thowed

https://sumzero.com/headlines/business_services/FCAU/411-pabrai-advice-for-value-investors In case you haven't seen this. Some interesting stuff, though anyone familiar with him won't find any surprises. The one thing that did make me raise my eyebrows a little is him saying that he takes a 33% performance fee above the 6% hurdle - I'd thought it was 20. I appreciate the zero management fee, but 33%, gosh. Anyway, this is not intended as another bout of Pabrai-bashing, I think he has a number of talents, but I'm just not sure I'd pay anybody that.

Writser - me too, then I went. It really is in the middle of nowhere! I'd love to say it was the best experience of my life... to be honest, the food WAS great, but when I was there, I found the place pretty vibe-less (an occasional danger at high-end places), though not because it was overly-formal, it was just a bit quiet, and the room's pretty plain. It was a few years ago, so there's probably stuff I've forgotten. I'm thrilled I've been, so I don't have to wonder, and for bragging rights (!) but as an overall experience it was not the best, you need more than just great food. Incidentally, presumably because it's such a compelling story, I'm coming across a few more restaurants that are doing the cooking over wood thing. Overall my feeling about favourite restaurants is what a body-art guy said when asked what their favourite tattoo was. The next one.

Yes, thank you, this is fascinating - you don't have to agree with all of it, but Druckenmiller usually has something interesting to say.

Spekulatius - completely agree. I think Munger's comments generally refer to companies he knows of through his investment with Li Lu (at Himalaya Capital). Most of these are unlikely to be the big foreign-listed names we know, but lesser-known A-shares (where there also isn't a 'shell holding company' issue). I've heard others say that the A-Shares market is one of the great stock-picking opportunities i.e. a ton of relatively under-analysed companies in a fast-growing country. Of course you have to be super cautious about corporate governance, but hey, it's not supposed to be easy!

For a stock, you could try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Hellenic_Bottling_Company A respectable Greek family have been in charge for a while, so it offers Eastern European exposure with quality corporate governance. Main listing is in the UK. For a similar, smaller company, take a look at Sarantis, which is listed in Greece, but sells its products around Eastern Europe. Most Funds are pretty rubbish and offer a bulk of Russian blue-chips and a handful of other oddities. I know a couple of boutique funds that might be of interest - drop me a PM or something.

Maybe this is going back to basics, but I think you need to consider what a fund does, in the first place, i.e. is it a pure Long Equity fund, does it do index/individual shorting, is it multi-asset, does it invest in blue-chips or micro-caps etc. etc. Then you can figure out what performance/outperformance you are looking for/expecting. So for instance with Akre, I'd probably be looking for him to outperform the S&P500 or Russell 3000. Whereas with Alluvial maybe I'd want DW to outperform the S&P600, though maybe it should be a more global small-cap index. I take the point made that a lot of people don't read the materials or listen much - I've heard this a fair bit from managers. Long/Short funds are interesting, as you have to work out if they're trying to reduce volatility with their shorts, or just create extra alpha. That said, 99% of people who short don't do it successfully over the long-term in my experience, so maybe it's not that relevant. To go back to the Original Post - I suppose that if your fund has a different approach, then that's a way of marketing it (as long as you find the minority of people who read enough to discover this). Without more info, I wouldn't know where to start with you, as I don't know how you've beaten the S&P500 since Jan 15, though generally speaking I'd guess it hasn't been easy for a Value investor. I always think it's good to state whether you are likely to outperform in a bull market and underperform in a bear market, or vice versa, as that gives people a sense of what to expect. For people doing US large-caps, I think any long-term outperformance of the S&P500 is damn good - I know a number of people on this forum have done it, but if you look at the institutions, it's a pretty rare thing. Unlike some others, it's a pretty efficient index. Anyway, I hope this makes sense , I'm chucking this off the top of my head...

Agreed on Morningstar slowness. But it's basically my only choice, as I need international stuff, and Rocket seems to be North America only. On the other hand, I'm trying to be glass-half-full, and think that I am spending less time looking at prices, which on balance is probably a good thing.

I don't know a great deal about Mr Chou, but this thread throws up a really interesting point for me about investing: The importance of diversification. So Fund managers have a 'style' or 'strategy', be it value, growth, special situations etc. The fervour especially of value people makes me think of it a bit like a religion. For me, as an investor, I try to be as agnostic as possible. I don't believe in 'right' and 'wrong' strategies in the markets. I believe in outperforming the index sustainably for the long-term. Markets may be a weighing machine in the long-term, but they can also stay irrational for longer than you can stay solvent. So as an agnostic, I try to build a portfolio of the best managers with different styles, on the basis that they should all do well over the very long-term, and their blend of styles should mean that there should always be a few pulling their weight. I guess it's like a sports team, or a tool box - there isn't one player/tool that will do everything for you at all times. The follow-on question would therefore have to be: is Chou one of the best Value managers out there for an agnostic? I have some sympathy for Value managers, as the past 10-year environment has not been particularly favourable to the style, but I also know that a number of investors and fund managers on this board have been able to outperform. Anyway I don't know enough about Mr Chou to have an answer for this.

