The price does not reflect "beat up", the price reflects actual value destruction caused by the managers investing in overvalued assets and speculating badly in macro markets.
If you look at the second last link I provided, you will see the dividend you keep harping on about is a serious concern and nowhere near as certain as you seem to be banking on.
I can't believe all the hoopla you threw up in the other thread about business analysis compared with how you are talking about this stock.
So far all I can see is you apparently are claiming a "margin of safety" here is:
- investing in a fund managed (very poorly) by others,
- that the price will fluctuate so you can profit off the fluctuations.
I thought you were going to pick an actual business.
Most liked posts in thread: duc's 'Margin of Safety' investment
Page 1 of 4
On the chart, yes, flat and no trading opportunities. So far, very boring.
At some point, something will change and sentiment will change with it. We just don't know whether it will be good or bad. The stock will then move. This will provide opportunity. So for the moment, I'll simply sit tight and harvest the dividends.
I have highlighted your summary and issue.
This thread, as you suspected, was a continuation of another thread. Hence my 'definition' of a margin of safety is somewhat truncated. Be that as it may, an ETF is still, as a standalone criteria, capable of meeting many of the requirements of a full definition of a margin of safety.
This was the thread: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/the-education-of-an-investor.34402/
Other criteria would be that it offered 'value'. Without going into how one might calculate value, suffice to say, that you would need to look at the stocks that formed the ETF and gauge their individual values to come to any valuation (this particular ETF was constituted from MLP's, which had, as a sector taken a beating).
So 'any' ETF would not (on that basis) fulfil the definition of the margin of safety. As a generalisation however, I like ETFs because you can hold a single security and have the diversification of more than one security (outside of the provider risk etc) which is part of the definition (or concept of) margin of safety.
So in answer to your question: no an ETF is not the only thing required, but, it is (for me) a good starting point.
In short, Value Collector made 10x his money in CZZ.
I was not overly impressed with CZZ as an investment, I labelled it a speculation as I felt it lacked a margin of safety.
This did not go down well.
I was challenged to find an 'investment' with a 'margin of safety'. This was my choice. As you can see from the comments, this choice did not impress those people.
This is for a 5yr holding period in which time I will try to match VC's ten bagger, with a stock [ETF] that is unlikely to go anywhere near $50, but never say never.
I will [attempt] to do this through:
(a) trading the position; and
So I would actually like this to retrace back lower, so that I could buy back and add to my position moving forward.
NEW YORK, July 19, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- The InfraCap MLP ETF (NYSE Arca: AMZA) (the "Fund") has declared a monthly distribution of $0.08 ($0.96 per share on an annualized basis). The distribution will be paid July 30, 2019 to shareholders of record as of the close of business July 23, 2019.
Page 1 of 4