innerscorecard

In fact, this is one of the top Google results for "Mohnish Pabrai" for me (probably because I've read that blog before or favorited it...):

I just finished Dennis' How to Get Rich just two months ago, actually. After I finished the book I Google'd Felix Dennis only to find that he had recently passed away. And now Maxim, the pride of his empire, is a diminished thing that Sardar Biglari is trying to reinvigorate. But Dennis actually did predict the passing of his industry as well. The book was written late enough for that. I think Dennis is most insightful when he talks about the oddity of saying you want to be a billionaire or to be truly rich, like Buffett said he knew he wanted to be and like Pabrai said he wanted to be as well (not just $5 million USD "comfortably poor," as Dennis would define the wealth level of many of the successful individual investors on this board!). It really is such a weird thing to want. (Edited for grammar only.)

You're right of course. I didn't think my words through carefully and looking back on it my statement was wrong. It's really not a dichotomy like that at all. The reason I said what I did was thinking about reading 500 pages a day (I know that's apocryphal) and also thinking about the many other things there are to do in life as well. I like reading, but I don't want to be only a book with legs, as Munger says. The book that really got me turned on to investing was the Snowball - but I liked it also because it talked about the personal costs of being obsessed with investing. The image of Buffett ignoring his family and having Susan move out because she couldn't bear it anymore is to me a cautionary tale. I think the question is also whether one's goals are to be a great investor or to invest for the purpose of meeting one's own personal financial (or I suppose) goals. By the way, I've been a subscriber to your blog for quite a while now and really appreciate your writing. Not just the companies you cover, but especially when you talk about what it means to invest in stocks and what it means to do business. I find your approach and synthesis of ideas very fresh.

I read and posted this interview right before bedtime (where I live) last night. Now that I've thought it over, some thoughts: 1. Pabrai says that he won't invest in Russia at all due to lack of respect for capital. But he's happy to invest in India. So there must be some dividing line somewhere, not just an all or nothing decision. I wonder where that is. 2. Pabrai's analysis of Google seems extremely shallow. 3. Pabrai says that he will not discuss current holdings, and then does so. This also seems at odds with his behavior in giving a "stock tip" to buy GM-WSB.

I think I'm spending too much time on investing. I just had a dream last night that Sardar Biglari got arrested for personally poisoning the food of other competitors in some sort of competition. The Biglari Holdings thread here then got so hot that it crashed the server.

It seems to me that originality and doing a lot of your own proprietary research have a negative effect on quality of life for most (unless you have no other interests) but a positive effect on your career prospects in the investment industry, while intelligent cloning has the exact opposite effect.

