|
Post by nylefty on Nov 4, 2017 20:53:21 GMT -5
As I've pointed out when you've bashed Nate in the past, the portfolio you love to bash has been in "hibernation" for more than two years. Here's what Nate says about it on his website: PLEASE NOTE: Though we had hoped to have The Wagmore Advisory Letter (TWAL) back up and running by now (especially given the surge in interest thanks to the success the two Portfolios in Nate’s Notes have been experiencing lately), it should be noted that TWAL has actually been “in hibernation” for the past two years and has not made any trades in its real world portfolio during that time period. We hope to have the service up and running later this year (2017), so please check back regularly if you are interested in what you see below!I honestly don't recall you ever mentioning to me that Wagmore was in 'hibernation'. If you did, perhaps I missed your post. Thanks for the tip. In any case, thus far, Cramer has sadly made much better investment calls regarding MNKD than Nate has.
Here's a link to the post you don't recall seeing: mnkd.proboards.com/post/120943Nate is a long-term investor, not a trader. And over the long-term he's made far better investment calls than Cramer.
|
|
|
Post by nz10k on Nov 4, 2017 21:45:02 GMT -5
That's a little incomplete. Wagmore is down only because it's currently made up entirely of MNKD shares and some cash. It's pretty much on hold until MNKD recovers, and then it will resume in the form originally intended. An all-in kind of gamble, which hopefully will pay off longer term. I don't subscribe to it, so I had no idea what Nate's Wagmore letter recommended. Is that really what its portfolio consists of? Only MNKD and cash? Wow. This is very interesting. If this is true, I would think Nate's holding should be shown in the MNKD holder's list. But if you check the institution holders on Nasdaq, there are 120 total but don't find anything seems relating to Mr Nate's holding. www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/institutional-holdings
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Nov 4, 2017 22:09:50 GMT -5
I'm getting along in the years and fairly well established ... maybe considered an institution soon. Should I consider listing also?
Wow ... I need another drink !
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Nov 5, 2017 0:30:30 GMT -5
Nate is a long-term investor, not a trader. And over the long-term he's made far better investment calls than Cramer. I don't know if that is really true or not. I suspect you do not really know either. What we both know is true is that Jim Cramer's wealth is measured in the 10s (maybe the 100s) of millions, whereas Nate is still hawking a newsletter. Correction, 2 or 3 newsletters. Maybe Nate is correct about Mannkind, long term, but he totally sucked when it came to selecting an entry point.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Nov 5, 2017 0:34:38 GMT -5
I don't subscribe to it, so I had no idea what Nate's Wagmore letter recommended. Is that really what its portfolio consists of? Only MNKD and cash? Wow. This is very interesting. If this is true, I would think Nate's holding should be shown in the MNKD holder's list. But if you check the institution holders on Nasdaq, there are 120 total but don't find anything seems relating to Mr Nate's holding. www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/institutional-holdingsI think you vastly overestimate the size of Nate's Wagmore fund. He started his Wagmore newsletter fund in 2013 with $15,000. That's really not a whole lot of MNKD shares.
|
|
|
Post by nz10k on Nov 5, 2017 1:13:09 GMT -5
This is very interesting. If this is true, I would think Nate's holding should be shown in the MNKD holder's list. But if you check the institution holders on Nasdaq, there are 120 total but don't find anything seems relating to Mr Nate's holding. www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mnkd/institutional-holdingsI think you vastly overestimate the size of Nate's Wagmore fund. He started his Wagmore newsletter fund in 2013 with $15,000. That's really not a whole lot of MNKD shares. Thanks for the insights. How about the size of his other funds? Like the Nate's Notes?
|
|
|
Post by mytakeonit on Nov 5, 2017 2:25:41 GMT -5
mnkdfann said - "Maybe Nate is correct about Mannkind, long term, but he totally sucked when it came to selecting an entry point. "
Entry point is irrelevant at this point ... I'm sure many longs have high entry points and kept those shares and averaged down. The key is that we all know that MNKD is a keeper that will keep on growing. It is just a matter of when you want to exit.
Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda is always a crying problem. If you bought in at $1 ... $10 ... $100 ... will you really care if MNKD goes to $1000? If you sell early at $200 ... and it keeps flying ... then you will still be crying.
