What I wonder about this is if he’s never selling, what happens when a compelling new opportunity comes along. He’d be limited to only small buys.

I take what many would call a controversial view on selling: it’s usually far trickier than buying. When both the price and something fundamental in the business shift, you’re often left with a near 50–50 call, swayed by marginal factors. One marginal factor that’s a certainty is tax—often it’s the tax implications (like not having worked much that year) that tip the scales more than the fundamentals themselves, which often balance out with the price change.

Apart from that, I don’t mind keeping my big losers in there for the simple reason they keep me humble.

@Silky84 - yes, that's how DG operates - the nuanced version. He sells when the stock doesn't perform, and when he investigates, he finds his thesis is broken and/or his conviction has faded. He just doesn't sell or even trim his winners.

Never selling i.e. doing nothing is typically the best course of action, simply because of the math that a few big winners can account for multiples the number of losers.

However, you have to be able to live with the risk/volatility that comes with a hugely lopsided portfolio where a few positions can overwhelm the overall portfolio - it all looks easy in hindsight, but even the biggest winners suffer massive drawdowns and don't recover for years. You also have "sleepers" which don't do much for years before taking off - the best recent example from David's holdings is Tesla.

David G has done quite a few interviews in recent weeks, coinciding with the launch of his new book.

There are interviews on Motley Fool Money US, Chit Chat Stocks, and The Investor’s Podcast Network as well. Probably a fair bit of overlapping content.

It's a great book - I've just finished the audiobook (read by himself). I round it very insightful, some different thinking about investing, from someone who's demonstrably had a good record, although as he points out, not for the faint hearted!

@Clio, thanks for flagging! I clicked on your link to listen to the podcast, but had not opened the rest of the message until I was done, and saw the rowboat/canoe/sailboat story, which was also a story that resonated when listening to the podcast.

I think the other thought that got me was that current valuation methodologies do not capture the intangible aspects of a company - brand, CEO/management, innovation etc. And so when a compay is deemed to be "overvalued", the calculated value omits these intangibles which is what ultimately separates the high and low performing companies. As I continue to wrap my head around valuations, this is implicitly captured (via the earnings, PE assigned etc), but not explicitly.

That really helped crystallise that my non-valuation approach is perhaps not as flawed as conventional investing wisdom would suggest! I focus a lot on the intangibles, particularly in turnarounds - the new management, vision, new strategy, remediation work to strengthen platforms, cutting out deadwood parts of the business etc and how that all comes together to form the going forward story. I almost always ignore the valuations, mostly because I actually don't know how to fully make sense of what the valuation is telling me ...

Also ordered the book!

@Clio , very interesting, and DG is the "Godfather" of the MF investment philosophy, which I would describe as slugging rate rather than hit rate, and aggressive growth stories, "full-on" as they say. I must admit it is entertaining to listen to them, but very, very different from my style. i don't think the holding period is the differentiator. I'll hold forever if I can.

The difference is the ability to identify, gain conviction and buy and hold pure growth stories and let that story run. i can assure you it is not as easy as it seems.

with a hit rate (my style), id like getting 60% right (Buffett's numbers), a slugging rate is getting one out of 10 right, but that one is a monster, so quite different iMO. Clearly, I am not saying one is better than the other, just different and depends on your style, temperament, skill set etc. I'm definitely in the hit rate camp, buying great companies that will do very well if bought well, but not 100x, very unlikely.

there is no way i can copy his style, and probably he wouldn't/couldn't copy mine.

i was taken aback that he is an English Lit major. When I started in the industry in the 1980s, there were many EL-type people, following stories and narratives; they went the way of the dodo, replaced by more numeric people. so he is a survivor, more like a unique breed. maybe it's time they come back, lol, IDK.

replicating what he does takes a lot of idiosyncratic skills, the right temperament and luck .......not easy IMO

The rowboat/canoe/sailboat analogy is oft-repeated - he has made several references to it in his Podcast, Rule Breaker Investing, over the years.