investmd
-
Posts
198 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by investmd
-
-
Sculpin,
tough patch to be looking to compound savings for Canadians.
1) As you point out the market has been flat for a decade - maybe appropriately so as oil and gas was in bubble territory at time of last TSX high.
2)In addition, C$ is no longer as strong as it had been for majority of past decade - around 2006-2008 it was 88cents USD to a 1CAD and there was a steady march to parity - was a great time to buy. Today, purchase of US equities costs more.
3)Weaker CAD makes travel abroad more expensive
Around 2007-2008, I got out of Canadian equities and started purchasing only US equities. Over the past year, have been looking for opportunities in Canada due to reasons above. So what are the opportunities in Canada? With barriers facing the oil patch, in my opinion, the upside is not enough to overcome the possible downside. But what about companies like FFH.TO, alternative asset manager BAM.TO? or even BRK partnership structures (no fees for first 6% of returns then 25% of returns above 6%) that exist in Canada like Corner Market Capital (Sanjeev Parsad) and ROMC (David McLean)?
Contrarian opportunity or further descent into socialist hell...aka Venezuela north??
8 years of anti energy/pipeline Obama and now completely anti business ideological zealots at provincial & federal levels are increasingly destroying Canada. If Trudeau is reelected in 2019 stick a fork in Canada...
Maclean's might have sugarcoated this a bit, but, unfortunately, the details seem correct,
"If you were unlucky enough to buy into the stock market at the peak in 2008, just before the financial crisis hit full force, your gains (excluding dividends) wouldn't buy you much more than two loaves of price-fixed bread at Loblaws and a bag of President's Choice sour grapes … With that kind of dim performance, Canada's market is not only bad; it's the absolute worst performing market in the world."
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/money-economy/canadas-stock-market-is-the-worst-in-the-world/
While we're at it, Bloomberg has more pessimistic news on the domestic market,
"With pipeline, regulatory and political frustrations reaching new heights, the nation's energy stocks slumped to their lowest level in almost two years this month. The iShares S&P/TSX Capped Energy Index ETF, which tracks Canadian energy companies, has seen about $56 million in outflows this year versus $32 million in inflows for an ETF focused on U.S. stocks."
"Investors Are Bailing on Landlocked Canadian Oil" – Bloomberg
"I'm not crazy about Canada," Paul Tepsich, founder and portfolio manager at hedge fund High Rock Capital Management Inc. in Toronto, said by phone. "We've got taxes going up and regulations going up."
"I'm inclined to believe that we don't see another oil-sands project built," Geof Marshall, the guardian of $40-billion of assets at CI Investments' Signature Global Asset Management in Toronto, said by phone. The majority of his energy holdings are concentrated in U.S. regions like the Permian Basin, where there's more capacity to move the commodity, he said.
Rafi Tahmazian, who helps manage about $1-billion in energy investments at Canoe Financial in Calgary, said he began trimming holdings of Canadian energy equities after Justin Trudeau was elected in 2015. He started shifting further into the U.S. after Donald Trump became president and vowed to trim regulations and environmental protection. Canada needs to cut taxes and ensure pipelines and LNG terminals get built, Tahmazian said.
"My job as an investor is to gauge and make investments based on my confidence in a leader of a company and a country, or a province or a state," he said. "And I have zero confidence there right now."
-
stahleyp,
what is an appropriate amount of leeway for a money manager? Some suggest 10 years. Chou Associates returns over 10 years have been <6%/year. After being in the fund for over 10 years, does one stay the course for fear of missing out? I think this year's annual letter will be important. Will he address why returns have been disappointing and what he is doing to change it? If not, may be appropriate to re-deploy assets?
-
This bubble popping is like a shot of adrenaline to my investor instincts. Still no great opportunities but some things are crashing more than others so at least now there is hope. Still need another 5% drop or so before I will be able to buy.
