When you build a portfolio, you should really do it like you would participate to a hockey pool.
You should chose the best 20 players you can. Why should you chose a player who had several cerebral commotions and who has difficulties to skate on the same ice than other players? People and businesses don't change that much. When they don't have a lot of potential now, they probably won't have much more potential in a few years.
And even with these 20 players, you'll get some bad surprises.
Some of your players will get caught in some scandals. They'll be part of a fraud. Or they'll get caught in some whorehouse and make everyone ashamed around them.
But most of them will act like the best, because they're the best.
So, why should you chose a player like Sears Canada among your team? How could a bad skater could become a good or even a normal skater? Anybody knows for years that Sears (and many others, like Bombardier for instance) aren't good investment choices. Why chose the complicate path? Because your fucking life isn't complicated enough?
When you chose retail, you chose a thin ice. If you're not afraid of thin ice, chose the very best players.
I don't like hockey at all. Why the fuck am I talking about it?
I agree. Sears Canada bankruptcy should remind investors that pure value investing strategies require tones of hours and efforts to get right value and that could still go very wrong.
RépondreSupprimerIf Francis Chou gets burned from the pure value play then more than 90% people would get burned. Full priced cuban cigar is better than free cigar butts from the street.