G2

I mean, I suppose one could view it as illegal to profit off information that may be perceived as material and non-public. At the same time, guys like Ackman and Icahn have built a name and credibility that the markets seek to evaluate in real time so it no longer strikes me as a big deal when a position is announced with great fanfare and the remora bite. But the first time I learned that Icahn will trade around and sell into the price spike associated with an announced position, I had a hard time reconciling those two sets of facts. Seems fair to get paid a little upfront, fix the co and get paid the rest upon a successful exit.

I second d29's inoreader rec. Gmail account not required to set up account and it can be removed at any time. A google reader clone with very similar layout and keyboard short-cuts. Easy to navigate preferences. Very happy with it as it'll be my primary tool to track RSS feeds for EDGAR filings.

Would you mind sharing your current thesis on the name and how the net pension asset relates to it? I'm not familiar with the co or its prospects and only looked quickly at its recent 10-K with a focus on note 14 on pp 57-64. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1364099/000136409913000005/iphs10k123112.htm#sDE3B1E125AE9F0082B9151FA9A9A4D38 The weighted discount rate seems to have ranged between 5.25% and 4% between 2010-12 and decreasing over time. Their expected rate of return is stated at 6.35% for 2012 and the breakdown in investments is 60% fixed income and 40% equity. The breakdown was 80% equity and 20% fixed income in 2011. (page 60) On the same page, do you understand the difference in discount rates for the "weighted average assumptions for balance sheet liabilities" and the "weighted average net periodic benefit cost"? The former seems to be decreasing will the latter increases over time but I don't fully understand what that might mean or implies. Are you basing the valuation on the net pension being a hidden asset which creates an 11%+ FCF/EV yield where FCF equals CFO less maint capex (and excludes business acquisitions) and EV is adjusted for the pension. The same FCF and EV not adjusted for the pension asset creates a 6% FCF yield by comparison. Is that what you are looking to evaluate?

Thanks for sharing insights into China, Parsad! I imagine there will definitely be some volatility in the name and perhaps an opportunity to buy below NAV or even book value will emerge in the future. Ultimately, I imagine YAK's thesis will play out. I am comfortable buying into the premise of a structural cost advantage existing for natural resources like copper and coal to be exported to China vs Australia or South America and that process will in turn fuel Mongolia's economic growth. Meanwhile, I'm not too confident on the timeframe or how it will all develop given the prospects of a hard landing in China as you mention. Do you have any data sources or analysis that you'd recommend on China's consumption and inventory of natural resources through various future economic scenarios? Part of my thought process related to continued growth in Mongolia is guided by Rio Tinto's continued investment in the Oyu Tolgoi mine as a recent Bloomberg article noted a potential further $5.1b investment which will presumably flow through Mongolia's economy ((http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-24/oyu-tolgoi-ceo-said-to-step-down-in-november-after-term-ends.html)). I think that is equivalent to about 50% or a bit more of their current GDP. My thinking is that Rio Tinto and other miners are much more exposed to a China hard landing but will not shut-down their mine development programs in the short-run as that would be un-economical (as I think that for similar, large projects the argument of sunk costs does not apply because stopping development with the intention to start again would be more costly). YAK is positioned more so to benefit at the first level from the miners' continued investment in the properties given the substantial up-front fixed costs to get a mine to be operational and then at the second level of Mongolia's increased due to exports of these natural resources. Greater upside presumably exists at the second level for both the miners and Mongolia and in turn YAK. Kupperman's presentation provided an estimate of GDP growth of $5b to $50b between 2010-20 which is really difficult for me to wrap my head and I don't know if I necessarily buy into those estimates. Mentally, I've decided to view YAK as a long-term call option with a binary outcome. Perhaps others will view that as an irrational approach. Strictly prefer a positive outcome but am also comfortable with a zero. Hopefully, their required rate of return for their projects substantially exceeds what one could earn when sticking cash in a local Mongolian bank with interest rates of 10-15% p.a. The current YAK strategy suggests that ongoing operations will be funded by rent collected from the prime retail properties while the construction of high-rise commercial buildings will take longer to come to fruition. More value will presumably be created in re-development so I agree it is a reasonable strategy to patiently watch the ticker price while also watching for tangible developments on that side of the business and the evolving economic situation in China. Perhaps as I think this through it would make more sense to watch for YAK's re-development plans come to fruition and buy on price dips that may occur in connection with negative news on a China hard/soft landing if the long-term thesis remains intact on mineral/natural resource export to China. Kupperman and Jordan seem to make a good team and complement each other--it's an intuitive observation but from the limited time I saw them interact Kupperman seems much more focused on the big picture and has a big personality to match, while Jordan seems more introverted and focused on the micro and operational aspects of the business. Of course, I imagine he'd be different outside of a shareholder meeting but that was my initial read from seeing them in person for the first time.

