thowed

@This2ShallPass I understand your frustration. However let's invert. It's the old problem of whether to charge fees on Share Price on NAV. When FIH launched, there was high excitement, and it traded at a fair Premium to NAV. At that point it was more in investors' interests for Performance Fee to be on NAV. So at that point, they were doing the right thing. Now at a big discount to NAV, it's better the other way round. Arguably Performance Fee on NAV is more correct, as that is more in their control, whereas the share price is not. I suppose there's a separate argument that one of the Board's jobs is to make the NAV and Price converge...

I'm not going to waste much time on an idiot like Trump, but a quick scan of the talk suggested that, as he often does, it's deliberately ambiguous so people can read what they want into it. And on Elon - I think you can respect him for the things he has achieved, especially with Space X, while thinking he says some incredibly dumb things and holds some ignorant views. What I can't stand is people who have no room for nuance. 'X is right', 'Y is wrong'. And nothing inbetween. None of you would analyse a company like that, so I don't get why you can simplify your views on politicians to such a degree. Most people get some things right & some things wrong, and they should be called out on the stuff they get wrong, regardless of whether they're 'your team'.

@Eldad I think Druckenmiller said that basically Gold had history on its side, and that it had built a lot of trust over that time. Bitcoin obviously doesn't have that. He said (I think) he wouldn't write Bitcoin off completely, and that it may have a place as well, but it was too new, and that Gold remained THE store of value. I agree. Obviously the tangible helps too, plus the useability in jewelry.

Thanks for this @brobro777. Some stats & history stuff I didn't know. The only things I think I would have added are: a) Gold's use at times of lack of confidence in governments. b) Gold's use as a store of value when governments are printing/devaluing their fiat currency.

@SafetyinNumbers Thanks for this - very interesting. I favour Royalty Cos over extractors, and this has worked OK (subject also to stock selection) with Oil, but I've found Gold Royalties harder. It looks like the Golden Age of FNV is over (on theory that it's now too big - a victim of its own success - and so finding it harder to grow (unless more copper?) Silver Wheaton seems to be the only one with decent 5 year figures, but again it's quite big now, so not sure if that can continue. I've struggled with the mid/small-caps. Some of them seems to be simple bad management problems (I can't quite work out Osisko Royalties, which some people like, and whether management problems are fixed there, or even worse). EMX seemed potentially interesting because of the FNV stake. But ultimately, over 5 years, it's been much better to own Physical than the mid/small caps. That's my current thinking, but I am no expert and always keen to learn more/have my views changed.

Yep, I don't think Gold-backed currency would be good for property developers, who presumably prefer inflation to erode their debt away. A bit like the Costco thread, with the takeaway that it may not be right to get too hung up on valuation for very high quality cos, I try to be quite agnostic on valuing gold. I find the longevity of Gold reassuring, and while I can't 'explain' it, think it's a reasonable equity diversifier for uncertain times. It doesn't feel quite as popular as in 2011, when the last big top happened, but maybe that will occur. If the Houthis got paid off/resolved, then presumably gold would come down in the short-term. Gold as a measure of faith in governments also seems reasonable, so that is very much a bull argument in many countries around the world.

Congrats. I know it was cheap, but the YTD and 1 Year performance is insane.

I've corrected! NALL? I'm a bit less down on Europe than I was - structurally it's problematic in terms of regulation, but there are still some great companies. The above 4. Hermes of course. Some Scandi compounders. A bunch of Swiss mittelstand cos. etc.

Some lovely stories here. Two key takeaways. 1) Retail investing was very different pre-internet. It's been such a seismic change, and more people than not won't remember it. There was so little information, and so you tended to go for the big, advertised mutual fund. 2) A Shares were really expensive for normal people from a certain point. I had some spare time in my studies in 2009/10, and discovered that the Berkshire letters were all on the internet. I worked my way through them, and learned so much. However I didn't buy a share for a long time, as back then it was hard to find online brokers in my country (UK) who did US stocks. And I still worry about what happens after WEB passes. However much planning you do, succession is incredibly difficult. @Williams406 Particularly enjoyed your story - you really nailed your timings!

