AtlCDore

Anyone notice that for days now we see very large volumes for FFH.TO. But more interesting they are "Market On Open" and "Market On Close" order trades. For example the Market On Close on Jan 19 was 278K shares while during the day only about 40K traded. Then this morning, Jan 20, we again got 207K shares with a Market On Open order. And at 4PM EST we again saw 154K shares Market On Close volume. Just go back a few more days and you will notice the same happening with large volumes day after day. Market On Close and Market On Open are no limit orders. A regular investment manager/investor would normally not buy or sell this way. This seems to me a fund, active or passive, selling or buying based on in or out flows. I do not think it is FFH buying as I understand that companies are not allowed to buy their own stock on the open or close in the US and I assume Canada probably has a similar measure, but I am not 100% sure. If you count up totals for the last few weeks you end up with significant volume. Is some fund liquidating? The volume seems too large for just one (or a few) fund(s) to be adding on inflows or selling on outflows. It seems like someone is literally liquidating a large position. Also, who is taking the other side of these (no limit) orders? Not regular shareholders I would guess. These market on open and market on close orders are no limit and flow is advertised between 10 and 30 minutes before the open on close. Could it be FFH is the other side of this trade? Who otherwise would be able to absorb these kind of volumes? Or could it be that there is some large buyer? But why would they then trade such quantities on the open or close with no limits and not just buy during the day? A VWAP seems to me a much more efficient solution to buy that way. Has FFH been added to some index and is it passive funds buying? But why then would the buying last for such a long time? With TSLA it was done in one day. Is there something I am missing?

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm currently reading a book, The Battle for Quebec, and the locations and suggestions all appear in the book. We will probably visit those places as my son has read the book as well. I meant to ask these questions in my original post. Is English widely spoken so I can get by without French? Are restaurants casual enough to wear shorts and collared shirts? I am assuming the answer to both is yes but as the great Benny Hill said, you should never assume. Thanks

I am going to be in QC with my 12 year old son for 3 days in a couple of weeks. We're both history buffs and so we have some ideas of to do. Does anyone have any recommendations of what to see and restaurants suggestions? Neither of us are big seafood fans but thought since we will be there would love to do French bistros. Thanks in advance, AtlCDore

Liberty, Thanks for posting.

Take a look at books by John Murphy. I can't vouch for how good it is/isn't since I have never been a TA guy but traders I was around always read his books.

SD, Just curious if you have a fund that allows you to buy real estate or was done outside a fund with partners? Thanks, AtlCDore

Thanks for posting. One thing that jumped out at me was how productive his former students were into old age. Maybe focusing only on finding good value ideas eliminates a lot of the stress of being involved with the markets and attributed to a long and productive life?

Always better to weed out the partners who don't appreciate your process. I have a couple theories as far as why a lot of managers start underperforming once they become popular. Say you manage $20 million and grow it to $100 million over ten years without raising new AUM. Once you have that track record and your first partners can trust your judgement and deal with the volatility a little better, it's easier to stick with the same process and keep doing what you do best. Maybe even take on some investments that other managers would shy away from. But now imagine someone throws another $200 million at you, so you have to manage $300 million. The $200 million investor(s) don't like the idea of losing money. But your original partners are a little better about that because you've already made a ton and proven yourself. Since the fees on $300 million are much higher, you kind of change your process to bend over to the new investor(s) because you don't want to risk losing them. I think this kills a fund or long-term track record. One guy who comes to mind is that Arlington Value fellow. He's raised so much over the past few years that I don't know how one can expect him to keep the same investment process. It's simply very difficult to subject new money to lots of volatility no matter how great your previous track record is. It becomes much harder when your capital base grows five fold. The best long-term track records often come from those who basically shut down to outside capital after a certain period of time. They stop caring about bringing in tons of new management and incentive fees and cashing in on their track record. It becomes more about making money for their original partners and the pure enjoyment of the investing process. Like Buffett. Which ties a bit into my second theory. It becomes much more fun to focus on things other than investing once you've made a killing if you don't love investing. Look at Berkowitz. He's too busy running some art exhibit or something. And the game gets harder over time so you need to always have a passion for the game or you'll end up "being thrown out to pasture." I'm sort of amazed by how many young people I meet that have a great sense for deep, insightful value investing. The competition is so much harder today. Anyway that's my theory. It's very tempting to raise a lot of AUM but I think the slow process of being very mindful of your LP's and when you raise capital is a very big part of a solid long-term track record. And mental health for the manager. Congrats on good results by the way. I think Picasso is wiser than his years. He brings up a good point that most investors don't want to face. I'd bet that for most funds their best returns took place during the earlier years and their performance tailed off after they raised the majority of their money. The other thing I would add is as funds get larger the mindset of the manager can and probably in most cases changes. They start making a lot of money and begin to enjoy the fruits of all that money. Their focus shifts to making sure the money stays in the fund meaning the management fee starts to become more important than the incentive fee. They tell themselves as long as we don't "screw the pooch", the money will stay in the fund and I can live a pretty good life off of the monthly management fee. Country Clubs, cars and houses soon follow and their focus is not on generating the best returns but keeping their lifestyle going.

boilermaker--thanks for the New Holland suggestion. I love stouts but hit and miss in restaurants in Atlanta. Do you know the difference between a stout and a porter? Jurgis--you may want to look at Wild Irish Rose or MD 20/20. I think they'll satisfy your sweet wine preference.

Picasso, Thanks. That is helpful. Is Earnings before XO, Earnings before extraordinary items? Does Bloomberg give any indication what the extraordinary items are? Thanks, AtlCDore

I would like the companies with negative earnings subtracted from the total. Thanks, AtlCDore

I am unable to find the earnings for every company in the Russell 2000. Without looking up every company, does anyone know if there is a place to find the aggregate earnings for all the companies in the Russell 2000? Thanks, AtlCDore

Cevian, Do you speak from experience? Can you elaborate? The only "experience" I have pertaining to this is a friend of mine has looked at private businesses and has not come across anything even remotely interesting. As he digs into the businesses he has found numerous issues regarding mismanagement, accounting issues, employee issues. Thanks, AtlCDore Yes personal experience. I don't mean they are mutually exclusive (i.e. stock market OR private business). We also own stocks. In my opinion all asset classes should be up for grabs for value investors and not restricted solely to tradable securities on public markets. Seth Klarman's book had a big impact on my thinking in my 20s, after having converted to value investing in my late teens. I had a Bruce Lee "Jeet Kune Do" moment where I came to realize that value investing and the concept of Margin of Safety can be successfully applied not only to stocks but to private businesses, cars, real estate, land, and a lot of times with much higher returns than just stocks. Having said that, this doesn't mean it's easy. I love it though and find it more fun and a challenge to see the impact your own direct decisions and management/leadership can make. I attend the Fairfax meetings every year and would love to have a discussion of these types of opportunities. Cevian, What you say makes a lot of sense. Buy where the opportunity set is greatest. It would be interesting to hear your personal experiences. Do you run these all as separate entities, a fund, holding company? Thanks, AtlCDore

Cevian, Do you speak from experience? Can you elaborate? The only "experience" I have pertaining to this is a friend of mine has looked at private businesses and has not come across anything even remotely interesting. As he digs into the businesses he has found numerous issues regarding mismanagement, accounting issues, employee issues. Thanks, AtlCDore

Jurgis, Have you looked at closed end funds for HY debt? The advantage is that they don't have to sell as funds are locked up. In October 2008 when the convertible bond market blew up, the closed end funds did well over the following 2 years. AtlCDore