# Rules for Portfolio - Holdings above 5 or 10 %??



## thompsg4416 (Aug 18, 2010)

One of the rules I often read about is keeping individual holdings in the 5-10% range of the total portfolio.

Is it fair to apply this rule across the board to even small portfolio's I.E under 50k??

If your portfolio is only 50k each or your investments would have to be under 2500-5000k to stay under the 5-10 percent mark - less if your portfolio is less. Kinda hard to take a position of 50-100 shares in many companies for that little.

Personally I stay around 5 positions of 20% each. Is this too risky?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

thomps u are the band leader with a recent message mentioning that your annual return averages something north of 50% if i am not mistaken?

so please do not ask us if we think u are too risky. Everything u do looks fine by me.

i always think of the "management cost" associated with each investment decision. "Management cost" sounds hifalutin but all i mean is the down-home-scrounge-around-peck-at-details-buy-sell-what'll-i-do time & effort that goes into every single decision.

so keeping things under control with 5 positions comprising roughly 20% of portf each looks lean, trim & muscular to me. No bloating or wasted fat here!

now keep up the great work & please let us know a few details from time to time ...


----------



## thompsg4416 (Aug 18, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> thomps u are the band leader with a recent message mentioning that your annual return averages something north of 50% if i am not mistaken?
> 
> so please do not ask us if we think u are too risky. Everything u do looks fine by me..


Thanks. I'm just a hack trying to find my way. I think those returns although real may not have been honest in a way. They were weighted returns not compounded returns . Apparently weighted returns give a higher number. That said I have still done relatively decent but may have had some beginners luck. 

I like the 5 and 20(I think I stole it from that Argo fellow). It allows me to still invest in some higher priced blue chippers like BCE and bns with at least 100 shares. Also keeps mgmt to a minimum. However Hcrump just posted an article in another thread about selling which mentioned the 5 percent rule... With the 5 and 20 if one tanks those high returns are gone. That is me this year-flat because of one stock(trq).


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i for one believe that all return claims are a little bit fuzzy. The only one i'm willing to pop for is the tfsa with max contribs made each year on jan 2nd plus zero withdrawals. 

all return-measuring formulas have drawbacks & deficits. I am not making this up. It was moneyGal herself who said so. Even though the supporters of XIRR turn out to be spitfires of loyalty! 

argo's 5-pack does sound good ... but there's a difference between the classic Five & your version. Argo's 5-pack included 5 hi-quality large-cap canadian stocks. Each one was a household name.

but your 5-pack is a wee bit more ... how shall we say ... adventuresome?

i mean there's not much chance cn rail or telus will go BK but turquoise hill & western zagros are highly dependent upon a tumultuous local geopolitic.

thank goodness your 5 include bce & bns. I think perhaps, myself, i'd go for 6. I'd make the 6th a very safe blue kind of chipper.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> 1. adventuresome?
> 2. I'd make the 6th a very safe blue kind of chipper.


*1.* Imagine how boring the forum would be without some audacious types?  [I can just hear what some CPs are thinking, lol].
*2.* What I call balance!

It's all about knowing what your risk tolerance is. Did you take this into account when deciding the investment amount in TRQ, for example? 

- the stable/less riskier investments = long-term horizon = higher allocation, ie: KO [you have time to make up losses in this scenario]
- riskier/more volatile investments = shorter-term horizon = lower allocation [with an aggressive allocation, you could suffer significant realized/unrealized losses]


----------



## Ethan (Aug 8, 2010)

“Diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes little sense if you know what you are doing.” 

-Warren Buffett


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Ethan said:


> “Diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes little sense if you know what you are doing.”
> 
> -Warren Buffett


"sounds great except that you only find out that you don't know what you are doing until you have done it and can't undo it ... 

in other words, not knowing that you didn't know what you were doing can't happen until you have done it and therefore have missed the opportunity to know that you didn't know that what you were doing was the wrong thing" - fatcat bombastus III


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Ethan said:


> “Diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes little sense if you know what you are doing.”
> 
> -Warren Buffett


"One situation requiring wide diversification occurs when an investor who does not understand the economics of specific businesses nevertheless believes it in his interest to be a long-term owner of American industry. That investor should both own a large number of equities and space out his purchases. By periodically investing in an index fund, for example, the know-nothing investor can actually outperform most investment professionals. Paradoxically, when "dumb" money acknowledges its limitations, it ceases to be dumb."

