ruina caracolera”
3 Me gusta