merkhet

JRH, do you happen to have a copy? The link seems to be broken.

Happy Holidays everyone!

Curious if anyone knows Hayman Capital's long-term tack record. Mainstream media seems to give him a lot of credit but I don't remember hearing his record mentioned.

It's difficult to price an insurance company without some sense of whether their loss reserves are accurate.

Favorite part of the reading so far:

I actually like that. They have pretty good interviews from time to time. It was a Fortune magazine interview with Brian Moynihan that got me to realize that he might be John Stumpf redux. I've also been a subscriber since I was 13 so maybe it's just commitment bias.

Interesting company in this year's issue. An Irish REIT called Green REIT picking up buildings at 8 and 9 caps.

My sense is that he closed some positions to buy other positions that were cheaper. Though I agree with you that he shouldn't have gone from 10 positions to > 10 positions --> but I think he's not moved back to 10 positions. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

+1 Hahaha, I love this.

Ah, I understand now. Thanks! I would then ask you to consider the following: If we are to use an AUM weighted measure, then should we note that his increase to some "threshold" AUM also coincided with a large drawdown in the general markets? Let's present you with the returns of another investor: Year 1 +20.6% Year 2 + 7.3% Year 3 - 31.9% Year 4 - 31.5% Year 5 +73.2% Total return from Year 1 to Year 2 is about 4.55% with a CAGR of 0.89% per year. This return also occurred at the peak assets for the individual's firm, and it happened to coincide with a closure of the firm in Year 5. Now, three things to note: (1) Years 3 & 4 occurred during serious down years in the overall market, and the partnership actually underperformed during that period of time (2) Perhaps a longer-term track record is required to see whether this person is a good investor (3) The record is Charlie Munger's record, and if he were 30 years younger and willing to take my money, I'd give it to him... Now some people might think that it's a fund manager's job to outperform in both up markets and down markets. That's a quaint notion, and I wish I went to bed with a different Victoria's Secret model every night -- but neither the former or the latter are likely to happen.

I don't understand what you mean by weighting the return by the AUM. Can you explain that? Also, I'm pretty sure Pabrai's AUM is currently about $700M.

This has been done before? I did a quick search and didn't find one.

I feel like we should start a pool on this :) I'm going to guess predominantly male. (Maybe 95% to 5%.)

I was reading the "Things Not To Do For 2014" thread when I came across the following post http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/things-not-to-do-for-2014/msg147130/#msg147130 And I was curious about the gender breakdown for this board. I know that I, for one, generally just assume that I'm speaking with a bunch of other guys on this board -- but I know that (A) that's probably not true and (B) there are probably also female lurkers out there. So out of curiosity, I wanted to see what the gender breakdown is for the people on this board. Also, just to head off the discussion on "Other," I figured that there is a possibility that some people might not necessarily identify with one or the other traditional gender role completely, so I didn't want them to feel left out.

I agree with this too -- I think having more information and opinions (within reason, I suppose) is generally going to be a net positive for this board. I'm going to add YOLO to this list. Please, no more YOLO. (More of a general interwebs thing rather than for this board -- I don't know that I've seen it pop up here...)

Haha, guilty...But I must say this board is spectacular. I think the newbies get so excited that something like this exists after they emerge from the purgatory of yahoo message boards and motley fool and seeking alpha comments and have an urge to participate. I know I do. The debates are almost always very civil and both sides generally are trying to seek the truth, rather than just scream at each other and make ad hominem attacks. It's truly something special. Even the ever exclusive VIC comment streams can be worse than here. So who wants to debate the value of Jim Chanos and alpha generating shortsellers? LOL *Smiles* I agree somewhat I think thepupil is right that there is quite a bit of excitement when someone first finds this board and realizes the wealth of information on it. I certainly acted the same way when I first started out. The again, I've been here three years and only have about 500 posts. I'm moderately impressed with my self-restraint given that I'm a former windbag lawyer.

Yup. I sold out of my MBIA position the week of the settlement. Sold AIG and BAC for GM. Picked up some SHLD, which despite the last month, is still in the black for me.

