Kraven

I did and started a thread a few weeks ago about it. http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/books/the-einstein-of-money-the-life-and-timeless-financial-wisdom-of-benjamin-graham/ It was just ok, but you'll see my thoughts there.

I think you got some of the years and editions wrong. When you say the 4th is a waste of paper and Graham had nothing to do with it, I think you mean the 5th edition. The 1940 edition was reissued as the 6th (not 5th) edition. I completely agree with you though the 5th edition is a waste of paper. I was shocked at how bad it is. I always got the feeling Dodd realized it, but was kind of like "hey, everyone else is getting rich in the market [this was the mid to late 1980s], so why shouldn't I, as one of the deans of investing make a few bucks too?" I think by the time it got to the 4th edition Graham was already out of the investment business (since about 1956) and have been in LA for 4 or 5 years teaching at UCLA and dabbling with various mistresses. I think the intellectual stimulation provided him by investing was largely gone by that time and continued to wane until it reached almost zero (never quite zero though). I recall reading somewhere that at his 80th birthday party he gave a speech in which he reflected on his life and didn't mention his investing career.

I am not positive, but I am pretty sure that all the content that got stripped out of the 6th edition was put into a CD ROM that is included with the book. Obviously if checked out from a library or found online, that content won't be there most likely. For whatever reason I always look whenever I'm in a book store to see which ones they have. I usually see the 2nd and 3rd editions, sometimes the 1st and sometimes the 6th. I've never seen the 4th and haven't seen the 5th in years.

It has the aggregate performance, but not the year by year.

Very cool, thanks for posting this. By the way, I have tried looking for anything and everything I can find on Schloss for years and have never seen 1985-2001 performance figures. Would love to see them as well.

The 1st (1934) and 2nd (1940) editions are all Graham. The 3rd (1951) edition is almost all Graham with a couple chapters on utilities written by someone else. By the 4th edition (1962) there were various collaborators and it isn't Graham's voice as much. The 5th edition (I believe 1985 or 1986) I thought was complete drivel. Obviously it isn't Graham's voice as he had been gone almost 10 years. Dodd actually wrote some kind of intro to it and in my view essentially said yeah, it's been a while, it's good to update it and I like getting paid! I am not sure what the authors intended with the 5th edition, but it's truly awful. The 6th edition (2008) is simply a re-issue of the 2nd edition with long pieces written by well known value people like Klarman, Berkowitz, Greenwald, etc. Those commentaries are interesting and worth reading. I feel like I've seen in different places that Buffett says either the 2nd or the 3rd edition is his favorite. For me, you can't go wrong with either the 2nd or the 3rd. Both are better than anything else you can read on investing. The Intelligent Investor 1st ed is essentially a summary of the 3rd edition of Security Analysis (it came out 2 years before). It's obviously worth reading too, but in my view it's like the Cliff Notes to Security Analysis. Buffett always says it's the best book on investing, but I've always felt that he says that for a wider audience. While it may have been his first exposure to Graham, I have to believe he likes Security Analysis better. But who is going to tell a mass audience they should read a 600 page "tome" that is "dense" and "complicated". I put those words in quotes because that always seems to be the general description. If one read Security Analysis and Buffett's letters they would probably have all the investing background they need.

hmm than you would have a white sextuplets in the middle of a Congo rain-forest with at least one of the babies cooing in yiddish... Someone would probably raise an eyebrow. That was pretty funny.

I think she has provided some of the most candid, insightful commentary on the bank bailout process. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/magazine/sheila-bairs-exit-interview.html?_r=0 I'm invested heavily in BAC but that doesn't mean I think the right things happened in 2008. Maybe I am naive but I believe all the banks should have simply been exposed to the same FDIC receivership process as banks always are - protecting counterparties and depositors and imposing losses on shareholders and bondholders. She's a blowhard and she's provided insightful commentary. They're not mutually exclusive. In terms of what should have happened in 2008, I am a firm believer in who's to know what was the perfect thing. Those were dark days and looking at things 4-5 years after the fact is easy. I would have preferred certain things were done differently too, but I can't cast stones. I had some tangential involvement in certain matters at that time and all I can say is it was a complete and utter shit show. People were petrified. No one knew what to do and there was a very real sense that this time it was different. It's one thing to calmly make decisions after the fact while quietly thinking in one's office, but to have to do it on the front lines of a meltdown is something altogether different. I think that at best people can say it would have been great if x, y or z was done, but that it's hard to fault those sleeping an hour a night with the knowledge that the entire world is resting on their shoulders. Oh yeah, it also always helps too when the only words of advice being given are "don't fuck this up".

Here is an excerpt I just saw from the new Sheila Bair book. In it she describes the big meeting of the major bankers with Paulson, etc. when they were told they would need to take on government money. She describes each of the players and I have to say, I was surprised that she just lets loose on them. Ken Lewis is described as being viewed by the others as a "country bumpkin". Vikram Pandit is described as having "bitterness in his eyes". She says she has no idea why John Thain was even invited. Spicy stuff! http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/09/20/bair-bull-horns/

Concentrated portfolio!? Are you crazy? Don't you know you have to diversify away all your gains and losses! ;D I know! It's crazy. I mean look at Graham and Schloss. Those guys took smaller positions and did terribly. They really were an embarrassment to the investing profession. Look at early Tweedy Browne. They owned literally hundreds or thousands of positions and didn't perform well at all. Buffett I (partnership years) owned dozens of positions and I don't think he beat the market at all. Maybe one year. Take a modern guy like Paul Sonkin. He has no idea what he's doing with smaller positions. I guess if you have more than 3 positions, you just can't make it in this world.

