AzCactus

Just out of curiosity are you guessing or do you actually have a source for this information? Its filed with the SEC Can you explain ? I thought berkshire as a whole submits their 13f so how are you breaking things out ? That's what I don't get

Just out of curiosity are you guessing or do you actually have a source for this information?

Arlington hands down.

Dnow

Although I don't personally care for trump you really didn't provide an example of why he can't be trusted. That being said I think carl Icahn answers that well when talking about character of CEOs

I have to admit I find it slightly ironic that Pabrai---as one of the self proclaimed cloners has had such a difficult time. It makes one wonder if he really did all the research he should have done or as Dabuff says got caught with his pants down. After following Pabrai for 13 years, I realized a few years ago that he is not as good investor as I thought. He took some big risks, some paid off handsomely when he sold but lots of stocks fell off cliff after he sold. I do not like the idea of clone. We were all born differently and have different education and experiences. That is what circle of competence about. If you do not understand the business inside and out, you will be tested by the market at some point. We were all born differently and have different education and experiences. That is what circle of competence about. If you do not understand the business inside and out, you will be tested by the market at some point. +1 That being said there are some investors out there who I am more comfortable cloning based on their "batting average"

I have to admit I find it slightly ironic that Pabrai---as one of the self proclaimed cloners has had such a difficult time. It makes one wonder if he really did all the research he should have done or as Dabuff says got caught with his pants down.

Oh I thought today was the deadline, my mistake.

has anyone been able to locate the 13f for arlington for 9/30

Does anyone have any insights into why Mohnish didn't add more Horeshead in the third quarter? I mean if he liked the stock at $8, you would think he would love it at 30% of that price? It just doesn't make sense to me. He bought at $8 thinking it was worth at least $16-$20 which would be a 2-2.5X. At around $3 This becomes a 5-7X. Am I missing something perfectly obvious?

His or Trumps I'm not sure?

One word "damn."

Listened to a story on NPR just yesterday. Employees at many small companies in the USA are getting screwed because the owners of these companies don't seem to know/cannot negotiate lower fees in their 401K plans. One of the companies featured in the NPR story paid 2%, yes, the same as what the hedge funds charge. The key difference is that these employees cannot afford to see upto half of the performance of their life savings being eaten up in fees. Hedge fund companies may be able to afford to lose, but really? Whether it is mutual funds, value mutual funds, hedge funds, PE, financial advisors...it is the fee stupid. Can everyone overcome the obfuscation that goes on to prevent this simple fact from reaching those that need to know it the most? In some ways, I would like to see Bogle and Buffett turn up the decibel level a bit as they speak about this. Makes for a great legacy for them. It ain't happening in the media. I tell everyone in my circles that in investing it is not about the clever stuff(like knowing or using arcane investing buzzwords or picking stocks) , it is about the fee, some listen but most are numb to it. Won't stop though. This is large scale theft. Dashachory: WEB was saying that for his 25% over 6% in his own fund (like Pabrai) he didn't get paid if his clients didn't get paid. But 2/20 funds today aren't incentivized to outperform. In face if I had $20B to manage I would just try to match the market (after 2% fees). Random, I agree with you. Even if Buffett makes more than the 2+20 guys its because he earned it. A lot of the guys who charge 2+20 are not beating the market after their fees. I don't actually think its possible with the amount that they manage.

Innerscorecard, I don't think anyone implied that value investing is timing the market. We can consider value investing alone without timing factor by assuming a manager invests 100% at all times. I admit it is very hard for managers to beat the market value investing, but I think that's because a lot of managers are just puppets being pulled by their investors. They will do whatever their clients want to preserve their jobs and almost always clients are thinking short term. I find it very interesting WEB can make statements that others were afraid to say publicly. WEB in a recent interview at the most powerful women conference said managers make money with 2+20 compensation without the need for the 20% component. The 2% fixed is enough, you manage $20B you get 400M already. Well for hedge funds (like other businesses) their focus tends to be making as much money as possible. And if people are willing to pay 2/20 why not go for it and charge those prices. I think the bigger fool is all the people who are paying these large fees for subpar performance to support these extravagant hedge fund lifestyles.

Imo a very good paper about activist investors. Cheers, Gio Good stuff gio. 3G's philosophy is one of the ultimate value creator at the expense of the workers. What does "at the expense of" mean? 3G doesn't take anything from anyone. A job isn't owned by an employee anymore than an employee is a slave owned by a company. Employment is entered into as a win-win trade just like any other market transaction. If anyone is guilty of getting something at the expense of others, it's the workers who are receiving more in compensation than they create in value- ie. the people 3G fires. Completely agree. A job is a mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. An employee could move on at anytime and an employer can do the same. Lest we forget the main purpose of a business is to earn money not maximize employment.

This post could just as easily be titled "why diversification is a bad idea" and show how the results of the top 10-20% of ideas compares to the other 80-90%

We all know that Buffett says his favorite holding is forever. Nonetheless, as a spectator regarding the Horesehead Holdings saga you've seen the shares decrease from $16.77 to $2.45---a decline of ~85% I've thought that the holding period only applies when you manage VERY large sums of money. For example, if Pabrai had sold his holdings at $12.57 (75%) of 52 week high his investors would have seen a decent return and he would have cash for additional market opportunities. Instead, to get back to the $12.57 mark his investors will need to see a 5x. Is this a matter of the market not seeing the value of horeshead or pabrai overrating the value of horeshead? Thanks for the feedback.

It would be much easier to make a logical reply if you named a company or two that you are referring to. By definition temporary means: lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.

Agree with KC here! A 8.5 month record is laughably short. My question would be what are you going to do with the information that someone has under/overperformed during such a short time frame.

Don't worry dutchman when you make it to 85 we'll open the same thread for you :-[

I learned the power of the inner scorecard. Although this isn't related to investing, it's powerful, enduring and valuable. If I could ask him one question it would be if he regrets never selling his Coca Cola stock.

Id be interested to know any of his positions because it looks like the fund is beating the market by 20% or so this year.

Good for her. She's changing the world for the better :)

I know that Berkshire is pretty large now so outperforming the S&P might be tough, but not quite this tough. If you look at a 5 year graph, Berkshire has under-performed by a cumulative 20% over that time frame. I'm not sure if this means something or nothing, but it was interesting to me.

What exactly is that quote describing ?