thowed

Um, I agree with almost everything about this, but I do think your hashtag suggestion is at best gauche, and at worst offensive. Getting back to the point, I do think it's a shame, as Flatt is obviously a highly talented operator in so many respects, and it's a shame that his view of acceptable behaviour to minority shareholders is like this. On the nano-cap Family-controlled companies, there seem to be in particular a lot of these in Hong Kong. It seems that David Webb sometimes tries to take 5-10% stakes in certain of these in the hope of getting them to reform and catalyse significant value.

Ha ha - and don't take anything on the internet too seriously. It was a throwaway line - I should have made it more obvious. And known that saying anything Tesla-related could stoke strong reactions. I'm not trying to create a conspiracy. Personally, I like SpaceX. I don't like Tesla. "I think Elon Musk is peculiar and he may overestimate himself, but he may not be wrong all the time". That's all.

I love the videos. But afterwards I also think: this is a very useful halo to mask some of the more questionable governance at Tesla...

PeteC - you mean you've never read Asterix in Switzerland?? It's the only reason I know about poison rings...

Forgive me for a snap reaction without all the info, but isn't there a large bias here with Siegel? Hasn't he always been a MASSIVE Stock bull? So I would expect him to always say that bonds are toast. Not saying he's wrong, but I'd prefer arguments from more independent voices.

To put it most simply, I believe 'stickiness' comes purely from human laziness. If you're an IT manager, changing software provider means a whole lot of hassle - putting the new system in, training employees who are rubbish with computers etc. etc. Of course, it's a case by case situation, but I think this is quite a common situation.

I don't know enough about Icahn to take a view, but if you ask whether I'd side with old Buffett & Zell on one hand, or Ackman on the other, I'd be Team Oldie every time. I do take the point that old age can alter risk-taking, and I know Ackman has done some great stuff, but I think the oldies have a better hit rate. My best guess is that they see a wide range of outcomes, and don't feel comfortable i.e. no 1 foot hurdles at the moment. Those who do well from Corona may be lucky rather than skilful. I found the Zell book lightweight and overly self-congratulatory unfortunately - but a lot of good writers aren't great investors either...

My instinct would be to go with AKREX - only caveat being how long he'll be there for, and if his retirement will see many redemptions. I know the others have been there a while, and so they've got a better chance than most at continuing, but succession is hard. I just think Akre is class - the concentration, low-turnover is impressive, they haven't made many mistakes, and it's run by the founder with a very defined philosophy. I mean, I'm sure you know all this... Sequoia has an illustrious past, but it's not all the OG team any more, it feels more sprawling, a bit more turnover, and... Valeant. I still think they're impressive compared with most other funds, but I don't feel as comfortable as I do about Akre.

Amen, brother. MORAL HAZARD! I'm sick of it. As Munger would say, the incentives have gone very much in the wrong direction.

I'm no expert on this subject, but find it very interesting for portfolio asset allocation, so please forgive a perhaps naive question. Is mild deflation much worse than mild inflation? I ask as some people have suggested that Japan's livelihood does not seem to have suffered especially from mild deflation. So I am wondering if we are so afraid of deflation because of the 30s experience that it is like a 'System 1' thing - any mention of the subject makes us recoil. I suppose my instinct is that anything 'mild' is generally not a problem. Where the problem begins is if something cannot be controlled - and I know the fear of inflation is that once started properly, it is very hard to control. So perhaps the same is the case for deflation. Anyway, I welcome any thoughts, and will try to get to the interview. (n.b. I know that Japan has other problematic issues e.g. the enormous debt overhang. I also recall how the 'obvious thing' about debt in Japan has tripped people up so much, coining the term, the 'widowmaker trade' ).

Thanks - look forward to this - never seen a letter by him, just read the interviews, and was immediately taken by the whole 'capacity to suffer' etc. Can't remember if you know Lindsell Train, a sensational outfit who are a relative comparator in the UK. They have a bunch of very good think-pieces on their website that I think you'd enjoy if you haven't already.

Yes, I don't want to wade in on the politics, but last night (and at other times in the briefings), he just sounds like a confused grandad, rambling on incoherently.

To clarify, I (and I think most others) am not saying 'the old man's gone senile'. I wouldn't presume to know one way or another. It's just about being open-minded. I've known people of a comparative age to Buffett - some are gaga, and some are super-sharp, but they're all tired, and slow. I think there's a danger of people being too slavishly devoted to him.

I'm not sure if you're being sarky or not! The obvious answer is - depends on a) how much risk they want to take and b) how they're using it as a tool in their portfolio make-up. It's arguably good to have a quality lower-risk conglomerate in any portfolio to balance with the riskier stuff. And of course, this is all idle speculation about the behaviour of elders - I suspect Druckenmiller has gone in hard this year - some of the Macro guys have cleaned up this year after 10 years of bad performance, so this seems much more his sort of environment. It made sense for him to be cautious before. And there's been other posts about the theory that Buffett is running it for the older existing investors now i.e. there's a greater focus on preservation. Again all speculation as far as I can see. I think there is a generalised idea that the older you get, psychologically there's often a greater desire to preserve what you have, than create more.