Top U.S. Holdings of Pabrai Fund (as of Sept. 30, 2014) Horsehead Holding (ZINC) Bank of America (BAC) Citigroup © Posco (PKX) Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA) Q&A Buffett Disciple Mohnish Pabrai on Bank of America, Citi, Google, and Hyundai Hedge fund manager Mohnish Pabrai sees value in big financial stocks, Google, and Korean shares. By JOHN KIMELMAN Dec. 9, 2014 7:37 a.m. ET In seeking out the advice of professional stockpickers, it’s best to avoid the so-called closet indexers. Portfolio managers that fit that bill hold 40 or more stocks -- many hold hundreds -- with each comprising a small percentage of the portfolio. They collect active-management fees for performance that, at best, matches the index. That’s not the way hedge fund manager Mohnish Pabrai rolls. The Indian-born Pabrai, who runs the $700 million-asset Pabrai Investment Funds, puts big money behind his convictions. In the investment world, that translates to holding a small basket of stocks and watching them closely. “I have heard [Warren Buffett’s business partner] Charlie Munger more than once say that a well-diversified portfolio needs four stocks,” says Pabrai, in a phone interview from his office in Irvine, Calif. Pabrai’s portfolios aren’t quite that concentrated. But the value hound is OK with buying a stock that makes up 10% of his fund house’s assets, and even letting it run a bit higher than that. He takes a go-anywhere approach, seeing opportunities ranging from the U.S. to South Korea. A former information technology consultant, Pabrai is a serious student of Warren Buffett’s approach to investing. In 2008, he and a friend, value investor Guy Spier, paid $650,000 in a charity auction to have a two-and-a-half-hour lunch with their investment idol at a famous New York steakhouse. It’s hard to know the full extent of Pabrai’s performance over the years. By law, as a hedge fund manager, he is not allowed to publish or disclose numbers for noninvestors, including inquiring reporters, since that constitutes marketing the fund. According to BarclayHedge, an Iowa-based fund-tracking firm, Pabrai Investment Fund 3 returned an annualized 9.68% over the past 10 years through Oct. 31 net of fees, outpacing the total return of the Standard & Poor’s 500 index by about 1.5% a year. That said, the fund has sharply underperformed the broader stock market this year. When asked about this underperformance, he replied, “I think it is an irrelevant data point. There is nothing intelligent that one can say about short periods like 10 months. I never make investments with any thought to what will happen in a few months or even a year.” At least investors don’t get charged for periods of poor performance. Unlike most hedge fund managers, the long-only investor doesn’t charge a flat management fee of 2% on top of performance fees. He just charges 25% on gains made over 6%. He can keep his fees so low because of his low overhead; the 50-year-old does all the stock research and portfolio management himself. When Barrons.com last spoke with Pabrai almost 10 years ago, he said active stockpickers should focus on small-cap stocks because it’s easier to find mispriced assets in that sector than it is with larger stocks. Since then, he’s modified his stance to take advantage of a few big banks that he believes were unfairly beaten down during the Great Recession. The bottom-up investor says he’s having a tougher time finding value in the U.S. stock market than he did a year ago. One of his favorite stocks is one he doesn’t own, at least not yet: Google (ticker: GOOGL). Though he shies away from discussing stocks he’s been buying recently, his insights can inform those who are making their own decisions. Read on for his latest thoughts about the markets. Barrons.com: Would you say it is easier or harder to find cheaply valued stocks than it was, say, a year ago? Pabrai: I would say it’s harder. We haven’t had any meaningful investments in U.S.-listed stocks in probably two years. I’ve found a few things, but they are just really small. The stocks that we have found of any meaning are all out of the U.S. Q: Where? A: I’ve found stocks in India, China and South Korea. Q: Can you elaborate? A: I can discuss names that we’ve held in the past, but in general I prefer not to talk about my current stocks. Q: You told me when we talked in 2005 that you tend to shy away from large-cap stocks because there is less opportunity to find mispriced assets. But I noticed in a recent 13F filing that one of your funds has sizable positions in two big banks, Bank of America ( BAC ) and Citigroup ( C). Explain this? A: My feeling is that if a bank has proper reserves and it’s trading well below tangible book value, that is an undervalued bank. You could shut down a bank today and if the reserves are correct you would get back the tangible book value. So you look at something like Bank of America, for example, the tangible book value of Bank of America is around $14-$15 a share, and when we were making the investment it was around $6 to $7 dollars a share. It was trading at half of book value, and, of course, clearly at that point the market believed that book value was incorrect. Q: So you thought that was a rare case where a large well-followed bank wasn’t being efficiently priced by the market? A: Yes. It’s true that with large-cap stocks, there is less opportunity. But in a situation where there is a national crisis, things are beaten up so badly. Q: When did you do most of your buying of Bank of America? A: Around late 2011. I bought it right after Buffett bought it. Q: Does what you say about BofA apply to your investment in Citigroup as well? A: Yeah, I think it applies. Both were sitting at massive discounts to tangible book value. Q: Are both Bank of America and Citigroup worth buying at their current prices? A: Yes, both are undervalued. Eventually they should trade like Wells Fargo and JPMorgan with similar price-to-book and price-to-earnings multiples. Q: I know you like India, South Korea and China. Are there certain national markets that you are particularly bullish on now or is your focus purely on businesses, not markets? A: In the case of Korea, a lot of companies have preferred securities, and in many cases they are trading at 50% of common stock. There are hundreds of these preferreds. We are currently invested in Hyundai preferreds. Q: In analyzing a business, are you also analyzing the country where the business is based? A: Yes. For example, no matter how cheap it gets, we will not invest in Russia. There’s a lack of respect for capital. The same applies to Zimbabwe. Q: When we chatted nine years ago, you said that you basically avoided retail and technology stocks because companies in those industries have a hard time maintaining a competitive advantage. As examples, you referred to Google and Microsoft ( MSFT ), saying that these stocks are priced by the market as if they were going to be around and successful for many, many years and who’s to say that is going to be the case. A: I would say, in hindsight, it was probably a mistake that we didn’t buy Google. I don’t put Microsoft in the same category. I have no interest in Microsoft. But Google is probably the greatest company ever created in the history of mankind. This is a business that is highly innovative, and they are able to nurture businesses in such a wide range of stuff in such huge markets. As for Microsoft, at best they can copy someone else and after the seventh or eighth version they might get it. Q: But does Google meet your value imperatives? A: It is actually not an expensive stock, especially when you consider that reported earnings are severely understated because they are investing [heavily] in all of these endeavors. Q: Is it safe to say that you wish you had bought Google nine years ago? A: Absolutely. I’m saying I should buy it today. Q: What about Apple ( AAPL )? A: Apple also is a phenomenal company, and I think Apple will continue to grow and flourish even with Steve Jobs no longer in the picture. We are seeing a huge amount of respect for the company, and lots of good things are going on. But it is nothing like Google. They cannot do innovation in so many businesses. Q: But for all the supposed advantages that Google possesses, Apple has been the far better investment over the last decade. A: Yes. But what we are concerned about is the next 10 years. If I were betting on a horse between the two, it is a no brainer that it would be Google. In fact, if you told me the horses to pick from were Amazon.com ( AMZN ), Google, Microsoft, Apple, and whatever other names you had, I’d pick Google. Q: Thanks for your time. Comments? E-mail us at editors@barrons.com Manager’s Bio Name: Mohnish Pabrai Age: 50 Title: Principal, Pabrai Investment Funds Education: B.S. in computer engineering, Clemson University; studied for master’s degree in electrical engineering at Illinois Institute of Technology Hobbies: Playing bridge

