moore_capital54

Sorry the table didn't paste well. That is a glimpse of the kind of research we do internally here :)

Stocks are are oversold and are totally pricing in a recession – SPTSX is 51% priced in for a typical recession, Energy stocks are still 139% priced in for a recession, and Financials are 67% priced in. Stocks are cheap. Recessions 1929-2008* 2008-2009 Credit Crisis** Current Market** % Priced In** NAME % change peak to trough % change from 2008 peak to 2009 trough % change from 2011 high of a Credit Crisis Typical Recession S&P 500 INDEX -25% -53% -18% 33% 70% S&P 500 INFO TECH INDEX -38% -50% -13% 25% 34% S&P 500 FINANCIALS INDEX -28% -79% -30% 37% 106% S&P 500 HEALTH CARE IDX -18% -40% -14% 36% 81% S&P 500 ENERGY INDEX -26% -50% -26% 52% 101% S&P 500 CONS STAPLES IDX -20% -34% -9% 26% 44% S&P 500 CONS DISCRET IDX -31% -52% -16% 31% 52% S&P 500 INDUSTRIALS IDX -27% -62% -25% 40% 92% S&P 500 UTILITIES INDEX -22% -49% -5% 10% 21% S&P 500 MATERIALS INDEX -26% -59% -27% 46% 103% S&P 500 TELECOM SERV IDX -22% -47% -12% 25% 53% S&P/TSX COMPOSITE INDEX -32% -46% -22% 47% 68% S&P/TSX FINANCIALS INDEX -22% -55% -18% 32% 81% S&P/TSX ENERGY INDEX -16% -48% -30% 63% 190% S&P/TSX MATERIALS INDEX -21% -43% -23% 54% 111% S&P/TSX INDUSTRIALS IDX -31% -46% -21% 46% 69% S&P/TSX TELECOM SERV IDX -28% -38% -5% 13% 17% S&P/TSX CONS DISCRET IDX -31% -49% -18% 36% 57% S&P/TSX CONS STAPLES IDX -12% -16% -7% 44% 58% S&P/TSX UTILITIES INDEX -5% -34% -5% 15% 106% S&P/TSX INFO TECH INDEX -54% -59% -44% 75% 81% S&P/TSX HEALTH CARE IDX -25% -36% -28% 79% 113%

Completely disagree, as always it seems. Equities have been setting higher lows, since August. It appears you missed the bottom!

Thanks a lot DollarBills. Parsad, I sincerely believe you should have a section on the board where we can post these interviews. Such a repository of interviews will be incredible. It is something I would want to refer my daughter to in a few years as the combination of these high quality interviews contributed by members of this board will form a wonderful collection.

This is a genius plan and yet somehow CNBC found some ahole to refute the idea to its core today. I was shocked at his statements and position. America is blessed to be in a position where successful business men with $500k in cash to their name would consider acquiring US real estate and moving their family to a new country just for the privilege of obtaining a visa.

I am going to go on a little personal rant here with regards to this thread because I found myself thinking about some of the posts here several times throughout the day. Initially I thought the post by Stanleyhp was great and as I mentioned to him it reminded me of myself when I was in University, spending nothing, saving a bunch and waiting tables at a well known Toronto Steakhouse. I felt that he was young enough where it was OK to be living at a quality of life that I today perceive to be a bit extreme. The next batch of posts caught me a little off guard, as it unmasked a lot of you to me, and I couldn't help but feel that for the most part you guys were ridiculously prudent to the point of not really enjoying what life has to offer. At that stage I stopped participating in the conversation as I did not think I had much to offer. As the posts continued coming in, I was absolutely shocked at how many of you went to an almost insane extent just to save money on food, and I had not experienced anything of that sort since my University days. Then today while having lunch at Mortons of all places, I was telling my partner about this group of value investors I tend to spend too much time with on the internet and he too was shocked and started asking me questions about some of the guys here, after establishing that you were all above average and even superb investors, we both realized that it is people like you that the US needs right now. People that save more than they spend, people that think outside the box in order to increase their personal wealth, and that whether this is an indicator of what may save the US or not, the entire experience has been pretty enlightening for me. I really do hope that you guys represent a portion of the population in the US that is quietly growing in numbers and is going to help get things back in order because to us living in the major cities and earning significant incomes, all we see is overconsumption zero savings and little regard for the future. The kind of activities described in this thread are what contribute towards a stronger economy. What more a lot of you on this board that have been opposing some of my views on Austrian Economics and Hard Money live your life a lot more in that camp than in the Keynsian/Friedman camp as evidenced by your habits. A lot of you are Ludwig Von Mises's wet dream of what constitutes wealth creation in an economy! So Cheers to you guys!

