Rod

I used to watch all his presentations. I stopped several years ago. So I am not up to date. But, I would be prepared to bet that a poll of the students would show what I stated. Between the way Mohnish is introduced to the students and the way he himself continually talks about market beating returns (but never discloses his actual returns which are at best ordinary), it's not surprising that the students would be mislead. I should add that I think his talks are good, that's why I liked watching them. I only stopped because it was getting repetitive. I should add that I WAS FOOLED. It was only when some enterprising people here compiled his actual returns that I realized that my impression of his abilities was wrong. And where did that impression come from? I was in the exact position as these students listening to his talks.

I’m not a Mohnish hater. The only thing that really bothers me is that in these talks he gives, usually to schools, the students are lead to believe he has been earning 20%+ annual returns. He doesn’t say that himself but it's clearly implied.

Personally, I’m seeing far, far bigger discounts today in smaller stocks than I’ve ever seen before. I suspect that Einhorn is right. People have predicted for a long time that the rise of passive would damage price discovery. That probably hasn’t happened yet in the large stocks, but seems to have in the small ones.

That's a good point. Isn't that pretty much what he did by accident in the 1990s? Took a couple yolo bets on dotcoms as a raw beginner and got lucky then used that to form the base of a "market beating" long term record. I guess after 20+ years those initial yolo gains are wearing off.

But remember if you are very concentrated you have far fewer stocks to research.

If you find that flexing a position over time works, wouldn't it be better to just go all in or all out? Why maintain any core at all? Trading around a position either works or it doesn't. Personally I don't do it. I have a pretty similar long term record to you and I've always owned 6 or 7 stocks, currently only 4. So I agree totally with the concentration idea.

One problem is that they are a fully taxable corporation. I would much prefer if they were a mutual fund corporation and could distribute their tax liability. Then you add management fees on top of that. It's definitely a drag on performance.

Imagine your wife didn't have the job in Toronto and you didn't own the house in Toronto. Would you buy that house now to give her somewhere to live so she could start the new job there instead of staying in Calgary? I doubt it.

I would just enter the dividend myself without the T5. I don't think CRA will complain if you are paying your taxes correctly.

Her process was obviously terrible, but she got very lucky and it worked. There's a high risk she learned the wrong lesson and will gamble again on a hot tip and lose most of it.

I'm convinced he's not.

I don’t disagree, but why do you think Munger has chosen to be friends with him?

Same for me. I can only get 8(!) posts on my laptop screen even in condensed mode. Why can't there be one line for a post anymore? I much prefer the old site even though it was more primitive. Being able to see what's new at a glance on one screen beats all the slick improvements unfortunately.

We should also consider that position sizing isn’t just about how much you put in at the start but how you adjust the position size over time. Many people like to trim winners because they feel it’s too risky to allow their portfolio to become more concentrated. I think this is the wrong way to look at it. I’d be interested to know what others think.

yep. One is Brookfield (actually Partners Value Fund), the others are Dream Unlimited (DRM.TO) and Brookfield Office Properties Preferred (BPO.PR.N). I could be accused of being Real Estate heavy.