A few months ago, I attended an MGG presentation in NY by Kupperman. Here are links to the powerpoint and transcript: http://mongoliagrowthgroup.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/New-York-final-formatted-Final.pdf http://mongoliagrowthgroup.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Mongolia-Growth-Group-Presentation-Transcript.pdf During the Q&A, he estimated current NAV in the mid-2s CDN, compared to a BVPS of 1.41 CDN and most recent market price of 3.28 CDN. Unfortunately, he didn’t include a transcript of the Q&A session. MGG’s current thesis seems to have honed in on two ways to play Mongolia: 1) acquisition of prime retail locations and 2) re-development. The first part seems to be a play on increased per capita disposable income. The second part seems to mean the assembly of large land parcels in UB's growing business district. Then, partners with expertise in design and construction (and a desire to invest the capital necessary to complete construction in exchange for partial ownership). Once complete, MGG will manage and lease out the buildings. In the meantime, the Mandal Insurance asset and residential holdings will be sold off (as noted by Parsad). It’ll be interesting to see how the removal of the insurance unit impacts operating results as well as the difference in the cost and sales prices for the residential portfolio. Never spoke to him but seemed like a good guy. Management and the BoD own 1/3 of shares outstanding which is a plus. I find it to be an extremely interesting idea that one could hold for the long-term (5-10 years), albeit in small size.

I'm in my 20s and just started learning how to play in March. Fun game. Found a great NYC club with small group lessons (4-8 people) and recently started to play on Bridgebase. Only played in the robot tournaments but would love to start playing regularly with others at a similar level and share other similar interests. Handle is chief85. Can see why Buffett likes the game so much and it got me thinking that perhaps bridge is to investing as poker is to trading.

SkyBridge runs the annual SALT Conference in Las Vegas which tends to draw media coverage and high profile speakers like Daniel Loeb, Leon Cooperman, John Paulson and Sam Zell. http://www.saltconference.com/saltvegas2013/speakers.html Like Tilson, he's got the gifts of gab and self-promotion in spades.

Malcolm Gladwell did a wonderful piece in the New Yorker which contrasted Taleb and Niederhoffer back in 2002: http://www.gladwell.com/pdf/blowingup.pdf

Thanks dcollon--appreciate the link.

Thanks for the informative article. Are you involved in the junior gold miner space? I've started to think about the construction of a portfolio of 20-25 junior gold miners that one could hold for 3+ years and always find it a useful reference point to see what some of the largest and more respected funds like Baupost and Weiss are targeting.

Really? I don't think so. I use it from time to time, and the foreign commission depends on the exchange. For example, when I bouht stocks in Italy, I paid 19 Euro as the commission. Regarding forex fees, I think it totally. I could only hope that in the future when I have more money, the rate goes down. I think when it is 200k or more per trade, the forex fee decreases from 1% to something like 0.2%. I misspoke--I was charged a $50 Foreign Settlement Fee b/c the security did not settle through the Depository Trust Co. So that was on top of the 9 GBP commission and 1% currency charge. The fee is charged only when you buy but not at time of sale. I guess I need to start finding foreign securities that settle through the DTC...

Fidelity also charges $50 per foreign trade ($8- for domestic for perspective) which has always struck me as expensive.