Jump to content

Palantir

Member
  • Posts

    2,628
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Palantir

  1. Can somebody explain why Greece cannot stay in the EZ after default?

     

    The most common argument I have heard is that if this were to happen, then there would be nothing stopping the other PIIGS countries from doing so -aka no punishment for default.

     

     

    To me, this doesn't make any sense, when a country defaults, markets will punish them by raiding the cost of borrowing, so in that case, why not let this happen?

     

    That's the thing though, why would they not have access to Euros? To me it seems like the main risk here is political ramifications from other Euro countries, not economic ones as a consequence of default?

    I think their banking system would face insolvency and illiquidity on an enormous scale post-default - the country would likely face a choice between allowing its financial system to completely collapse or recapitalizing it. With no access to any Euros, recapitalization would presumably have to occur in a different currency. The alternative of financial system collapse just seems untenable.

  2. Can somebody explain why Greece cannot stay in the EZ after default?

     

    The most common argument I have heard is that if this were to happen, then there would be nothing stopping the other PIIGS countries from doing so -aka no punishment for default.

     

     

    To me, this doesn't make any sense, when a country defaults, markets will punish them by raiding the cost of borrowing, so in that case, why not let this happen?

  3. I think value investing is a limited framework that can make you miss out on great opportunities. Value investing isn't buying stocks below intrinsic value, but rather those looking for opportunities among low multiple stocks.Well, when high multiple stocks like AMZN keep rising in front of you for years with its 100 PE, value investors have no idea how to handle a stock like that.

     

     

     

    *ducks gunfire*

  4. Enlightening, thanks for posting. I just started my investment firm and am definitely guilty of the "if I build a track record, investors will come" mentality.

     

    Indeed, I feel like I talk to a lot of guys out there who invest sub<10M, and seem to use the "I don't market" as a badge of honor. It could also be from a desire to "I'd rather focus on finding undervalued securities" rather than selling your service and building a business.

     

     

  5. Point is, not everyone is hurt by larger asset bases. You guys are assuming that sub-10M managers are all killing it with 50% returns, investing in obscure, tiny securities, when in reality, a number of them are investing in things that bigger funds can. Anyways the article I linked only talks about being at about 1.6B, not 10B. Beyond 10B yes, your opportunity set shrinks.

  6. That's interesting, I guess that is why all the great fund managers are running portfolios of sub 10M, you know, because size hurts returns. *sends David Einhorn/Seth Klarman/Ray Dalio angry emails* If you're managing more in assets, you can run multiple funds, for different client preferences, spend more resources on your work, you have access to deals small managers don't, etc. Bigger can be better.

     

     

  7. These guys were about $110M in 2010, now over a billion, all by getting the word out.

     

     

    Value investing: Alpine tops $1.6 billion by getting the word out

    http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/print-edition/2014/09/05/value-investing-alpine-tops-1-6-billion-by-getting.html

     

     

    But Tompras found that a good record isn’t enough. “I had this ‘if you build it, they will come’ idea, which proved to be a bit naive,” he said.

     

    “You can have great numbers but you can toil in obscurity if no one knows about them.”
×
×
  • Create New...