If you want to know the answer to the problem ... send me $10 and I'll tell you the answer. Ha!
|
|
|
Post by xanet on Nov 5, 2017 8:13:44 GMT -5
I think you vastly overestimate the size of Nate's Wagmore fund. He started his Wagmore newsletter fund in 2013 with $15,000. That's really not a whole lot of MNKD shares. Thanks for the insights. How about the size of his other funds? Like the Nate's Notes? Nate started his Model Portfolio with $100k in Feb. 1995. It is now worth $2.1M, or up 2000%. His Aggressive Portfolio started in Oct 1997 with $100K, and is now $8.8M, up almost 8700%. Values are closing prices, Oct. 13. Both portfolios are in Nate's Notes, which takes a long term approach and generally makes trades only once a month. I'll let you calculate annualized returns.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Nov 5, 2017 8:26:41 GMT -5
The answer is the people that cry, will always cry:-)
Doesn’t matter where Nate got in at. His average is in the twos because of averaging down. The best part about Nate IMO...is his emotions about his stocks don’t flip-flop. He’s very methodical.
NatesNotes @mrspeaker @rooksleanne @natesnotes if a day comes when I find a reason to change my mind, I will; until then, I still like my odds here :-)
Nov. 4 at 4:37 PM NatesNotes @bigcheeze @vallahal Val doesn't realize that most folks who have been buying $MNKD for years are currently up nicely on their positions ;-)
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Nov 5, 2017 10:05:00 GMT -5
Nate is a long-term investor, not a trader. And over the long-term he's made far better investment calls than Cramer. I don't know if that is really true or not. I suspect you do not really know either. What we both know is true is that Jim Cramer's wealth is measured in the 10s (maybe the 100s) of millions, whereas Nate is still hawking a newsletter. Correction, 2 or 3 newsletters. Maybe Nate is correct about Mannkind, long term, but he totally sucked when it came to selecting an entry point. Cramer also "hawks" his own newsletter ($299.95 a year). When the Hulbert Financial Digest tracked both Cramer's and Nate's newsletters, it showed that Nate was getting far better returns than Cramer.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Nov 5, 2017 11:04:45 GMT -5
I think you vastly overestimate the size of Nate's Wagmore fund. He started his Wagmore newsletter fund in 2013 with $15,000. That's really not a whole lot of MNKD shares. Thanks for the insights. How about the size of his other funds? Like the Nate's Notes? His other funds are not 'real money' funds. They are paper portfolios. Nate refers to them as "hypothetical" portfolios on his own site. So they own no actual shares of MNKD, and would never show up in any MNKD holder's list (something you mentioned in one of your earlier posts). www.notwallstreet.com/wagmore-advisory-letter/"unlike Nate’s Notes, which has tracked its performance over the years using two different “hypothetical” portfolios, The Wagmore Advisory Letter puts its money where its mouth is by executing all trade recommendations in a real-life brokerage account" I've no idea how much money Nate has invested in MNKD in his own personal accounts in his personal life. But when it comes to his newsletter portfolios, only Wagmore has real money invested and even that is a very, very small amount.
|
|
|
Post by mnkdfann on Nov 5, 2017 11:14:27 GMT -5
Nov. 4 at 4:37 PM NatesNotes @bigcheeze @vallahal Val doesn't realize that most folks who have been buying $MNKD for years are currently up nicely on their positions ;-) We should put that to a proboards vote, and see how many people agree.
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on Nov 5, 2017 11:37:37 GMT -5
Nov. 4 at 4:37 PM NatesNotes @bigcheeze @vallahal Val doesn't realize that most folks who have been buying $MNKD for years are currently up nicely on their positions ;-) We should put that to a proboards vote, and see how many people agree. Many people on this board didn't follow Nate's strategy of periodically buying small lots of MNKD over the years and therefore averaging down. I was up nicely when MNKD was recently in the high 6s and expect to be up nicely again. My average cost per share in my Fidelity account is $3.87 and in my Schwab account it's $2.74.
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on Nov 5, 2017 11:56:57 GMT -5
Nov. 4 at 4:37 PM NatesNotes @bigcheeze @vallahal Val doesn't realize that most folks who have been buying $MNKD for years are currently up nicely on their positions ;-) We should put that to a proboards vote, and see how many people agree. I've bought many times - and - Wait for it...I am nowhere near being up "nicely". Due to bad timing and all the garbage this company has had to both endure and inflict upon itself. Though I do believe I will up a decent amount someday.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Nov 5, 2017 12:32:03 GMT -5
Nov. 4 at 4:37 PM NatesNotes @bigcheeze @vallahal Val doesn't realize that most folks who have been buying $MNKD for years are currently up nicely on their positions ;-) We should put that to a proboards vote, and see how many people agree. And I wonder why that is? With the exception of a few posters it’s like a graveyard on here when the stock goes down!
|
|