racemize

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/business/stock-market-crash-1987.html Thought this was pretty interesting.

Thanks Norm, I'd been searching (apparently poorly) for over an hour.

I'm trying to benchmark returns of a canadian fund, which has compared itself to the S&P 500 in CAD over the years; however, I don't have the data from 1987-2001--does anyone have that data available? Thanks!

Is Hamblin-Watsa's annual historic investment record available anywhere? I'm analyzing various famous value investor's records, and I think they would be a really nice addition. I don't think I've seen it in the FFH annual letters, but sometimes the annual meeting slides show equity returns. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

Sorry for the double post, but this is a slightly more specific question. Does anyone have Baupost's returns since inception? I have the 90s and 2010 on, but nothing else. Thanks in advance.

Thanks, that's at least a start. I'll see what I can fill in from there. If anyone else has a table of returns that would be much appreciated!

I'm writing a new essay on evaluating manager's performance and was hoping for a little help on a couple of points: 1) Looking for 5 or so long-term good funds to evaluate, so throw out some names; however 2) I need at least all the yearly performance data and would like quarterly performance since inception. I have this data on Pabrai, but not many others. Was considering doing Fairholme, Chou, sequoia, but I don't think I have the data for those available. Thanks in advance!

If it is more than that, then it is basically impossible, and people are doing it. I of course will talk to a lawyer if it gets to that point, but I have not read about any other issues than those.

Yes, I believe I'm ok as long as I don't charge any fees (which I wouldn't) and that the fund was operating without those funds being added (which it is).

If you have a fund , why not open a solo 401K and move your IRA? I have one from Fidelity which is free and have complete control over my investments. Well, that was my initial plan and right now I just use my IRA as a sandbox to run investing experiments that might apply to the fund. The issue is retirement from my day job and that we don't currently charge fees at the fund and won't until it is large enough and I think the record is good enough. In particular, while I'm likely to have enough invested assets between the fund (has all of my taxable, liquid net worth) and my retirement accounts, it will set up a situation where I'm pulling money out of the fund while setting up a roth ladder in the retirement accounts, which will last about five years. Thus, unless the fund balance is large enough for me to live off of, it starts becoming less of my invested assets than my retirement account over time potentially, and I don't want to set up that dynamic. I was thinking an elegant way to address this was just to move the retirement account(s) into the fund when I retire, which would stop the incentive misalignment over time.

Anyone have experience with this? I'm looking to invest my IRA in my fund and am seeing what self-directed IRA service makes sense. I just looked at this one, which costs a bit over $100 per year it seems like. https://www.iraservicestrust.com/why-ira-services#

Ok but, why 6%? Why not 5% or 7%? In Buffett's time, 6% was the 30 year coupon.The idea (as I understood it) was that managers are paid in excess of the risk-free rate. Clients moving outside of t-bills are assuming risk. They can either pay themselves for that risk, or pay someone else, presumably a professional. The real question is, why are value fund managers stuck on 6%, versus payment for the intelligent assumption of risk above the risk-free rate? Note: I think his actual fee structure for the multiple partnerships varied: 33% above 6% 25% above 4% 16.6% above 3% But (1) he provided liquidity back to his clients from the fund at 6% (again, the risk-free rate), and (2) I think when he combined all the various partnerships, he adopted 6% as the rate. I think a better hurdle would be the index itself. The manager could keep, say 50% of the performance beyond that level. I agree, it is just a little hard because it moves around a bit. E.g., at least with 6% when the market goes down, but you go down less, you aren't taking money from partners. You could try to do a rolling period, but that gets complicated due to partners moving in and out.

I'm looking into this as well now--does anyone have any information on this?

Yes. Your explanation is simpler. It's the basic premise that confuses us. Stegman believes these companies have been nationalized, have no need to protect taxpayers because of the incoming dividends and starts his analysis from there. We believe they are still private companies in need of capital for taxpayers' protection. Yeah, they are just skipping the part where they can transfer a ton of risk to the private market and make a ton of money. Which is really odd.

So it still sounds like there was a bubble though right? Just not quite as big as advertised?

I'd say turning it into a government entity is not in the spirit of "getting it out of government control". It also does not allow for monetization of the warrants.

Yeah, I'm down to just AIG warrants at this point. The expiries are getting close.

Yeah, I don't think it is going to happen. On the other hand, this really sucks and it sure seems to make sense to make a change.

Yes, this is huge. We can be compromised for the rest of our lives with this one. Maybe this will be a catalyst to come up with a different solution than the way SSN and credit checks work (e.g., freezing that is easy to do and not cost anything and requiring that the freeze be honored, at the liability of the issuer)...

I started a thread about this in personal finance. Anyway, I think freezing and signing up for the free service makes the most sense. From an investment point of view, it may make sense to look at the other two--I think a lot of people, myself included, just started freezing these things, and they get to make $10 per person per freeze/unfreeze every time, which is ridiculous. So, if they get all these fees, they could have an increase in earnings without the settlement issues of equifax.

Managed to pull it off of fool of all places: =iferror(index(importhtml("https://www.fool.com/quote/nyse/american-international-group-warrant/aig-", "table", 1), 1, 2), F10)

Looks like Yahoo Finance stop listing tarp warrants. Not sure if this is temporary or not. Anyone have a way of importing prices to google sheets outside of yahoo? Marketwatch has the price, but I'm not getting the XPath query to work in google sheets for some reason.

Buffett talks about it a bit here: . Basically the people who want the insurance are likely to be flooded so it doesn't really work as a financial product. At some point I guess you're just just paying the same amount of the house. If you had a $500k house I'd insure it for $500k, but that doesn't help you much. Yeah, I would think you could still amortize the cost over all the people who want it (i.e., it doesn't happen to every person every year), but the price would probably still be very high.

I believe you almost can't get flood insurance on the coast outside of FEMA. I actually find that confusing, as you should be able to get insurance on anything at a high enough price, no? In any event, that leaves a lot of claims for cars, but housing shouldn't be too much (this is me speculating). Lancashire just said their wind insurance won't pay out either, since it is mostly flood as another data point.

For the average investor, Buffett would say none - put 95% in S&P index and 5% in cash. I would think that the reason to go elsewhere is if one has a desire to get extra gain - i.e.: most people on this webpage are interested in doing a little better than "average". Where has he said 95/5? I just thought he said all investing assets in equities.