It should be illegal because they second you engage in a capital raise for the purpose of redeeming shares you are making a market which requires you to be a 1934 Act company. Biaggio, I disagree with your statement. The VC's are in the heads I win tails you lose business, they don't care and in some cases are repurchasing shares from their friends who got in at an earlier round. The bottom line is this, when a company engages in a capital raise to repurchase shares, at that exact moment it should become publicly traded. Lets see if the market would support such valuations. I have been in this game for way too long and especially being around the Canadian E&P and Junior Resource companies to smell what the real intentions are. Here is how it works, my friend. Insiders, Bankers and VC's know that before a company is public they can arbitrarily decide whatever valuation they see fit. Hell now people use Sharepost as a reference, some trades on Sharepost are for $50,000... You can begin to see how reliable this is. Anyhow they use these artificial valuations to exit, and they have turned it into an art. The private placement, followed by an artificial round, followed by an artificial round pre ipo to take out the insiders (under the guise that this helps the company stay private longer and the employees focused on the business which is total bullshit) to which they pitch the investors that this is their last chance before ipo, followed by another ipo round. Then what happens? The stock is listed on an exchange where investors can actually engage in price discovery. You know what happens next... the valuation will reflect the fundamentals. In Groupons case there is nothing to support even a $5b valuation let alone $30B. I wouldn't pay more than $1b for Groupon and maybe make it a 0.5% position. People don't understand that Google never had such shitty financials, when google went public you could already see the business model was profitable, what nobody predicted was the growth levels. These guys just use the google growth curve to project profitability into the sky. Look at LinkedIn for example, what in the hell are people thinking, or Yandex.

This isnt even the worst thing. The worst thing and I can tell you this is absolutely the worst thing I have ever seen in my life when it comes to finance, much worst than derivatives, and much worst than HFT, is that these piece of shit startups will raise money from Institutions with LP's such as Calpers, Pension Funds and such, and then buy shares from the insiders. This has got to be the most illegal thing in the world. Groupon did it to the tune of $1b, Zynga did it to the tune of $500mm, Facebook is doing it, etc. These guys have raised money privately to fund personal exits prior to even going public at artificial valuations based on the perception that they will be higher (trees grow to the sky) upon an initial public offering. Eric Lefkovsky Sold nearly $500mm worth of Groupon shares this way, for cash proceeds. Mason sold over $30mm. Marc Pinkus sold over $100mm The list goes on. Eduardo Saverin sold over $500mm of Facebook, as did Parker. The buyers are not high net worth individuals, they are VC's backed by pensions, endowments, and insurance companies. High net worth individuals never serve as the dumb money.

My number one European play remains Carrefour SA (CA FP) We are already up on the position and continue to add daily. Tom Barrack and Bernard Arnault bought a significant chunk at almost double the price.

Parsad you missed the most exciting thing at the Beverly Wilshire: CUT By Wolfgang Puck. It is the only 2 star Michelin Steakhouse in the world! Menu: http://www.wolfgangpuck.com/content/files/foodmenu_CUT%20MENU%20WEB%20Spring.pdf Enjoy!

Fantastic Post! I love truffles!

Its important to put everything into perspective. While we are alive in the material world, and we reach a point whre we can afford to enjoy the fruits of our labour I think it is ridiculous not to do so. The key is to reach the stage where you feel your money is compounding at a rate that minus inflation and annual cash burn you are content with what you leave for your loved ones or society. The problem I tend to see is when people that have minimal net worths and have no compounding mechanism either spend too much or too little. If you're making $20k a month in a safe job, you should at least enjoy life, because you will never really compound to greatness after taxes and inflation and good memories are extremely satisfying and motivating. Some of my best memories have been on vacations or large family dinners at superb restaurants.

