That's a very good question in fact one of the best I have had. It's impossible to say isn't it, I mean we always think that it's skill but I am often guilty of hubris.
It's only over the long term that the difference shows up.
It hasn't been easy sailing, some troubled waters - often the companies I buy fall dramatically. Mainly my advantage is having a different attitude towards that - the courage of my convictions in the face of setbacks with 40,000 STO, 65,000 AWE, 83,000 SHJ, 86,000 CDD and 80,700 TWR - that's $420,000 at today's prices.
I was a defender of STO for 18 months when all others hated it and with hindsight should only have bought after the raising in January. I couldn't go too wrong because it is such a large company - that was a concious choice as Ben taught me.
So yes from a meagre $110,000 beginning 3 years ago I think there was a combination of luck and aggressively taking the strong opportunities which presented themselves. Making lots of mistakes but not ones which cost me money. I mostly attribute it to having a real affinity for what Ben Graham taught, sticking to what I know and being bloody minded as hell.
Over the last 10 years of buying companies in trouble I have learnt what to look for, ultimately future returns depend on what the market presents to us. In some respects I am improving on when I pull the trigger on an undervalued stock - it's all touch and feel. No certain outcomes.
Also I think opportunities for value investors/independent thinkers have never been greater, many of my stocks in fairly rapid order get taken over - this is not a coincidence. The value I can see in them is clearly obvious to others with deeper pockets.
In the case of SMX I was wrong about the business but bailed out by a takeover-if the takeover hadn't occured well I could have faced a loss or a greater opportunity. The past looks certain but like the future it was a maze of uncertain trails.
As well as this the trading 24/7 market news speculation and technical analysis with short selling drives some truly absurd valuations - a value investor can have a field day with this.
I don't know if I can continue to compound at this rate but I don't need to, as you say my day job becomes less and less significant to me.
My interest now is more how to free the wage-slaves because both the capitalists and their slaves suffer in the present system - it's all very sad and uneccessary.
The aim of an anarchist is not to accumulate but to be dispossessed - not owned and not owning. I find it entertaining to play the stupid capitalist game better than they can but I take no part in the worship of the superfluous.
From my favourite Nietzshe again - so true.
http://4umi.com/nietzsche/zarathustra/11
I hope to keep working part time and pursue my many other interests without spending wastefully. See how the boss deals with that when I tell him
My day job earns much less than shares already but I want to build up a bit more of a safety margin before I tell him. I did say at the interview that I don't need money but I think it fell on deaf ears as it's such an unusual thing to say.
It's good to be useful, but it's best to be useful without being co-erced into it. I have to show that this is possible as a form of "propaganda of the deed".