I could probably write an over-long essay on Terry Smith, but I'll do my best to be concise (spoiler: I failed). Read all the annual letters - there may not be much new that you'll learn, but he writes very well and entertainingly, and is one of the most no-bullshit people around (he's not really like Munger, but they're both refreshingly honest and scathing about the problems of their industry). Some people don't love his pugilistic tone - he has that boxer-style 'I am the greatest' thing, but he's mostly backed it up. I haven't yet watched the AGM videos. He's been around forever - his initial notoriety came from a book he wrote called 'Accounting for Growth' which basically showed how companies can manipulate things in their Annual Reports. One of the examples was a client of his then employers, and he got fired. Which, as he said, was the best possible publicity for the book. For a long time he was CEO or chairman of UK inter-deal brokers, so at this point he'd been a successful analyst, and run a business, which seems like pretty good experience. His fund has been incredibly successful for a retail fund since launch in late 2010. Until recently I worried that his strategy hadn't been tested in different environments, but I've since found that he ran a very similar strategy for his former company's pension fund, and it did very well from late 2003-10, doubling MSCI world performance in gross terms. I don't know what the 08 drawdown was. The strategy is simple - 25-30 blue-chips, with about one purchase and one sale (if that) a year. The geography is about 60% US / 40% Europe. At the start there were more Consumer Staples/Bond Proxies (e.g. Nestle, Unilever, Colgate), but has picked up a bit some tech and industrials along the way. He also really likes healthcare, and I was very impressed how he swooped in on Novo Nordisk when it bottomed in late '16. I guess Akre would be roughly the sort of US equivalent in terms of a concentrated, low-turnover approach. He does quite a lot of press, as he's so quotable compared to most UK fund managers. There are some longer interviews which I've really enjoyed - I'll try and remember a few of the best. He is up to about US$20bn AUM now, which is peanuts in the US, I know, but it does mean that with a max of 30 holdings means that he can no longer realistically invest in some of the mid-caps that he did in earlier days. So there may potentially be a time when performance dips because of size constraints. He's hinted that he might one day close the fund, but my instinct is he won't. One key point to note is that his right-hand man is a guy called Julian Robins, and there is a suspicion that he is almost more important than Smith. This is unproven, as is how well Robins would operate without Smith. Smith is in his mid-60s so could retire if he chose, so succession is something to consider. Smith also has a London-listed closed-end fund invested in EM and Frontier markets. This launched in mid-2014 and to date has NOT been a success. FEET has about 50 holdings, and the Portfolio Turnover has been a lot higher than the main fund. It has a lot of Consumer Staple subsidiaries, and also healthcare as he sees that as a big EM growth area. I can't say exactly why it hasn't worked - my hunch is: a) he and his team don't have the on-the-ground expertise and focus they should have, compared with, say, Arisaig, whose portfolio is very similar, but they have so many years of on-site engagement and insight with their companies. b) the EM consumer stocks have been eye-wateringly expensive for a number of years. He professes to be unbothered by this, and appears to have a Nifty-Fifty view i.e. they have phenomenal metrics and so will grow into their valuations. But it hasn't worked so far. I am a big fan of him as someone to read and get inspiration from, but I don't invest in the fund. I wish I had! However I favour another firm with a similar strategy called Lindsell Train. I would very much recommend you look at their website - their 'Insight' papers which are wonderful - they are more Buffett-esque, and very wise. Their USP is that they manage a closed-end fund which has an unusual 40% holding - their own asset management company. It has been phenomenally successful. The fund trades at an absurd premium, but if you've been a long-term holder, you've made a killing. I hope this is the sort of thing you were after. It's off-the-cuff, so I apologise if there are any inaccuracies, but it's approximately right.

Thanks for the tip, SleepyDragon - that's now the only thing that works for me.

Just came back, thank god. The new page really is hideous...

I lost the finance.google site today, damnit.

Ah yes, this is the sort of intelligent commentary that brings me to CoBF.