Stahleyp you are on the right track and don't listen to anyone that says otherwise, you remind me of myself in University, I was probably burning less than $100 a week as well, but when I graduated I had a 6 figure brokerage account fully invested in equities. Now a good week at this household amounts to your annual expenditures, but thats part of life and I enjoy spending my hard earned money, you can't take it with you! Here is a great quote from Confucious: He who does not economize will have to agonize.

I tend to look at things a little differently. The market price is irrelevant, and is only a function of the price I paid the participants vs. the price they are now willing to pay. The only measure that matters is the valuation based on the underlying fundamentals of the business. If they keep improving year over year and meeting my milestones then I will continue to hold, and if they don't then I sell. I think that is how "superinvestors" find themselves holding 10 baggers. They focus on the dynamics of the underlying business and not the market price.

While I am being laughed at, my position keeps being reinforced by actual facts: Hong Kong Starts Trading Gold in Yuan to Tap ‘Triple Demand’ http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-16/hong-kong-starts-trading-gold-in-yuan-to-tap-triple-demand-.html Great Piece which in a way provides more validation to the original purpose of this thread, and that is China gets it, and wants to soak up the world's gold.

You are absolutely right, HFT has no logical place in a stock market which is essentially a price discovery mechanism. I really hope it is outlawed soon, even though I have a very good mate who runs an HFT fund, he knows I feel this way. They will put up a good fight though and they can rationalize their arguments with math and modern economic theory bs.

COMPLETELY apologise if it has come across that way. Not my intention in the slightest. My tone is only a reflection of my frustration with the point of view exhibited by the poster after I had contributed my fair share of time and effort, transparently writing clear and precise posts utilizing my years of knowledge and expertise on the subject matter. The poster instead has attempted to pick and choose my posts in an effort to match his personal conclusion that a gold standard is no different than a fiat standard. Again, I apologise if I offended you or the poster.

Dazel, please supply some literature backing this posting. My understanding was that Buffett closed B Partners with roughly $25m of the total NAV of B Partners, which was his and Suzy's net worth, of that $25m roughly $5-7m was his stake in berkshire which is the same stake he owns today, the rest was cash and shares distributed to him personally which constituted his net worth outside of berkshire. This is the first I hear about him losing all his outside cash in 1976, I would appreciate if you could send me in the right direction to verify that.

And you just wait till times get better and you and all the rest of the "rich guys" will be crying about inflation. Inflation is going to come in strong. Of course we all wish for it now, we are in a major deflationary mode. But when it comes back you won't feel so rich. I've seen it first hand with all my rich clients. And there is absolutely no way to protect yourself from it, unless you own a fortune 500 company, where you are immediately benefiting from an increase in inflation in real time. And none of us do, even the best hedge funds will not compound better than inflation and taxes over time. You'll see, for yourself. It's no coincidence that most gold bugs are old timers, its not cause they remember the gold standard, hell most of them were probably in their 30's during the gold standard. It's because they have experienced life and the negative effects of inflation when compounded over time, how easy it is to spend money and how hard it is to save. These are just the facts of life. So my position is this, if you don't agree with the gold standard and prefer fiat, great. I am not going to try and convince you otherwise. But don't sit here and try to come up with a revelation that the gold standard is no different than fiat, that is just blasphemy.

Absolutely appalled at how you took a purely technical response of mine to a pie in the sky scenario as an indication that a gold standard is no different than fiat. The price of gold remained remarkably stable for long periods of time. For example, Sir Isaac Newton, as master of the U.K. Mint, set the gold price at L3.17s. 10d. per troy ounce in 1717, and it remained effectively the same for two hundred years until 1914. The only exception was during the Napoleonic wars from 1797 to 1821. The official U.S. Government gold price has changed only four times from 1792 to the present. Starting at $19.75 per troy ounce, raised to $20.67 in 1834, and $35 in 1934. In 1972, the price was raised to $38 and then to $42.22 in 1973. A two-tiered pricing system was created in 1968, and the market price for gold has been free to fluctuate since then as the table below shows. http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf The price of gold from 1971 and up essentially tells you how often the fiat ratio changes, almost daily! Fiat + Fractional Reserve = Deadly