Yes - this one was good. I can't really say why, but the past few were a little underwhelming. Maybe expecting the long brilliance of the earlier letters? And now a reset in expectations? Some of it reminded me of that old Jason Zweig line that it's so hard being a financial journalist, as there's only one sensible thing to say, and he has to find a different way of saying it once a week. But I certainly need constant reminders about filtering out the 'casino noise', remembering the importance of incentivisation, and also how distorted accounting can be (lies, damned lies, and accounting...).

It was a great day when I was introduced to Chuck Akre. It's the sort of simple investment philosophy that I can understand.

Just want to say again I appreciate everyone on this thread - it was a huge help yesterday in keeping calm. It's also great that the assessment is fair & acknowledges that FFH is not perfect, and could improve, rather than just fanboy-ing. Thank you all.

People seem to be reading/watching & reacting - after bounce back to 1300, now seems to be gradually drifting down.

Can't get filled...

Thanks - I need to do a bit more work on it to build conviction, as there's a lot that's interesting with it.

This is the sensible post I would have like to have written, instead of just being facetious.

I'm struggling to understand the price here. I would have thought it would be doing better in this environment. Did they mess up one of their acquisitions?

Wow, I sure missed the Politics Board................................................... Aren't ALL Americans immigrants?

Nothing to disagree with on PSH (but my god I wish he'd stop the political nonsense on Twitter). Will just add that the Discount got to 38% late October, and has come in this year to 27%, so maybe not optimal time to buy right now, though 27% discount in any other scenario pretty decent.

Twitter is hideous, & the self-promotion, and show-boating a joke. It's not a place for humility! BUT just about worth it for the handful of good accounts. Apart from here, it's one of the few places where you can discuss strange small-caps with people all over the world, and find people who know them using the Ticker search.

I don't think you can generalise. I'm no expert, but I think SOME are. But it requires researching - something so much easier to do with internet resources and people like Nate @oddballstocks and team.

Great thread - very thought-provoking. After initial attempts to think of 'best' companies, I was persuaded by arguments here that an Index makes the most sense, given how much could change in 30 years. The only thing I'd add (as a non-US person particularly) is WHICH index. Not all are quite the same. For instance, when I look at how the S&P500 has demolished Europe over the past 20 years, that is because of how Tech companies have made the S&P so much more dynamic and 'Darwinian' which is what you want. Europe has one or two (e.g. ASML) and a couple of newer things like LVMH, but is more beholden to older, more static industries like Banks, Oil, Tobacco, Miners etc. Arguably. over 30 years, the world could change so much that MSCI World might make sense - just in case - (or even one with some EM stuff in as I think MSCI World is just DM, ironically). But it is also tempting to just copy Buffett with his old S&P500 suggestion - it is a pretty decent index with diversification in a dynamic country. I mean, of course there could be a Civil War after the election with Trump doing ever more insane things, but if you worry about that sort of stuff TOO much, you'll never get anywhere!

I think it would be interesting to see if interest rates went (and stayed) higher, whether this makes cigar butt investing more practicable again. It feels like Zero interest rates meant that so little was cheap enough for a classic value strategy.

Ha ha! No, this is the WRONG sort of cult! Tbh, I am more into managers with a bit more humility e.g. Buffett. In fairness Kupperman has owned up when he's been wrong in his letters, but his Twitter feed is pretty cringe-y. Too much self-aggrandising.

Kupperman seems interesting, but there seems to be a bit of a cult about him, which is an immediate red flag for me. So it's good for people to be aware of his history, so they can do more research and make their own judgement. Personally it would be too high risk an investment for me for what he does, but I imagine that if he can get 60% of his investments right then he could do very well.