Well, No Free Lunch, the next trading day provided you with your 5% drop you were wanting. Did you buy? :)
-
Stahleyp,
Both 10 & 15 year results are under 6%/yr. This would qualify as long term and I would suggest this is underperformance for someone so bright and engaged in deep value investing.
What I've seen is that the fund manager has the ability to pick equities with 5x & 10x returns, but the benefit gets negated by so many picks that result in >50% losses. So far, he has been able to find winners but unable to avoid the losers. I'm hopeful a turnaround is in the future, but am I wrong to keep the hope?
-
Pretty crazy ride.
Up almost 20% in the past 3 months (top 1% of peers). Long term performance is still not good though.
Chou's flagship Canadian Fund - Chou Associates - with $330M in assets is up some 7.5% over past 3 months - not close to the Chou America.
10 and 15 year returns for Chou Associates are in 5.5%/yr range. I'm disappointed he's not given an explanation as to what he has learned from this underperformance and changes that have been made to avoid similar fate in future.
-
Mephistopheles,
Applaud your effort to be "audio centric" and try connect with your audience. Curious to know how you handled it? Will you attach your presentation?
Hi all,
I am giving an investing presentation to coworkers in a couple of days and panicking. I have a pretty good slideshow set up but am afraid it won't be interesting. My goal is to introduce 1) valuation 2) psychology. These are a group of doctors who you can imagine get pitched from financial advisors all the time. People with money who know nothing about how to manage it. I kinda want to blow everyones mind in a way with to them would be very foreign ideas - like "volatility is not risk" for instance, or "buy when there is blood on the streets". Stuff like that.
Anyway, hope is to keep it maybe 15-30 min tops, with a ample time for Q&A. But mainly I want to catch their attention and get them hooked. For instance, I plan on showing a 200 year chart of stocks showing the power of compound interest.
Any ideas or suggestions?
Thanks
-
WTI bottomed out at $48 in Feb 2009 & $30 in Jan 2016.
While WTI has "stabilized" at 20% above 2009 lows, the Canadian oil patch has many companies trading well below Feb 2009 lows : CPG (60% below Feb 2009), ECA (40% below), BTE (70% below), TDG (30% below), OBE (85% below), CVE (60% below).
Why are these companies not tracking WTI price? Does the market believe these companies are not sustainable at $59 WTI?
The "large caps" in the Canadian energy patch - SU and CNQ have doubled from their 2009 lows as one would expect. Why have the smaller companies not only lagged in appreciation but have actually lost market cap since 2009?
Factors such as WTI price, environmental regulation, negative press associated with carbon producers and fossil fuel should be affecting all oil and gas companies somewhat equally. However, there appears to be a disconnect.
Are these companies a value trap or unjustified market mismatch suggesting buying opportunities?
Thanks for your thoughts,
-
Sold 85% of my MKL today and bought more BAM.
Nice! Sold MKL the same day. Also own BAM & PVI ;)
Rkbabang & EricSchleien1:
I like BAM for their management, alternative investments, and ability to deploy capital wisely during downturns. Plus, am able to buy in C$s. I too have been adding to BAM recently, while continuing to hold previous investments in BIP (Brookfield Infrastructure) and BEP (Brookfield Alt Energy). Also adding to recent Brookfield spinoff : TSU - Trisura. So overall I'm bullish on Brookfield.
My question is why are both of you selling MKL? I bought into MKL a year ago with the idea of it being a BRK like stock that could be held for a long time/forever. After a 25% gain in past 12 months, are you finding it overvalued? Has there been a structural change at the company that caused both of you to get out?
Thanks,
-
Wondering if the 1.5% management fee and the performance bonuses get paid to "Prem Watsa & team" or to Fairfax Financial ? Do FFH shareholders benefit from fees paid by FIH.U?
Thanks,
Jehangir
-
Meanwhile, someone who started with the same capital and just rode it all out in great companies generating good returns is probably 10x richer than the permabear.
+1
-
Given this fact and that overall market valuation is high (which implies that the expected market-average returns would be low), what should an investor do?