-- the same Warren Buffett

We can cherry-pick our favourite quotes until the cows come home


----------



## Ethan (Aug 8, 2010)

GoldStone said:


> We can cherry-pick our favourite quotes until the cows come home


The two quotes don't contradict each other. If you know what you are doing, you don't need to diversify. If you don't what you are doing but inherently believe in the strength of your countries economy, diversify. Buffett has made a distinction between a knowledgeable investor and an investor who isn't.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

I diversify to protect myself against myself. Especially when investing in smaller cap companies. I will rarely initiate a position with more than 5% weight; I've had a couple doubles that pushed the weighting past 10%, but that's usually manageable; still, if it passed 15% then I would be uncomfortable. I like the 5% weighting generally because I generally make that in dividend yield, therefore 1 of 20 companies could go to zero in a year and I could maintain my base level with just dividends.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

thompsg4416 said:


> Thanks. I'm just a hack trying to find my way. I think those returns although real may not have been honest in a way. They were weighted returns not compounded returns . Apparently weighted returns give a higher number. That said I have still done relatively decent but may have had some beginners luck.
> 
> tompsg4116
> 
> ...


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

doctrine said:


> I diversify to protect myself against myself.


Exactly!

It's great to learn from the best, but we can hardly compare our experience/knowledge to that of an investment guru, and one of the richest/oldest in the world.


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

I agree with the general concensus of single holdings under 10%, but do fall outside of that range on one of my holdings.

I hold shares in my employer, a CCPC. About 25% of our net worth if you exclude our house equity.
If I count house equity in the percentage is down around 16%.

I am junior member of management. Management holds 45%, and the other 55% was held by a private placement, but it is now held by OMERS.
While it is an equity position, I treat it more like a bond holding.
We are a country wide consulting engineering business that primarily works for public sector clients, delivering infrastructure - roads, bridges, hospitals, airports, etc. 

Yes, we are beholden to our clients ability to pay, but the growning infrastructure deficit as all the post second world war delivered plant poops out from age means the need for our design and contract administration services does not easily go away. 

The stock spins off 3.5% dividends annually, and tyically appreciates at least 3% every year,despite the economy being good or bad for the last 12 years. 

Owning the company stock holdings that I do also give me claim to a management bonus pool that typically returns me about $12k per year. So it is a tough stock to sell before I have to when I retire from full time work (in the not too distant future).

Our mortgage free house equity is larger than 10%. It falls under the Garth Turner 90-your age ratio of total wealth by a good measure, though.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

doctrine said:


> ... I've had a couple doubles that pushed the weighting past 10%, but that's usually manageable; still, if it passed 15% then I would be uncomfortable



is this the thread where we are tossing around quotes, sayings, clichés, panaceas & other nostrums?

whatever happened to the oldie but goldie that goes Cut-Your-Losses-&-Let-Your-Profits-Run.

i for one would not automatically start selling something for no other reason than that it had gone over 15%. What i would do - if i were to remain bullish - is top up other holdings with new money during the year to follow, so that the predominance of the leader would diminish slightly. But only slightly. If its story held up, i would consider that it had won its leadership for good reasons.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> 1. i for one would *not automatically* start selling something for no other reason than that it had gone over 15%.
> 2. top up other holdings with *new money* during the year to follow


*1.* 'not automatically' being the key words.
*2.* In the example u noted, and depending on the stock, I may reduce the 15% to 13% [especially if volatile and believed it could drop to 13% or increase to 15% soon enough], and would combine the 2% profits with maybe 2% new money.

So, if 2% represented $2K + $2K of 'new money' and was able to purchase 100 shares of other stock with that, I would feel as though I had added at a 50% discount.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm glad someone brought up Warren Buffett. He may not believe in diversification but he does believe in a margin of safety.His method is to buy only the best, sure thing stocks and only when they are selling at a deep discount to intrinsic value. When you do this your chance of a permanent loss is almost nil, although there is still the chance of a temporary paper loss.

