shamelesscloner

New as of Q4 2018 https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=1649339

My favorite is still LMAO, sponsored by LMFAO

You got a better price than Buffett, that must feel good ;)

Who are your favorite fund managers with <$500m AUM that run a concentrated portfolio? What are their recent big bets?

Vontier (VNT) could be interesting

This This play, which he only held for 1 day, was a 5x and more importantly helped him build goodwill with the next generation of investors. These are the investors who will be buying his holding company when it goes public. It was a smart business move that communicated to retail investors "I'm on your side."

Putting on my market timing hat in March and thinking I could just wait until it dropped further. Missed out of Facebook and Uber below my target buy prices.

I'll have to check out the one with Taleb. I really enjoyed his recent interview with Grantham, and the interviews with Howard Marks are always full of gems.

Chamath got a shout out from Pabrai in his latest talk: Says Chamath fits nicely into Pabrai's new spawner approach, and wishes there was a way to invest in Chamath instead of each of Chamath's SPACs individually. Sounds like this might be possible within a couple of years. As a side note, I've heard a lot of strong reactions from the Berkshire faithful about Chamath declaring himself the next Warren Buffett. Pabrai doesn't seem to be carrying any of that emotional baggage.

EQD - Sam Zell $10.61 OACB - Oaktree $10.72 (Oaktree's first SPAC merged with Hims and Hers, currently at $22.46)

He's very smart, but there's something I don't quite trust about him. I'm a big fan of his passion for tackling climate change through capitalism. My mind says yes... my gut says get to know him better first.

It's only scary if you're short... fascinating otherwise

I see net debt of $9.4m. What am I missing? Now I'm the shameless cloner. Your DD smells like DooDoo

I see net debt of $9.4m. What am I missing?

Let's fire up this thread again! What would Buffett be buying today if he were starting out in 2021? SPACs near NAV? I'm sure he'd be cashing in on his own SPAC.

A fun interview with Sam Zell on SPACs and market bubbles: CNBC: The question is always of course the timing of when in fact the music stops. Alan Greenspan very presciently said that there was irrational exuberance in the market in 1996/1997, but then it went on for 3 or 4 more years. And so what do you think would be the tipping point? Sam Zell: Well if I knew the answer to that I'd be rich. CNBC: You are Sam.

Consider adding PLUG and RUN to the bubble portfolio

I like what Pabrai says about trying to time the market... micro trumps macro. Market timing is a speculator's activity. Much better to spend our time hunting for great businesses.

You also have to consider that the US government has said they will be sending out $1400 and possibly giving $3000+ per child in the next year. For a family of 4 that could be 1400x4=5600 + 6000 = $11,600. Fed has said it wont raise rates till 2023. That could keep the market going into next year. I need to make more babies

That's what I struggle with. Sure, I will accept we are in a bubble but what do you do with that assumption? Invest in value assets in hopes they don't crash as hard when the bubble pops? Or go hard and play the EV/Crypto/SPAC roulette while it's still hot in an attempt to juice gains before the crash? Find the upside without downside plays. Pabrai loaded up on Silicon Valley Bank in 2000 because it had warrants from dot com startups that weren't showing on the books.

LAC - Lithium Americas Corp

I would make the argument that you don't have to invest your money somewhere. I think that institutional investors "have to" invest their money somewhere, so they can generate fees and stay in business, but that does not mean it is the rational or correct thing to do. Case in point, Berkshire Hathaway is sitting on $140 billion of cash. it depends on whether you want to create wealth or preserve wealth, but neither is particularly easy. if LT rates go up, then FI will destroy wealth just as surely as an equity market correction. there are no right answers or solutions, just trade offs. cf Thomas Sowell. From a certain perspective, a question needs to be answered: is moving from a low-yielding asset to a higher-yielding asset a positive move from a risk-return perspective or is it reaching for yield? Mr. Sowell's work applied to this likely means that one believes in efficient markets ie the market will tell you if the price is right, if not interfered with, which does not always apply (isn't this why such a forum exist?). It may be useful to compare the individual opportunity set and adjust expectations accordingly instead of doing the opposite. It may make perfect sense (risk-return perspective and under selected circumstances) to hold onto zero-yielding or even negative-yielding assets, in the present, instead of moving into higher-yielding assets, in the present. i wonder if that's what Mr. Buffett meant a few months ago. So, along the irremediable cycles, if the Sowell framework is rendered semi-strong, over time, individual intentional rationality will result in more systemic rationality. "You should always adapt your consumption to your income, you shouldn't try to adjust your income to your consumption. That's a basic principle of investing. Reaching for yield is really stupid, but it's very human." -WB

I would make the argument that you don't have to invest your money somewhere. I think that institutional investors "have to" invest their money somewhere, so they can generate fees and stay in business, but that does not mean it is the rational or correct thing to do. Case in point, Berkshire Hathaway is sitting on $140 billion of cash. You certainly aren't limited to US bonds or equities. As mentioned by Grantham, certain emerging markets are offering much more attractive returns on a valuation basis. There are other alternatives like cash-flow producing real estate, peer to peer lending, etc. And DOING NOTHING may very well be the most rational option in the near term.

"We've got an artificial interest rate structure that has been driven down all over the world into negative territory, and we're going to use that as a yardstick? We're going to say stocks are cheap because they are less utterly ludicrous than a 30-year bond? This is not typically the way you measure things." -Jeremy Grantham

Read that this morning, great post from Mr. 100 Baggers