You might want to first read "The halo effect" before wasting time on this book. Vinod +1

That is the funniest thing I've read all week! Beautiful. I heard another one this weekend which would be apropos..."Quite the shame! Alot of horsepower pulling in the wrong direction." Cheers! Ah, that's really good too. I should have added that being tall doesn't hurt either. Reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live from the 1988 presidential election between Bush 1 and Dukakis. They went through various presidents in history and put a picture up and said how tall they are. They added Bush 1 and said he's 6'2" (or whatever he is). They then added the Duke at 5'6" or whatever and said "vote for Bush . . . he's tall". I always think of that in the context of the Winklevosses. They're tall.

I've always liked the Winklevosses. They have demonstrated that by being born very rich and good looking, with a touch of tenaciousness, one can accomplish anything.

This is really interesting. I remember when I first started driving that I always thought of gas as about $1 a gallon. Sometimes a little more, sometimes (gloriously) less. I see on the chart that my memories are accurate. My wife who grew up in the South recalls paying in the neighborhood of 30-40 cents a gallon. Probably never see days like that again.

One to two years after his death.

Bernanke's Folly?

I never understand these kinds of statements. Maybe I'm naive. I think people spend too much time listening to Buffett and his statements about things like if a nuke goes off in NYC people will still go on buying gum. If "BAC goes to zero and some others with it", just stop there. I don't get it. It's like these major financial institutions will be worthless and what? You're just going to keep looking for great investments? I assure that if BAC, GS and "others" are worthless you won't need to worry about that. Likely you will be concerned with looking for guns, ammo and canned goods. I cannot envision a scenario where THE major financial institutions in the world are worthless and life just keeps on keeping on. Same shit, different day. I suppose any one of these institutions could be put into some kind of receivership, but all of them? The world would be a fundamentally different place. I think you had this pre-made anti buffett argument and pulled it out on that. I was saying pretty much what you just did. You left the last sentence out in your quote "It is not going to 0 unless there is a total financial collapse and then these options are the last of our worries.". As far as Buffet, I doubt very much he said anything even remotely close to what you claim him to represent. All he is saying, as does Peter Lynch mentioned in a recent thread, that he believes in the core system of the USA and that to be a successful investor you have to be at least somewhat optimistic. I'm pretty sure he would acknowledge what you wrote above, more or less. You give me too much credit. No "pre-made" arguments. Sorry if I missed your last sentence. However, then there is no reason really to fear all these financials going to zero, is there? Buffett said something to the effect that they would fund their Wrigley investment even if a bomb was detonated in New York or something to that effect. My apologies, I don't have time to look it up. The argument was simply that life goes on even if the worst happens. I suppose it would matter how severe the damage was. After all, we had 9/11 and people did go on buying gum. So what do I know?

I never understand these kinds of statements. Maybe I'm naive. I think people spend too much time listening to Buffett and his statements about things like if a nuke goes off in NYC people will still go on buying gum. If "BAC goes to zero and some others with it", just stop there. I don't get it. It's like these major financial institutions will be worthless and what? You're just going to keep looking for great investments? I assure that if BAC, GS and "others" are worthless you won't need to worry about that. Likely you will be concerned with looking for guns, ammo and canned goods. I cannot envision a scenario where THE major financial institutions in the world are worthless and life just keeps on keeping on. Same shit, different day. I suppose any one of these institutions could be put into some kind of receivership, but all of them? The world would be a fundamentally different place.

Ah yes. Well, if anyone wants a chuckle do a search for Lynn Tilton's Christmas cards from years ago. They are easy to find. Remember these are what she sent out to clients, etc.

What is the board's view on what Merrill Lynch is worth? I've heard various different valuations, but have to believe it's worth at least what the current price of BAC is thus making the bank free. Also, what does the board think are the odds it is spun off? To me the cultures have never really meshed. The commercial bankers with the gunslingers isn't a match made in heaven. I would think it does get spun off at some point, but who knows.

This may be one of the funniest posts I have ever read. A famous female value investor? Hilarious. Perhaps you are thinking of Lynn Tilton of the infamous Christmas cards of years past? In all seriousness, we could use some female blood among the ranks, but I really can't think of any FAMOUS female value investors. There's Lisa Rapuano and . . . hmmm. Lisa has done well and that's fine, but if she was a baseball player she would be someone like Nelson Cruz or Tyler Clippard or someone like that. A minor star is what I am trying to get at.

I'll bite. What happens then? Nothing. I just wanted to once in my life participate in a BAC cheering thread and I found myself seriously lacking anything to say. So go BAC!!!!

Fleck has got a killer hairdo, so he's got that going for him.

I'll consider selling on June 10, 2014. Not before or after.

Thanks for posting. I would say that "relentless womanizer" is probably an apt description of Graham in his youth (i.e. prior to around 60!).