One problem is that there are never very many such bargains around. So if you can find 4 or 5 of them you are doing well. Unless it is a time like March 2009 when the whole market is selling at 30% or 40% off the highs.

His own method is to buy only the best, sure thing investments. In that case you don't need diversification for safety.

But if you don't want to do all the work of ferreting out these bargains he suggests the next best approach is to buy index ETFs. In that case you are after average results by buying index funds that mimic the stock market averages. These funds own a large number of stocks, and you can further average your results by buying equal amounts each month over a period of time. This is called "dollar cost averaging".

The prospect of average results may not be too exciting. But the majority of actively managed mutual funds fail to beat the averages. Furthermore, most active individual investors do worse than the averages. So, average results may not be too bad.

I'm not recommending any course of action, just trying to clarify the reasons of the "put all your eggs in one basket - and watch the basket" camp.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Any strategy will eventually bite you where it hurts "if you don't continue to pay attention". That is the key.

Good for you to pursue a short portfolio. Just don't call it investing. Call it experimenting.

Eventually you might get up to $500k and then you might change your rules somewhat because there is a lot at stake for being wrong.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

do i have this right ?
the guy who is saying that diversification doesn't matter has a portfolio that consists of the following plus assorted stakes in many other companies ?
really ?


Acme *Brick* Company

IMC International Metalworking Companies

Applied *Underwriters*

Johns Manville

Ben Bridge *Jeweler*

Jordan's *Furniture*

Benjamin Moore & Co.

Justin Brands

Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies

Larson-Juhl

BoatU.S.

*Lubrizol* Corporation

Borsheims Fine Jewelry

Marmon Holdings, Inc.

Brooks

McLane Company

*Buffalo NEWS*, Buffalo NY

Medical Protective

BNSF

MidAmerican *Energy Holdings* Company

*Business Wire*

MiTek Inc.

Central States *Indemnity* Company

National Indemnity Company

*Clayton Homes*

Nebraska *Furniture Mart*

CORT Business Services

*NetJets®*

CTB Inc.

Omaha World-Herald

Fechheimer Brothers Company

Oriental Trading Company

FlightSafety

*The Pampered Chef®*

Forest River

Precision *Steel* Warehouse, Inc.

*Fruit of the Loom* Companies

RC Willey Home Furnishings

Garan Incorporated

Richline Group

Gateway Underwriters Agency

Scott Fetzer Companies

GEICO *Auto Insurance*

See's *Candies*

General Re

Shaw Industries

Guard Insurance Group

Star Furniture

Helzberg *Diamonds*

TTI, Inc.

H.H. Brown *Shoe Group*

United States Liability Insurance Group

HomeServices of America, a subsidiary of
MidAmerican *Energy Holdings* Company

XTRA Corporation

International *Dairy Queen*, Inc.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

To go in the opposite direction there are speculators who never put more than 1% or 2% into any one position. They know that what they are doing is very risky and they could lose 10 times in a row. But they also know they could make 100%, 500% or 1000% on their money if everything goes right.

Some commodity funds operate like this.Their minimum target is 100% profit on any one trade, and at the end of the year they are proud and happy if they make a return of 20% or 25% on their capital. Because 1) they lose a lot of bets and 2) they never risk more than a tiny percentage of their capital at one time.

Trading experts consider position sizing one of the most important factors in successful trading. Believe it or not, position sizing can be more important than the percentage of successful trades. See the work of Van K. Tharp and others.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

When you have 100 billion dollars to invest, it becomes impossible to concentrate in 4 or 5 companies. He now prefers to buy whole companies rather than just shares of stock, which is another way to concentrate.

When he first started out he usually owned less than half a dozen stocks and they were things like the New York Trap Rock company, and other small obscure firms. He actually made more money on a percentage basis when he was managing $150,000 than he does managing $100 billion.