It might be more helpful if you write even a few lines of your own thoughts on the book, rather than just copying the PR summary.

I'm reading the 2003 Edition right now and I'm starting to think that Zweig's comments don't actually add anything and are actually somewhat asinine.

My thoughts/liveblog from the video as well as the Web Extra: - "My best students": H. Kevin Byun? - Greenblatt seemed to really emphasize price over quality in what he's doing now. That seems to support what Tobias Carlisle has been saying about quality perhaps being a metric too much. - He acknowledged the failure of The Big Secret for the Small Investor. - When Mack led with "Does it bother you that..." I thought she was going to ask about the 2.25% fee, or the closing of the Formula Capital funds! Wish she had asked one of those questions, although not realistic to expect that. - Greenblatt emphasized the tax benefit of the ETF structure. Previously in another interview (I forgot which), he had said he had no plans to launch an ETF himself due to the need for daily disclosure. I wonder if the new ETF structure that the SEC approved recently that allows or ETFs without daily disclosure will prompt him to consider launching an ETF version of the Gotham funds. - He seems to be de-emphasizing the Magic Formula these days, never really mentioning it by name, and saying that what Gotham is doing now is a more developed version of that crude draft. And despite him bringing up VIC, he never mentioned the Magic Formula Investing website. All in all, it was ok, but less good than some past interviews he has given.

I would like to be able to see what he says in these meetings. In his TV and newspaper appearances so far (not including WealthTrack), he didn't say anything different or more promotional in style than what he said in his books, really. The New York Times article implied that he was outright promising superior performance. But that was a few quotes without context. That's why I'm very curious to hear the tone he takes on Wealthtrack this time around.

Much lower than the $250,000 minimum.