I see two conclusions:
1) Since the overall market valuation is high, you should pick stocks that are undervalued instead of indexing.
#1 above intuitively it makes sense. Problem, as I've learned, is that markets are highly correlated. If there were/when there is another black swan event resulting in a large correction/recession, likely all asset classes will be hit equally. So whether one holds ETFs or a portfolio of "undervalued" stocks, likelihood is both will be down 30%. The question is which is going to rebound better.
-
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...
The idea of anti-fragile is something that could withstand something previously unforeseen, the "black swan" event. It will be different next time, but who will be around to take advantage of the opportunities in the next different environment. Who has the DNA and financial wherewithal to survive and be an acquirer...
-
I have the opposite opinion of the current masses on Indexing (right now). More than any other time in history that I can think of, almost everyone seems on one side of the boat in recommending and liking indexing.
In practice if you buy the S&P 500 it is like you are buying one massive US Company. And if that Company is way overvalued your returns will stink until value catches up with the price. And currently the S&P is a ripoff - especially with low GDP growth. At something like 26x P/E you might have 7-9 years of 1% return per year while the downside could be 30-50% in the near term.
Previous market bubbles saw individual and institutional investors excited over individual stocks. Today indexes are all the rage. I guess the koolaid tastes too great - until one's liver stops working.
I generally agree with indexing but at fair or undervalued levels. Not today.
Have followed with interest this thread started by LongHaul. Tried to re-read most of it to see if there is a consensus opinion on one side or the other. My summary of the thread is that although there are a variety of opinions, the majority do NOT feel that S&P indexing is moronic right now. Reasonable conclusion?
Whilst arguments have been made in the thread for overvaluation of equities and high % of portfolios in equity, I have to think that long term index investing is still the optimal strategy for 90+% of people who are not part of this Board. If a friend with reasonable intellect but little interest/understanding of markets asked me how they should invest their savings, I think I would still suggest broad spectrum, ultra low fee ETFs, ie: the Buffett suggestion. After reading this thread, is this wrong?
For those of us on this Board who seek alpha, index investing might be more reasonable when valuations are not so high, but it is likely not moronic now.
-
In my field of infectious diseases - companies making next generation antibiotics to treat resistant bacteria, like Paratek and Achaogen are interesting- caveat is it should be a zero to one kind of drug, be available to use inpatient and outpatient and the company although small has a fortress like balance sheet w cash on hand. If economies do well, they do well with tailwinds of aging population, increase in drug resistance in a compounding fashion, and the GAIN act for additional 5 years market exclusivity, or get bought out via big Pharma. If wars/ flu pandemics/ natural disasters occur then after the emergency stage is over there are more infections in the population due to poor sanitation needing treatment. If recessions occur or costs of care keep rising, Insurances want less people admitted to hospitals and pay up for drugs that prevent hospitalizations. Not correlated much with the indexes and worldwide value potential. Thoughts?
Interesting. Reasonable thesis and good play on specific knowledge you have. In this case you are making the argument for a macro event and placing bets that it may happen. If there is another "great Recession" unrelated to a plague, it's unlikely that this pharm company may get stronger. It might not survive the downturn. R&D may get halted. Due to recession, drugs won't be bought on patent....Thus, whilst the investment thesis may be sound, it wouldn't be part of an "anti fragile portfolio" in my view.
-
so, most of these comments do not reflect taleb's view on what would constitute an anti-fragile portfolio. you really should read his book if you have an interest.
antifragility as taleb defines it means that stress strengthens rather than weakens. really, only biological systems display antifragility (stress a muscle and it gets stronger). most physical objects either simply resist stress, or weaken under stress; they dont get stonger.
taleb rejects the notion that shorting adds to antifragility in your portfolio for the simple reason that a rising market stresses the short and value is destroyed not created.
he says that no portfolio can become truly antifragile, but i think for taleb a portfolio of say 90% treasuries/cash and 10% leaps gets at his objective. i havent rechecked his book but i seem to recall that this is what he put forth in the book as the closest thing to an antifragile portfolio.