I believe at the present time Berkshire Hathaway owns over 100 other companies.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I guess what I am driving at is , there is no hard and fast rule. Position sizing is important but it all depends on how risky the trade is and whether you are into a fast, in and out style of trading or are in for a long term hold of many years. The more speculative your style the smaller the individual positions should be. It is possible to analyze your past trades and determine the safest and most profitable position size strategy.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 8, 2010)

fatcat said:


> do i have this right ?
> the guy who is saying that diversification doesn't matter has a portfolio that consists of the following plus assorted stakes in many other companies ?
> really ?


Berkshire Hathaway has $442 billion in assets as of 03/31/2013, in Buffett's situation it is nearly impossible to invest in only 4 or 5 companies. He was speaking in terms of the average investor.

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/qtrly/1stqtr13.pdf


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

I'm with Rusty. There is no hard and fast rule. 

Asset sizing is an important issue for all portfolios, big and small. If you intend to hold these companies for decades, I really wouldn't worry about it that much.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

kcowan said:


> Any strategy will eventually bite you where it hurts "if you don't continue to pay attention". That is the key.
> 
> Good for you to pursue a short portfolio. Just don't call it investing. Call it experimenting.
> 
> Eventually you might get up to $500k and then you might change your rules somewhat because there is a lot at stake for being wrong.




kcowan i do call it investing. The OP here is an unusual young investor.

some time ago i noticed that he's well-grounded. The stocks that intrigue him - risky though they may be - are all hi-quality names with proven assets plus conservative, well-known backers & funders whose pockets run deep.

it seems to me that this young man has a knack for finding little-known stories about true value. It's interesting to see that none of his small stable of stocks have plummeted, gone bankrupt or suffered extreme reversals in fortune.

OP has also said that he has a portfolio return of somewhere north of 50% annualized. This probably makes him cmf forum's leader winner over the past couple of years. Even if, as he himself modestly offers, other portfolio return measures might undercut his own figures, he still has managed to trace out a very fine performance indeed.

youth is on his side. If all shall be lost in a very worst case scenario, he sounds resourceful enough that he'd be able to rebuild. 

i certainly agree that as soon as significant size shall be attained - probably long before 500k - he could consider migrating down the spectrum to a more conservative platform.

in the meantime, i don't quite know how all this talk about buffett crept in. Buffett is like a chameleon these years. He is all things to all investors. Want endorsement of indexation? you can find buffettspeak. Need exhortations to buy value only? there's buffettspeak about that, too. Looking for proof buffett has his finger in 50 flavours of pie? fatcat posts the required list.

perhaps we could all say, instead, chapeaux to thompsg, the original poster with the Fabulous Five. Here's to a Sixth by Stealth asap.


----------



## thompsg4416 (Aug 18, 2010)

HP: I'm actually out of WZR at the moment. I'm waiting for a dip below or around 1 to get back in! You're right about Argo's 5 pack though- all solid blue chippers. I took his system of mean and lean and upped the risk profile. The idea is to use the blue chippers and previous profit as a hedge against the riskier plays such as TRQ. I also keep one position as a trading position(SAN). Mainly for fun but I'm also making money with it. 

Current 5 Pack:
SU, TRQ(a bit overweight), BCE, BNS,SAN 

KKowan- I agree with you, if my portfolio was alot bigger, the rules could change. In fact I prefaced the post by asking if the 5-10% rule should be applied to smaller portfolio's like mine. For example if I had 500,000k as you mentioned - I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with an even slice of 100k in TRQ. Who knows I guess it depends on how much of that 100k was profit but its a valid comment. 

I'm also pretty firm after reading most of these posts that the 5% rule on a small portfolio under 50k shouldn't apply.


----------



## thompsg4416 (Aug 18, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> some time ago i noticed that he's well-grounded. The stocks that intrigue him - risky though they may be - are all hi-quality names with proven assets plus conservative, well-known backers & funders whose pockets run deep.


HP I agree it is investing albeit a bit risky at times although I consider it managed risk - I'm not just rolling the dice on an unknown entity and hoping I get snake eyes. 

