CorpRaider

Did he talk about IBM in this interview? Trying to find that clip (I've seen some of the quotes). I can check out the episode on Charlie's site. Thanks for the call-out.

Just throwing out another idea in an attempt to be helpful here: You could maybe check out PEFIX. One of the pimco stocksplus funds using the EM RAFI index for the futures side.

Just read the Opec report the other day, they're forecasting European GDP to contract by about .5% this year, U.S growth has been revised down to around 1.5%. That is roughly 50% of the world's GDP growing at 0.5% a year right now with a lot of central bank monetization. As far as lack of marginal workers, they're out there in droves and more will come back in the fold if the economy heats up, which it probably won't, its been almost 6 years since 08, we're due for another 'correction.' I think Hoisington is right and as soon as QE stops, rates will drop. What happens to the GDP's of all the oil producing countries when the price of Oil hits 75 again? They're barely growing as it is, I think the reason a lot of oil stocks are cheap is because this is being priced in. 1.5% GDP is pretty darn good with sequester and big tax hikes. With no additional austerity, I bet most would project, what, 3.0%+ GDP?

Yeah I like to follow the trends in margin debt, but that would probably really only be relevant to the severity of whatever decline is precipitated by an unknown event. A 5% S&P earnings yield doesn't blow my skirt up...

You could probably make a pretty convincing case if you pulled together some sentiment stats, examined the fund flows and asset allocations people have on and then compared the performance of whatever index you like with its longer-term performance and argue that a few more years of outperformance might be required to get people off the sideline and get a "return to the mean" over the longer term.

Timber and New Zealand farmland, no?

I agree, lots of energy looks pretty cheap to me. I suppose I need to stress test it at $70 oil and see how cheap it looks. I've not been through the normal boom and bust in the oil patch that some of you more wizened fellows may have, but it seems like the tendency is to overshoot bigtime on production until some people go bankrupt, which some argue is what we need in nat gas. Makes me think, perhaps I should go with Exxon or Chevron or someone with a fortress balance sheet that is basically a specialist investment banking firm for energy.

blakely was hillarious.

That was good. At 83, he might have another 20+ years in him!

Coal? Irish or Greek real estate?

Interesting. Thanks for flagging these.

Awesome. You should tear up the prenuptial for that! Congrats.

Coming up Monday, right? Enjoy all you Canucks!

Yeah, active investment strategies, especially value investing are definitely more popular than they were historically. Indexing is on the decline, obviously.

Yesterday I sold a little over half my SD LEAPS for basically taking my initial investment off the table and let most of the gains run. If anyone cares, I will likely wait to see if we get a big sell-off on the political stuff and look for the 2015 LEAPS when they start trading.

I agree. If they go that route it seems to me they're likely to demonstrate that they are not rational and will be a footnote in history's record of the turmoil surrounding the great recession. I am probably suffering from a confirmation bias here because I have already have written them off since they rose to prominence largely as a reaction to misguided anger stemming from the recession and aimed at TARP and the auto bailouts, which I regard as master strokes (and not just because of the creation of all those delicious warrants, hah).

I think until or unless they do something about future medicare and medicaid costs they've done nothing especially material (especially when you factor in the permanence of the majority of the Bush tax cuts). Certainly nothing worthy of all the uncertainty they have injected into the system, from my perspective. I suppose the defense cuts are the closest to something notable, since they are so rare.

Yeah, I'm sort of with you myth, but it might take a market reaction and then the more centrist republicans can clean out the tea partiers in the mid terms. They might need to dial down the gerrymandering, so they can have a shot to run their party. Democrats and more centrist republicans probably both benefit by letting the tpers demonstrate their version of governing. Seems like chamber of commerce and other business lobby money will be going after them in 2014 as well.

Yeah, I read the article and get that he can buy some different stuff and investors can pay him more for that. Not sure ability to buy real estate is an alpha driver for a dude who owns as much St. Joe and SHLD. Mazel to Bruce; I suppose I'm just underwhelmed, because I was hoping his plan was to maybe make JOE his vehicle, one that wouldn't be a flow-through and would provide something closer to "permanent" capital.

Thanks for the response. Yeah sorry I could have been clearer; I figured some of the pros from his perspective were greater compensation and more predictable capital via the lock-ups (but not "permanent" to which it seems the big hedgies are moving these days). I was more hoping to spark discussion from the perspective of a potential investor (and perhaps more interestingly, current mutual fund holders). The response to the question of "why should I pay you 15% rather than 1%" will be interesting. Concentration is one answer but, of course, he's already too concentrated for most people (not many of those on this board). haha. Since he talked a lot about permanency of capital, I was interested to see if he would follow more of the GLRE, TPRE, (maybe a little like MKL, BRK, FFH) or even what he projects onto ESL via SHLD. Another passthrough entity with higher fees and lock-ups? Color me underwhelmed.

Seems like it might take a "market repudiation of the congressional rejection of tarp" or 2011 congressional correction type of moment to get some of the fiscal radicals to act. I'm set up accordingly. Of course I caught the end of 2011 action almost perfectly, which in turn caused me to position conservatively before the end of 2012 fiscal cliff stuff and therefore miss the bulk of the 2013 gains.

He's going to have 100% in AIG. hah.

Thanks for sharing. What's the thought process here? That he can employ some leverage and perhaps more importantly, hedge to reduce some of his horrible down years? His ~12% per annum, since inception is good, but its about where Gayner is....and guys like Loeb and Pabrai have crushed this, no? I guess his fees are a little lower.

A "catastrophe" is you mailing the keys to the house to the bank and you're not much worse for wear.

Yeah, I think this is going to be one of those levels of comfort with risk answers, but I would probably take as much sub 4.5%, 30 year fixed, tax deductible debt as I could get...