Thanks. I did enjoy Taleb's book, Antifragile, but it was challenging to read. It's been a couple of years. You are right, I should look at it again.
A 90% cash portfolio wouldn't "strengthen under stress", so don't see why that would be "anti fragile".
-
Nassim Taleb coined "Anti-Fragile" to represent an entitiy that not only is resistant to breaking but actually gets stronger after suffering a setback. Antifgragile can be applied to economies, individual personalities, and the investment markets. Berkshire Hathaway could be an example of an equity that is "antifragile" - comes back even stronger when it takes a beating.
When setting up a personal portfolio in the anti-fragile model what would one own? BRK? Is FFH "antifragile"? What equities or funds/fund managers do you consider to be "antifragile"?
Caveat is you are a long term value investor and have the ability to tolerate downturns.
You want to look for something that gains market share or can buy distressed assets or be a cannibal during a downturn. Many options here:
Brookfield Asset Management
Oaktree Capital
Constellation Software
Interactive Brokers (trading volume spikes in volatile markets)
Industrial distributors (FCF increases as they reduce inventory and collect receivables)
CVS - Non-cyclical cannibal trading at a cheap valuation (cannibal thesis disappears if they buy Aetna)
BRK (can do distressed deals like BAC and can get better pricing for insurance)
NVR
CACC
Liberty Complex (e.g. SIRI acquisition) - though debt can be a problem here
AN/AZO
Non-obvious examples were WFC (and possibly JPM) during the financial crisis. They were able to buy distressed assets, capture deposits from weaker institutions, etc
But this is generally true for the stronger (and smarter) companies during a sector crash. Canadian Natural Resources did a pretty good job buying assets during the oil crash. It wasn't anti-fragile, but it managed to maintain it's value and is now leveraged to any upturn in oil prices.
A few key ingredients: good capital allocators, cash (or at least low leverage), strong FCF.
Thank you. Agree fully with your well worded comment of being able to buy distressed assets or being a "cannibal". Thanks for sharing your insight on the potential cannibals.
As we sit at markets at all time highs and low VIX, I would think a portfolio of "anti-fragile" companies could carry on doing well if markets continue upward, but provide the optionality of "winning" by being able to acquire when markets regress. Win-win scenario? Brookfield may fit this model well.
-
An AntiFragile portfolio is simply one that benefits from significant change - it's just a long straddle on the market that makes pays off big if the market either booms or busts, within a specified period of time (maturity date of the put and call). A long-short portfolio straddling a specific market disrupter.
Select the timeframe (short, medium, long), the disrupter (shortage/glut, technology, etc.), and take your best guess on who wins/loses.
Nothing magical.
SD
I would think that an anti-fragile portfolio is one that will go down when markets tank, but due to its intrinsic DNA/value add/advantage bounces back much stronger as competitors lag, rather than a shorting strategy.
-
Nassim Taleb coined "Anti-Fragile" to represent an entitiy that not only is resistant to breaking but actually gets stronger after suffering a setback. Antifgragile can be applied to economies, individual personalities, and the investment markets. Berkshire Hathaway could be an example of an equity that is "antifragile" - comes back even stronger when it takes a beating.
When setting up a personal portfolio in the anti-fragile model what would one own? BRK? Is FFH "antifragile"? What equities or funds/fund managers do you consider to be "antifragile"?
Caveat is you are a long term value investor and have the ability to tolerate downturns.
-
educatedidiot,
Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated.
Best,
-
Longleaf (Southeastern) filed their Q1 13-F: http://www.rocketfinancial.com/Holdings.aspx?id=277&fC=1
Not too many major changes but they bought Belmond, sold out of RYN and TRCO and sold almost all of their RL and DD.
I thought they bought in to Fairfax in a big way, but why is it I don't see FFH listed in above link of holdings? Did they buy in after Sept 30, 2017? The 3Q letter discusses Fairfax as being undervalued by the market...
