cogitator99

Just wondering, how concentrated are the forum members normally? I run a 15-25 stock portfolio. During the 2008-2009 downturn there were many more names because lots of things were cheap, and I thought a basket approach would minimize risk. Currently though, I'm much more concentrated, with 22% of the portfolio in one stock and large 8% or so positions in others. I think if you run a 5 stock portfolio, it places a large premium on being right, whereas a diversified portfolio composed of value picks will likely work out on an actuarial basis.

S. Korea is an interesting place to invest, it looks like. 2013 P/E 10x, with all sorts of cheap Graham-like bargains. If you have a private bank they can probably post the trades for you, but it won't come cheap.

Manila, the Philippines.

Thanks for posting roughly. Read the excerpts a while back but good to read the whole thing.

HLF up 9% and JCP down 10%...not the best day for Ackman.

Thought of CMP too. But I last looked in 2010 and I don't know why income has declined as much as it has.

Not to knock him at all (I have tremendous respect for him), but remember when Einhorn wrote that op-ed about gold and implied that Warren just didn't get it? Turns Warren and Charlie were right (again), and Paulson, Einhorn, and Grant were wrong. At least for the moment.

Useful post. Thanks much.

Anyone think the drop in MHP is overdone?

I agree, very civil. Certainly an interesting discussion. I just curious, I notice a lot of value guys tend to cluster around the value firms like MKL, FFH, LUK. To those who hold these companies, what % of your port do you commit to these guys? Let's set aside BRK for now, because I would guess 80+% of the people on this forum own it (or have owned it).

"I have also had the opportunity to listen to Alice speak and she intimated that a great deal of Warrens investment prowress was a result of inside information and that she would reveal all in her next book the great wizard would be revealed to be just a mortal." Pretty serious allegations to be making. Conveniently ignores the fact that Buffett had his best years when he didn't really know anyone. Am amazed that she's made a public claim on something like this without showing definitive proof. If true, she should be writing the SEC, not making speeches.

True. Out of the prominent value guys, they seem to be the only one to follow the biotech space?

Thanks for the responses, that sheds some light. What was written about his wife though...since he read the book before it came out, I assume he approved of it in some form. When I first started following Buffett, he seemed like a perfectly wise person. And I still think that he's much wiser than the rest of us. As time has passed I've gotten to realize his imperfections, but that hasn't really diminished my admiration for him. He's human like the rest of us, but he's certainly maximized the hand he's been dealt. I agree with the sentiment that learning about Buffett and applying his teachings was a life-changer. For myself, I shudder when I think about how I would developed as an investor (and as a person) without his beneficial influence.

That's what makes it look interesting, that it sells below cash. Of course the cash will get burnt through sooner or later. What puzzles me about this is that the stock went up ~50% after that large crash late last year, which was also about TC-5214.

And down again recently. Anyone have thoughts on this one?

Does anyone actually know what caused Schroeder to become such an attack dog when it comes to Buffett? Because from what I recall, it was a fairly abrupt thing right after the book came out. I recall liking the book overall, because it shed more light on Buffett as an individual. Though I did dislike the "gossipy side" side of it -- you really could tell it was written by a girl. That may sound chauvinistic but that was really the impression I got at the time. I agree that Loomis would have done better. If Buffett said anything publicly about their rift, I missed it. Anyone have a link somewhere?