He did. It's a fair point. But personally I feel there's a difference between deciding to open two more funds, versus ten. Over ten years, I think you're allowed to change your mind a little. I am still unconvinced by the EM closed-end fund - I'm yet to see evidence that they have an edge against other EM funds. That said, the portfolio looks good now and valuations are better. It's still slightly hard to not think it's an Arisaig copycat (if you know the EM Consumer specialist outfit). And I think it must have distracted Smith. But I think the mid-cap closed-end fund could be great - it's full of good companies, it's focusing in areas and markets they know well, and there's currently nothing like it available for UK investors in terms of global quality mid-cap exposure.

This reminds me of that interview that Druckenmiller gave last year where he said, 'I'm just too conservative in my old age' (and he's a lot younger than Buffett). And also whoever said, 'You can't price a Trump tweet'. Druckenmiller echoed saying he found it hard to invest with Trump around. So with the combination of old age and Trump unpredictability, I don't blame Warren if he's not on his A game right now.

Absolutely, I was mostly being flippant. I think it's just unfortunate that many of us look for a quick 'takeaway' from each new memo, and when they're coming out so frequently, the message is getting a bit mixed. I imagine that he's doing the memos more to help himself think, but the speed of them means they're perhaps of less interest to readers than usual. But of course there can't be many times in our careers than right now when crazy new data is appearing every day which might make you reassess your position.

Yes, Smithson stock valuations do seem a bit 'hot', though there's a lot of that around at the moment! So it's a question of how much faith you put in Fundsmith to have selected stocks of sufficient quality that can justify their valuation (which as we've seen can work). My feeling is that this is a basket of high-quality stocks that would be fiddly for a UK investor to put together, but it's a case of being patient and waiting for the right entry point. That came briefly in late March when it was briefly on a 20% discount. I'm bewildered that it's on a premium again right now. Coleman - I only recently found this out, and find it fascinating, though obviously it's hard to know the complete story without knowing any relevant people directly. I note that 13Fs show that Cedar Rock still has a number of the Fundsmith US stocks in its portfolio. It's a shame that Any Brown doesn't seem to communicate much. It seems reasonable to suggest that Smith got 'religion', but I like to think that this successfully combined with his expertise in analysing company reports - his past, e.g. 'Accounting For Growth' indicates that he's not one to be fooled by companies who aren't the real deal. I've been looking at Morgan Stanley recently - generally I'm averse to institutional fund firms, but MS seem to have quite an impressive long-term team - especially with the 'Opportunity' funds.

Ha - yes I can't keep up with whether Marks is bullish or bearish this week...

Turtle Creek's historic performance was phenomenal (so good I was a little suspicious). However, a few years back, people noticed - AUM rocketed, and they closed the fund. I don't think they've done quite so well since then, so perhaps it's not working with all that extra money. The OG fund now has a lot more US cos than they used to (size again?) - I suspect that their core circle of competence was Canadian firms, and they just don't have enough edge in US companies - lack of connections etc. I have found their materials to be very interesting reading.

Corpraider - I think you pretty much nailed it there. The only thing I'd add is that I think they are never very good at explaining their thinking at a stock level. This used to frustrate me, but I've reconciled it as much of their investor base is UK retail, who don't really care about why they sold something. I often find another fund, which has sold the same stock, and bothers to articulate it. At this point I trust them enough to believe in what they're doing - though that's not to say that I don't think they'll get it wrong sometimes. Maybe Colgate was one of those. But yes, I've long felt Julian Robins is doing the bulk of the work - which is good, as he's younger. They've said from the beginning that they designed the operation to survive Smith, which is smart succession planning. And yes, Smith is entertaining, and says things about other managers that most people wouldn't (the year he put the boot in to Ackman, Loeb etc. was refreshing). Agree also on the repetition, but again I like that, I want consistency from managers - though it does mean there's only a tiny snippet of intrest each year. I'm now really curious on how the mid-cap closed-end fund will do - it's still early days, and hard to know how good the manager is.

Thanks for pointing it out, but there's actually another thread on this today from the guy who transcribed it.

Many thanks for this. Very interesting. I had a look at your site, and glad to see you're a Lindsell Train fan. I think their writings are excellent, and they have built the same 'trust' with their clients as a firm like Overlook. I wish there were more firms like this!

Thanks for this. Interesting to read. I'd still like to know, for example, how the figures looked at the end of 2018 or 2019.

Ha ha - agreed! The Bloomberg article sounded cool, but all we know is the results for 2020 - no sense of how much was lost before that. If you're down 95%, then making 3,612% isn't going to be quite so special.