The recent New York Times article certainly took that angle all but explicitly. Greenblatt is certainly on TV a lot these days, but that's not the same as blatantly being promotional. I certainly don't think there's anything untoward about what Greenblatt is doing, and I think the firm's materials have sufficiently explained things. I think if you are willing to read between the lines, Greenblatt's approaches all make sense for different people: 1. You Can Be a Stock Market Genius-style investing is ideal for those who understand the value investing approach and have the inclination and ability to actually do financial analysis (this eliminates the vast majority of individual investors). Returns and volatility will both be extremely high. 2. Magic Formula investing is ideal for those who understand enough to understand what value investing is and why it works, but do not themselves have the inclination and ability to actually do financial analysis, but DO have the ability to handle volatility and control their emotions and follow a system at least somewhat (from Greenblatt's later experiences with how ordinary people handled the Magic Formula - trying to time the market, and making the formula worse through cherry-picking, this eliminates far more individual investors than he first thought); 3. Formula Funds/Gotham Funds - for people who understand why value investing works, but can't handle volatility. The big question for me is whether, AFTER fees, Gotham Funds' returns should be lower than, about equal to, or higher than Magic Formula returns. I really don't know the answer to this question, as I think the answer depends on how actually superior Gotham's proprietary data adjustments are (which isn't shared with the Magic Formula official site). Out of curiosity, I did make an inquiry to Gotham Funds about whether they'd waive the minimum, after explaining my investing background, philosophy, and needs, and they were wiling to waive it for me. I haven't actually made an investment yet. I may or may not, as the fee really is very high, and that goes against the "cost matter hypothesis" which is very important to me. But if I had a job that restricted my personal account trades, Gotham Funds' would definitely have a place in my portfolio.

http://wealthtrack.com/promo_01/this-weekend-strategy-change/

Honestly, with what you've posted in this thread, it seems that you're trying to market-time and exercise judgment with ETFs. If you do so, you're not passively investing at all. Prudent passive investing is about your behavior, not the vehicle. This is why investors' returns lag their funds' returns. If you want to be a passive investor, you need to stick to a set schedule and a fixed asset allocation and be disciplined. This is simple but not easy.

I called and after a brief discussion Gotham Funds was quite willing to waive the $250,000 minimum.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe this is separate from any ETF that Tobias Carlisle may or may not launch with him as the fund manager.

It feels a little dangerous to talk about your successes with people who may not have had similar successes. They may try to do what has worked for you but end up doing very badly because they don't truly understand what you've done.

Eric, thanks for being so patient and writing your thought processes out. I learned a lot from your responses to this thread, and I really appreciate your effort (quite an effort, as this thread was in fact quite exhausting for the reasons you stated).

I think that even if you actively invest, rather than passively index, as the 3-4% Safe Withdrawal Rate assumes, you should still use 3-4% as the Safe Withdrawal Rate. After all, you could do worse than the market. If you do better than the market, then your assets will increase in value and your retirement date will still move up - you're simply not factoring in future continued out-performance, which you really shouldn't be.

Out of curiosity, how did the above investments end up working out for you?

I enjoyed the letter. Thanks for the link. But I had to copy and paste it into MS Word and remove all formatting. I couldn't read it with Zero Hedge's sensationalist bolding and underlining.

Why is it helpful to read things by those who were very wrong, unless we are trying to find anti-mental-models (which is a very valid thing to do)?

Tobias said to me on reddit that he's now come full circle into advocating just the simple Magic Formula.

I'm perfectly happy blindly and strictly applying the Magic Formula. But it took a lot of reading to have the conviction to do so. Think of all the time a first-time investor could save by simply reading The Little Book That Still Beats the Market, picking 2-3 stocks chosen with a list-randomizer from Greenblatt's site every time they get their paycheck, and never deviating from that course. I think the chances of beating the market by a good amount given a long time period with this approach are far better than that person trying to become a value investor in the traditional sense of the word. That saved time could be used for many things that would be more productive than trying to learn security analysis, which most people can't do. But I haven't seen many (well, any) people do this. From a selfish perspective, that makes me quite happy. But the implications are quite troubling. No one will ever get a job by beating the market by blinding doing the Magic Formula. But there are many who pick stocks (and may not even beat the market) and then get paid handsomely to do so with other people's money. And it's much more brag-worthy to pick stocks. So the incentives apart from how much money you make actually investing really lean towards not applying a strict quantitative strategy that actually works, like the Magic Formula or Price and Quality.