-
Racemize,
Thank you for sharing this important piece which has been a tremendous amount of work. Well done indeed! Commendable you would do that and compare your own firm's results.
After reading this essay, my take for someone looking to invest $s today with a money manager, is that one would likely be well served going with almost any of the current members on the list. However, the "best of best" proven value investing options today probably include Braddock Partners, Giverny Capital & Arlington Value Capital and ? Austin Value Capital. I don't know the funds, but will look into them.
Does anyone with more experience than me, have thoughts on above or specific insight into Braddock, Giverny, Arlington Value?
Thanks,
-
Dazel,
Thanks for sharing your insight and disclosing your big position in FFH. In re-reading this thread, the points I can glean from which you've built an argument for FFH include large cash flow, outstanding Bond Investing with Bradstreet, increased focus on insurance rather than capital gains, advantaged position in fast growing economy of India, focusing more on quality, & world wide acquisitions making it more like a BRK.
Since you started the thread at end of July 2017, further cash has been raised through First Capital and Lombard deals and FFH has announced share buy backs. The stock is up 15% since July 2017.
Can you share what you would consider to be "fair market value" today? When you bought into this "hated/misunderstood" stock in a big way, you must have had an estimate of how undervalued it was.
Curious to hear your thoughts. I'll venture a guess that you think the stock is a double in 2-3 years.
-
And to tie in with the main thrust, by making the new insurance entity part of the funds, wouldn't that align incentives?
Didn't think his mutual fund structure would allow him to hold a company that is not publicly traded, so really don't know how he is playing this. But time will tell.
Also don't know if it would align incentives as his skill set is supposed to be in the game of purchasing mispriced/misunderstood equities. I do wish he would focus his efforts on what would prevent him from getting into more of these situations where he loses >70% on certain stocks. He knows how to pick "winners". Can he avoid "losers"? or at least get the balance titled in favour?
thanks,
-
Some here explicitly voice some dissatisfaction concerning investment returns and, at the same time, expect sunnier days.
Implicit value investing risk here?
Can you explain why it is felt that Chou funds will outperform going forward apart from random variables?
Fair question Cigarbutt. Bought the funds years ago due to Chou's devotion to deep value investing, ability to go against the grain and understanding of when companies are deeply undervalued - the "cigar butt" approach. His "honesty" and humility (when he halted his management fee due to subpar returns) helped drive the investment. Plus his mutual fund pays out a 0.5% MER vs. the 1.0% that is standard in the Canadian industry. Made it a core position - it's my only mutual fund holding. Over the years, he has been able to pick multi baggers but results have been poor because of significant number of stocks that tanked badly (Valeant, Sears, RFP...)
So your question is at this stage, why do I hold on? Probably a psychological error in that one doesn't want to exit a bad investment, and declare that initial thesis was wrong, and possibly miss out on the always possible "big turn around" that may be around the corner. As Stahleyp says, one is "hoping" for a reversion to the mean. We've been through the bad years. Might as well wait around for the perfect storm of 5x returns that bring his 10 & 15 year returns back to where they "should" be. Bottom line is you are right, if it's not a good investment to buy today, it's probably not wise to hold on to an old investment. But psychologically....
Mohnish Pabrai (Dalal Street) 13F HR
in General Discussion
Posted
Pabrai has previously laid out metrics for investments. He wants to buy mispriced assets. I believe he said the expectations for the first 50% of portfolio cash deployed is 2x return in about 3-5years. The next 25% of cash deployed has a higher expected net return and so on till the last 10% of cash may be for potential 10 baggers. Of course, all the purchases with these assumptions won't all go according to plan and thus when one combines the winners with the picks that lost money, his returns "average" over long periods of time 15%/yr.
As he is quite "scientific" in his investment process (extensive check list), I'd be shocked if he entered into a new position with a hope of "only" 10-15% annual return. Do not think that would interest him in the least. He makes his 15%/yr by picking mulitbaggers (Fiat, Rain) and forgetting about the losers (Horshead Holdings).