In the simplest terms, it's a money/economy thing. The north of Italy has much more than the south. Naples is a relatively poor city, and has a certain historical notoriety. It's certainly got its charms too, though, and I don't remember any problems when I was there en route to Pompeii. Your trip sounds great, and should prove no problem. If you're from NYC, then I really think you've nothing to worry about - I think anyone from a big city has all the street smarts/common sense they need for any place. Y'know, don't have handbags open, keep your wallets in a safe place (or have one of those concealed belt ones for travelling), and be alert if you're in a packed bus crushed up next to others etc. No different really from how I'd be alert on a subway. I think the golden rule is 'be normal' i.e. try to blend in, and don't be too loud, so you don't attract attention to yourselves. Sorry to hear you had your stuff stolen before. Sometimes it's just bad luck, and there's nothing you can do. Only other things I'd mention are maybe buy a paper guide book (just because I find the internet e.g. TripAdvisor to be unreliable) to read up on good places to stay and general neighbourhood info. And also that if you're going in the Summer, Venice is INSANELY crowded (and I haven't been for a while) and Hot! Florence will be pretty crazy too. Traditionally, areas around train stations are also places to be a bit on your guard (a bit like I found with Greyhound neighbourhoods back in the day) as there are a lot of backpackers/tourists arriving and looking lost. Nothing really to worry about though, just if someone tries to be friendly and help, I'm generally suspicious... Hope that helps. Memo to self - travel tips is easier/more fun than working..........

We're all guilty of this. It wasn't that many years ago I told my dad that I had some investments in the US and he frowned and said, 'Isn't that a bit risky?'. Sorry for going off-topic again...

To bring things back to topic, if you have any more specific questions about Italy e.g. where you're thinking about going, do say and I'll do my best to help.

I laughed when I read this, then thought - this is why it's so important that we all travel as much as possible - it's the only way to educate ourselves, because what we read or hear can often be exaggerated for effect (the media doesn't make money by saying everything was 'normal' today). I think a number of Europeans might ask the same question about the US, with all the shootings we read about in supposedly safe spaces like schools, cinemas etc. And if people are like the President, why they must all be so rude! I have had wonderful times travelling through a number of states in the US, and the vast majority of people I've met have been incredibly charming. But I might not have known that if I'd only read the papers. BG2008 - I hope this is clear that I'm not having a go at you - just saying how misinformation spreads to scare us. And what the others said - it's a common sense thing - avoid dark alleys on your own at night! Tourist sites can attract pickpockets so don't flash your money around. However, as ever, also DYOR (for specific cities). e.g. If you're going to somewhere like Naples, then you do want to be a bit more careful than Milan. I hope you have a great trip.

It's pretty easy to read into it what you want, but I did pause on the part about the four major dips, as well as the lack of attractive acquisition opportunities.

ARs from 05. 13 and 15 missing. Cheers again for your essays. Ann11.pdf Ann14.pdf Ann12.pdf Ann10.pdf Ann09.pdf Ann08.pdf Ann07.pdf Ann06.pdf Ann05.pdf

Many thanks for this - I always find he has something interesting to say. He's on pretty fiery form there, and it all seems pretty reasonable (unless you're a hedge fund manager...).

I don't know enough to have a view, but at $600m down, I think one can generally say: 'Well, he would say that, wouldn't he'.

I hope this relates enough to the OP, but this got me thinking about the future of the A shares i.e. the current holders will have had them for quite a long time, and won't be spring chickens themselves. What happens when they die? How will their heirs be disposed towards a US$300,000+ share that doesn't produce any income, especially when WEB is gone? I wonder if Howard etc. have any instructions on doing a split at any point? p.s. Apologies if this has been discussed previously - I don't read every BRK thread.

Can it be a fund? This seems interesting and has been going for a decent amount of time. Other people at the company (i.e. other funds) are very decent. http://www.aimskl.com/funds/phoenix-gold/newsletter.php Alternatively, how about Franco-Nevada, i.e. go for the royalties, which should be lower-risk.

You'd think with all the smart people they're meant to have at Google, they'd be able to make a site with a decent design. The new site is UGLY. The main font is too big. I mean, this is not rocket science... The old site is working at finance.google.co.uk too.

Separate post for a separate thought. I like the type of companies in KCLarkin's post i.e. those who make (and are able to make) smart acquisitions in down-turns. However, I wonder how much we are all coloured by our bias of the recent past i.e. the fact that things bounced back so fast in 2008, rewarding companies like these. If we were to consider a situation where a future crash then led to the markets not recovering for years and years, e.g. Japan post-late-80s, would we think differently? I wish I had a better historical perspective to provide an answer. Perhaps it's time to dust off 'Anatomy of a Bear' again...