hyten1

i have been looking at this and I usually stay away from banks (not in my comfort zone) i would like peoples take on WFC vs BAC, taking into account the potential risk vs reward. which one is better investment?

to be very blunt and honest, nytimes has really nothing to write about their assumptions is someone else can monetize bing better, i haven't seen a compelling argument that anyone else can (beside google)

folks, thanks for your responses, its been very helpful hy

Parsad, thanks for your reply, base on what you said your fund will treat new money coming in at $14 with the same high water mark of $15 as the old money then. I think that is how mohnish does it. also this statement "and the fund has to achieve the equivalent of 6% annualized before any incentive fee is paid." always confused me a little. In mohnish and your case its not really 6% annualized its 6% above $15 right? 6% annialized to me means $11.91 ($10 * 1.06 * 1.06 * 1.06 etc). Or did i not understand something. Or do people mean 6% annualized starting from each high water mark, which would in all practical purposes mean the same thing ($15 * 1.06 or 6% above $15) hy

twacowfca/tim thanks another stupid question. what about new money that comes in? if your fund its at $14 per unit (via the example) and new money come in at $14. what is the high water mark for new money? is it $14 or $15? hy

twacowfca thanks for you reply. i was wondering how does most hedge fund handle this? I would think this is very typical? how is it typically interpreted. i am looking at starting a fund that is why i am asking. hy

Folks, i have been looking at what some of the performance fee that hedge fund charges, one thing confuses me. Here is what pabrai fund charges: Performance fee of 25% of the returns over 6% annualized (subject to high-water mark) I am a little confused by how the 6% annualized work with high-water mark. For example: Lets say your fund start at $100,000 with 10,000 units ($10 per unit) After year 1, its now $150,000 still 10,000 units ($15 per unit) so this is obviously above 6% and its at all time high - fee is charge at 25% of whatever is above 6% But lets say after year 2, its now $140,000 still 10,000 units ($14 per unit) no fee for that year because of high water mark, need to be above $15 After year 3 its now $157500 still 10,000 units ($15.75 per unit) this is above all time high of $15, but do you charge a fee for year 3? I would assume the 6% annualize mean if your fund is above $11.91 per unit you get to charge a fee ($11.91 = $10 * 1.06 * 1.06 * 1.06) Or does the annualize mean it has to be higher than $15 * 1.06 = $15.9 (which the fund is not) so no fee

mevsemt sorry i keep posting xirr definitely has it place. I use it to calculate my annualized return since i started investing (2003). This take care of money being added etc. but need to remember XIRR annalizes your return. So depending on if you added money recently and how much that is relative to your total portfolio and how you did recently it can distort both on the upside as well as downside your return calculation. for ytd return i look at my nav per share (or btw any specific time frame)

so to get your ytd you simply look at your return per share, as well as any time frame you want to look at xirr the issue with that is, i believe that annualized your return which can be misleading (i guess depending on how you look at it) for example lets say you start with $100k today and your portfolio goes up to $101K which is 1% for that day (daily return swing of 1% or more is very common) xirr will annualized the 1% to 365 days! which is VERY HIGH! but ytd return would still be 1%

i retreat my portfolio similar to a mutual fund. for example let say you started with $100k, and you say each shares of your fund is worht $10 that means when you start you have 10,000 shares with each share worth $10 (which is $100k) as i add money I would put shares at the current nav per share lets say 6 month later you portfolio has go up to $150k that means each share is worth $15 and let says at that time you decided to add $50k, that means now you have total of 13333.33 shares now ($50,000 / $15 = 3333.33 shares) each share worth $15 with a total worth of $200k so at this point your YTD return is still 50% ($10 to $15)

don't forget to use nav method to take into account new money etc

man this guy is awesome i look for deals everyday.... can't seem to find anything great :(

33%

man some of you guys rock, i would love to be up 25% ytd i am only up little over 2% ytd

cash

someone mention catalyst for msft i think there are some potential catalyst - windows phone show momentum - windows 8 puts msft on the tablet track hy

eric i agree i have been looking at these large caps i'll add F and GM

bargainman, i don't agree with you at all. As anyone who have managed people know. Its impossible to micro manage or know all details of everything folks are doing that is under you. Especially someone who you consider a star and who knows all the in and out of what should and shouldn't be done. You say buffett should of prob further, maybe. I don't know all he details and circumstances. I can definitely see how buffett didn't. It happens all the time to many of us on a daily bases. What i didn't like more is the letter Buffett put out after sokol so call left. I wish buffett should of been harder. But then again I don't know all the details hy

also there is a difference between which is a better investment BRK or FFH vs which is a better investor. if both started with 1 million right now, or 100mil for that matter which would you invest with :)

myth i agree with you on the comment regarding people want upside. this is one of my biggest concern. Why would anyone want to take over berkshire job? It's either someone internal who already own large stake in BRK or someone from outside who hasn't proven themselves. Anyone else the incentives are not there. If I am successfull and well known and wealthy why would I want to work at BRK (in the shadow of WEB). If I am successfull and well known and not wealthy (I won't be able to get rich at BRK unless there is some way for me to get the upside in equity, which translates to large sumof option or stock grants). If I am successfull and not well known and not wealthy, this could happen. But people might use BRK as a stepping stone to something else. If I am successfull and not well known and wealthy, hmm would some like this want to work at BRK? If i am not successfull (well are we going there) for me what it comes down to is its either people who have potential and haven't proven themselves in a big way (this is not great). Or someone internal who already own large shares. Or else BRK will need to start paying the big buck like every other corporation. Also I don't see how anyone won't use BRK as a stepping stone to something else. hy

beerborn agree, i am looking for that smart way, haven't found it yet. but i have talk to some friends in japn, things don't look good there. then again these are just few individuals

to honest, i thought some of etf for japan would fall more for example EWJ, and didn't expect it to bounce back so quickly

parsad, i hear ya, what i was trying to understand and get is, if that does happen are we talking about half of japan being contaminated? or X miles radius around the center? what would that X be? hy

folks what does people as the worst case senario? is it all the reactors blow up or some of it blow up? If that did happen how many miles from the center will radiation be at a level that is detrimental to people? Are we talking 50% of japan being radioactive? just wondering. my knowledge of nuclear reactor is sooooo limited.

i find it strange that EWJ didnt track the nikkei 225 index much