LOL I'm not sure how buffet crept in either - We both have an eye for value(Who doesn't??) but the similarities end there....... Its like comparing a Lambo to a Kia - I'm no lambo


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

as a matter of fact i'm out of wzr at the moment as well. I sold my 5000 sh at 1.12 not long ago ... failed to buy as it tipped down to 1.04-1.05 ... then up to 1.19 ... a merry-go-round.

one thing i do believe, though. There's oil in kurdistan.

your current 5-pack looks fine to me. 

i was thinking of my tfsa & its early days. I went hell-for-leather for crazy stuff with capital gains potential because it didn't matter to me if the entire account were lost, it was so miniature. Then the crazy stuff paid off.

working a tiny account at higher risk levels than one would normally assume seems to be a universal human trait. The very small size means that risk is contained. This may be the same principle that drives some posters here to comment that a tiny allocation - say 5% - of a risky stock would be OK while a higher allocation would not. 

they're not looking at things from the point of view of your entire life, which sees that the small investment account you can afford today is probably only a tiny portion of what you will own when you are 50, therefore right now it's appropriate to play slightly harder.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Ethan said:


> Berkshire Hathaway has $442 billion in assets as of 03/31/2013, in Buffett's situation it is nearly impossible to invest in only 4 or 5 companies. He was speaking in terms of the average investor.
> 
> http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/qtrly/1stqtr13.pdf


ok, sure ... i suppose if you do your research and buy the right companies ... stephen jarislowsky agrees with him ... he says "avoid the cyclicals" ... both he and buffet tend to gravitate to the old tried and true companies that make stuff people have to have like health care and insurance ... nothing wrong with that i guess ...


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

VTI=3000+U.S. stocks.
VEU=2355 ex U.S. stocks.

Two investments, covering 5355+ stocks.

Add VCE if you wish to include more Canadian stocks.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

thompsg4416 said:


> One of the rules I often read about is keeping individual holdings in the 5-10% range of the total portfolio.
> 
> Is it fair to apply this rule across the board to even small portfolio's I.E under 50k??
> 
> ...


More than 10 companies is difficult to monitor, more than 20 is tough for all but the most dedicated retail investors.
I think $5k is the minimum position size to hold (I do have some sliver/speculative positions at slightly less)

If you don't want diversification, 100% in a single investment is fine.
If you want diversification, for a small portfolios do "core and explore". $20k in an index fund and $5k in a single stock is just fine IMO.


----------



## jcgd (Oct 30, 2011)

There are some interesting ideas here. I didn't know how to face this problem either, and I still have a minuscule account so I try to build a decent position in single company at a time until I get to a large enough position for a real hold. The plan is to hold these stocks until they stop being the great companies they currently are. I figure you don't see a lot of great companies that are undervalued, so my goal is to choose one at a time and build these positions over time. 

My first big purchase was WFC, and it's currently around 20% of my portfolio. The rest of the funds I invest in small positions. These positions range from 4-8% of the portfolio. I usually have around 10 companies and they started around $1k purchases. I'm up to 1.5-2k per stock now. But I usually buy $1k at a time and I'll average down if it drops hard. I eventually end up with largish positions that haven't moved much, or small positions that are now equal weight because they ran up. Most of my larger positions are more value picks and I expect to hold them 1-5 years depending on the story. Some are more GARP stocks and I typically trim these a lot to add to other positions or rebalance when I'm out by 20% or so.

GARP examples are PSX and V which have really run and are my strongest performers. They scare the crap out of my so I watch them like a hawk and tend to take profits. I don't know what it's like when momentum takes a turn, so right now I feel it's saver to take profits regularly and move the money into my value holds until I can see what happens a few times when markets or momentum turn down.

My cyclical value examples are GM and SUP. GM has been running up a lot, but Superior has been pretty flat. I think they will be doing well in two years.

