even a ‘AAA’ stock like Berkshire Hathaway gets cut in half
AND PAYS NO DIVIDENDS
so where is the logic in holding stocks long term?
click on chart for larger view[/quote]
I agree that buy and hold has been a pitiful strategery for the last decade plus. But, that wasn’t my point vis-a-vis Berkshire Hathaway… and my Berkshire holding period reference was “40 years” (not 3 years as in your chart):
“You might want to ask this of the folks who have owned Berkshire Hathaway for the past 40 years… and haven’t received a dime in dividends.”
Despite the fact that I’m not a fan of long-term buy and hold (defining “long-term” as 10 years+), your trying to debunk the buy-and-hold strategy with a single stock reference over one short period of time is not persuasive. My point is that I may agree with you, but not because of the quality of the argument you’ve presented.
[/quote]
Could be wrong about this. But i thought the strategy was never recommended to buy and hold any individual stock for a long term, since statistically you’re never going to pick the correct winners all the time. GM shareholders/bondholders serves as a poster child.
The entire buy/hold strategy I thought applied indexes funds.