My secrets are that 1) I don't manage other people's money, just my own. I think that right there gives me an advantage over you professionals (no withdrawals) and reduces stress. 2) I go big when I have a good idea. In the past I have usually had 2-5 good ideas at a time. This year it was mostly just BAC with a lot of leverage. 3) I coat tail other investors at least to initially find my ideas. When I find one I love, I invest big. I made a lot following Biglari into Western sizzlin, Friendlys, Steak & Shake. I did well with NFLX and CMG a few years ago (sold both too early), as well as ISRG. I made out very well with the MIDD/OVEN merger a few years back. And now BAC. I have no idea where my next idea will come from, but I'll know it when I find it. It seems to be working so far. My strategy is pretty similar to rkbabang, though I also manage OPM outside of my taxable account and Roth IRA, and I can tell you that there is definitely some additional stress there. I'm also a fan of large amounts of concentration, and I don't have that many ideas at any given time. The vast majority of my results this year were the result of concentration in in the following: AIG warrants, BAC common, GM warrants, MBIA common and SHLD common.

Taxable Account: YTD 104% Roth IRA: YTD 143% Just wait though, Sears could keep sending it lower. :)

That's why I'm saying that this is a debate that probably won't be resolved. The people speaking out against Chanos (stripping away any personal issues they may have) believe that the opportunity cost of shorting is probably high -- with or without an investment in Chanos' fund. The people speaking in support of Chanos are saying that "If you must short, then..." The former group does not accept that premise. The latter group does. Ergo -- debates with no end. Here is Sanjeev on the matter: Again, the debate is not about hedging. Sanjeev is saying CHANOS PROVIDES NO VALUE WHATSOEVER, while pupil and I are saying, THE NUMBERS PROVE OTHERWISE. Sanjeev is saying Chanos had a couple of big hits. How can one possibly say that without providing evidence that he completely botched the 2005-2013 investment cycle? We only have returns through 2005, and they look pretty darn good. Clearly there is a bias against Chanos if one cannot honestly admit that he has an absolutely phenomenal long-run shorting track record, considering really the most he can make on each investment is 100%. Like I said, the debate that never ends. I'll let Parsad defend himself, but I'll also amend my statement to say "The people speaking out against Chanos (other than Sanjeev)..." I would also note that the first three points you cited turn on a nebulous definition of the word "value." Also, I would think you could make 2% a year just by purchasing Treasuries, and they'd probably do well during a significant market correction. That might be the cheaper alternative that Parsad is talking about.

That's why I'm saying that this is a debate that probably won't be resolved. The people speaking out against Chanos (stripping away any personal issues they may have) believe that the opportunity cost of shorting is probably high -- with or without an investment in Chanos' fund. The people speaking in support of Chanos are saying that "If you must short, then..." The former group does not accept that premise. The latter group does. Ergo -- debates with no end.

Again, zero debate here. I too find that the best way to keep yourself from becoming a lemming is to engage in no debate. :P I believe this is an argument that will not be resolved between the two sides. I think it'd be useful to consider the opportunity cost of shorting -- being up 50% on X% of your portfolio in a year where the rest of your portfolio is down 50% is only useful in so far as the redeployed capital can then capture the lost opportunity cost of not having invested your X% of the portfolio at a compound rate commensurate with the (1-X)% of your portfolio. Otherwise, it's probably a really expensive alternative to the pepto bismol I can purchase from CVS to deal with volatility. Example: Split your portfolio 50-50. Market: 15% per year Long: 25.89% per year for 10 years (10x return) Short: 0% per year for 10 years (the pupil & bmichaud might consider this significant alpha) In the 11th year, 50% correction to the market and the long portfolio so it's merely a 5x return or a 15.75% return per annum. Better hope the short portion (up 50% in the 11th year) of the portfolio can create a 3.33x bagger just to break even with the opportunity cost. So I'd say the answer is "it depends" rather than "there's no debate."

Is the following guy the editor of that research? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Stansberry#SEC_prosecution I think he got it from page 108. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1310067/000131006713000013/shld201210k.htm I think the theory is that SHLD will spin out Sears Re at some point.

Are you trying to quantify WEB/Munger's statements that the top 20 decisions have contributed to the majority of their net worth?

My simple point is that such things aren't so simple. :)