I have DTV as well, I'm not sure what to call it. I like their strategy. Direct TV is a cash cow with tons of free cash flow. They are taking on debt at an alarming rate, at low cost, to finances huge share buybacks. They also don't pay a dividend. The debt and lack of dividend I believe is forcing down the valuation. As a result, earnings are exploding and the company should easily be able to use free cash flow to pay off the debt later. I like the management and their style. This is a winner for me too. I coattail a lot, because I find it's a good way to generate ideas. But I don't buy blindly. I attempt to do my own research in order to find out why others might be making a purchase. I treat it like a case study.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I have 74% of my portfolio excluding real estate split between 18 stocks(ADDED 5 US gaming stock in past 18 months). I have 22.52% in cash (HISA) and I have 3.48% in what i refer to as my 'play account' That is where I do crazy things like trade GRPN ,AOI ,TPN.So with all things considered I have 26 stocks right now.

My husband has 22% of his investments in 5 stocks ,54% index funds and 24% cash.My husband has been buying the same stuff since 1998 so no hope in changing him now lol


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Marina
Would you share with us those gaming stock picks?

GRPN really?


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

kcowan said:


> Marina
> Would you share with us those gaming stock picks?
> 
> GRPN really?


My gaming stocks and current ROI:
IGT (+33%)

LVS (+57%)I mention this one just few months ago when it was $50.80 a share and i bought some more then.

BYD - I mention this when it was $6.65 a share and has gone up 88% since I bought the last $5000 .I bought a previous batch in My TFSA for $6.88 but still not complaining 

MGM - I also mention this one in forum and put $5000 in when it was $12.30 a share and has got up 22% since then .My biggest position on this I bought it in March 2009 after watching it at $1.99 and finally got in at $4.65.

BYI - I have bought this on the longest since 2006 and there have been a few roller coaster rides along the way ,I have purchased it at $20 $30 and $40 over the years.This one has increased close to 20% in last 6-7 weeks after 888 did a press release about using their software when they enter USA Markets.
I am still buying shares in all 5 of these ,I am in this profession so I probably look at the news differently than the rest of you


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Gaming stocks have been hot lately-I bought wynn into earnings and I'm up 17%....wish i would of bought in feb when shares were $100(cyclical,macau,hints of legal on-line gambling,china rebound,vegas seeing a little life ect)Good fore sight marnia(i tried to foresee the same.What were your reason for being bullish pre earnings?rotation out of defensive and the same out lined above?You still see upside through out the year?wynn is acting abit exhaustive lately(looks like it is close to breaking down and i'm thinking of taking my profits real soon,very soon)


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I plan to be bullish for a long time , once all the states pass the laws and every casino on the strip are running a version online these software companies will do better than even I can imagine.I don't pay attention to earnings dates on these I try to buy some shares every month.
Here is why I didn't buy Wynn :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanv...n-makes-big-online-poker-bet-with-pokerstars/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenb...-with-embattled-online-poker-site-pokerstars/

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/13484-wynn-resorts-applies-for-nevada-online-poker-license
Not sure how facebook /Zynga /Wynn would have stacked up against 888 ,William Hill ,Party Gaming.I will leave Poker Stars out as they are in a League of their own ,if Poker Stars gets a license I don't think anyone can compete with that and keep in mind I net $xxx,xxx a year playing poker so anyone who loves Poker will agree with me on this.

I am buying all these stocks because of the Online Gaming Future , if you read the 3rd link Wynn was in talks with Zynga but just a few short months later Zynga applies for their own license and announces a partnership with Bwin.Party
http://www.pocketfives.com/articles...er-application-nevada-could-team-wynn-587967/
Wynn is the ugly girl at the dance , you know she will come but nobody wants to dance with her.they will have tough time being in top .Caesars got it's license and a partnership with 888 with WSOP ,there is money to be made in that deal.
My top advise for this sector is play the technology side as the software companies will demand anywhere from 10-30% of the profits plus licensing.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Thanks Marina. I have no exposure to this segment but will watch it now.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

hey marina you might recall that when you first posted your list of 5 i replied. I recall that toronto.gal also commented right away on your foxie list.

thankx to you each: i promptly acquired 10 nifty diagonal calls spreads in mgm. They are up bigtime but i'm not collapsing the spread yet. They will run until 2015.

i tried but somehow did not land 10 more in igt (long 2015 10s, short 2014 20s). They would be way more expensive now, but i don't suppose it's too late.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

IMO-Wynn is the hottie @ the dance(I like them in the VIP market in both Macau and Vegas)I'm not playing it so much for the online gambling-though knowing Steve Wynn I wouldn't bet against,I think he is far and away the best CEO of the bunch)mangement is very shareholder friendly....Steve Wynn is a winner and he is the godfather of casinos imo(more than adelson)there establishments on both strips seem to be head and shoulders above the crowd.....if we are in a early cyclical uprising in USA I like Wynn and co cashing in on the resurgence.you know this space a lot more than myself.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

donald said:


> IMO-Wynn is the hottie @ the dance(I like them in the VIP market in both Macau and Vegas)I'm not playing it so much for the online gambling-though knowing Steve Wynn I wouldn't bet against,I think he is far and away the best CEO of the bunch)mangement is very shareholder friendly....Steve Wynn is a winner and he is the godfather of casinos imo(more than adelson)there establishments on both strips seem to be head and shoulders above the crowd.....if we are in a early cyclical uprising in USA I like Wynn and co cashing in on the resurgence.you know this space a lot more than myself.


Donald I love the Wynn and Encore experience in Las Vegas although I am exclusive to Venetian so stay for free ,eat for free and to some extent can shop for free.I charge everything to my room and my VIP Host comps my account at end of my stay.Contrary to what people think you tend to get more when you are leaving with their money ,they want it back 
I have clients in the Online Gambling Market and part of our job is publishing print media for them .I have seen stats on these markets and since 2005 you will not find many people openly discuss how big the US market was back then .I have been in dinners with the Billionaire owners of some of these groups and the USA accounts for 80% of the World Online Gambling Markets.If this ever goes through I expect we can even see a 5000% gain on some of these stocks ,even 1% of the market share will be huge but I think you need to be in for 5+ years before we reach a open Market.
Humble Pie Glad you made some cash , you are my heroe for options and one day I hope it will all make sense for me. I will now Google 'Diagonal call spreads ' and try to understand your play lol


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

http://g2easia.com/ I didn't go myself this year but I sent a couple of my staff over to this conference .I may have some other picks when they get back here next week .


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Geez. Seems like a pretty big deal. I had no idea....


----------



## Franky Jr (Oct 5, 2009)

I personally try to cap it at 10%, just trying protect myself from myself, thanks Doctrine. 

-Buffetbuys.com shows that his Big4 equity positions are 68% of his 86B$ equity portfolio. ( I thought he was closing in on 100B but whatever, it makes the point) 
-Also Philip Fisher supports 20% in some cases for equity allocation in his book, common stocks and uncommon profits.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

marina628 said:


> Humble Pie Glad you made some cash , you are my heroe for options and one day I hope it will all make sense for me. I will now Google 'Diagonal call spreads ' and try to understand your play lol


Likewise except that I will not take any action now, just lodging it away as "Must investigate one day if I ever get bored!"


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

marina628 said:


> I am in this profession so I probably look at the news differently than the rest of you


*Marina:* Indeed your understanding is above the rest of us!

Congrats & well done, but then again, as per above, not a surprise.

To be honest, I would have never been interested nor investigated casino/gaming stocks if it had not been for your posts here, which certainly gave food for thought. I can see now that Asia is not only good for MFC when the area is prosperous [and even when it's not]. 

Anyway, from your 'foxy' list, I had put 2 on my watch-list where they remain [too rich for my blood atm]. One name, MGM, I had on my list for about a year now as I was a bit more familiar with it; had been close to buying it last year, in fact, but did not make the move until recently & up already over 20% as well. I'll hold longer-term as well; the stock was near $100 in Oct./07, and I would be happy to sell for that 5 & even 10 years from now, and if it goes bankrupt, I'll still have enough to eat, lol.

Btw Marina, have you experienced the Cotai Strip? I can't remember if you mentioned it or not.

The Venetian Macao has '3,000 suites, 16,000 staff members, 840 gaming tables and 3,400 slot machines.' *But LVS stock is too expensive!*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venetian_Macao


----------