It's totally pie in the sky and your whole post is a wasted effort at refuting the chief benefit of a standard that has been the engine of capitalism for 5,000 years. Keep trusting a system that has clearly not worked for anyone but the top 1%, who have toll roads or have stayed ahead of the erosion of their hard earned money by efficiently deploying and redeploying their capital (the extreme minority). Read the Wealth of Nations, Read a World in Debt, read anything pre 1971 and you will see the common denominator was an economy built on trust which was ultimately backed by a sound currency reserved with gold. Its pathetic to even attempt the exercise you are attempting, Do you really think after 5,000 years you are going to sit here and come up with some revelation on an internet message board? You can say you just don't get it or don't agree with it, but to try and refute a gold standard as some type of untrustworthy monetary system is ludicrous. It reminds me of the scene in Social network when the lawyer calculates it cost one of the partners a total of $19K to which Zuckerberg takes a second to check her math. That is what you are doing here. an exercise of futility in an effort to try and protect your argument. For 5,000 years it worked, your beloved fiat system is an experiment that has been in existence on a truly global scale for only 40 years, of which the first 10 during an environment with positive real rates (Volcker era), Oh yeah read about real interest rates as well. Unfortunately you have proven your ignorance. And your employment example is so damn naive, There are nearly 500 million unemployed human beings on planet earth, out of 7 billion not 10 people building a house. Gold mines get developed in places as far off as Siberia the yukon to the Phillipnes, in the US every single town west of the Mississippi was born out of some aspiration for gold. You act as though society is always maintaining maximum employment to a point where resources allocated to gold mining would in turn prevent resources being allocated towards more "productive" areas of the economy. 100% Naive. The multiplier effect of gold mining or any hard rock mining is about 10 or 20 times that of Wall Street gambling, and even 10 or 20 times that of any startup in Silicon Valley. Real Jobs, real wealth creation. Its like manufacturing on crack - mining. Read your history............ The world as you know it as you appreciate it has it's roots in a gold backed currency. Not sure what vintage you are but talk to your family members, especially if they lived in North America. Buffett likes to say how standards of living have improved because everyone now has air conditioning and plasma tv's. This is inaccurate, the last 30-40 years have seen people more than ever competing in an ever growing rat race, working far harder for a lot less wealth. This is entirely due to the underlying currency which does not retain its value for longer than 20 years. Thats right, a dollar bill has a lifetime of 20 years, in 20 years its worthless, you need 2 to equal one old dollar.

Value Investment board not the place for this type of analysis but I believe that even Gundlach would appreciate such statistics: From Sentinemt Trader: Longer-term, the rally we've seen has obviously been impressive. It's also very rare. There have only been five other times we've seen a similar performance since 1928. What we're looking at is any other time the S&P rallied 9% or more off of a 52-week low, managing to stage at least a 7-day rally with no -1% days mixed in. Going forward, each of them tacked on more gains during the next month, averaging +4.1%. The only failure to mark a major low was in April '01. All of the others were very important market bottoms.

Kind of spamming with this but I could not find the HFT thread where I intended to post (getting old here), anyhow I think this bit of data may even contribute to this thread: "Critics like Mr. Volcker argue that much of modern finance amounts to arbitrage, in which technology and globalization have allowed traders to profit from being the first to notice small price differences. IN the process, Wall Street has captured a growing share of the world’s economic pie — thereby increasing inequality — without doing much to expand the pie. It may even have shrunk the pie, given that a new International Monetary Fund analysis found that higher inequality leads to slower economic growth."

"ummm... ummm...." did not expect that but he is literally one of the greatest investors ever. Just need a good plan, solid execution and persistence in life. "A river cuts through rock, not because of its power, but because of its persistence"

Hope you all enjoyed this fantastic week. We made up a lot of lost ground especially after enlarging our long equity exposure. Regardless of what happens next, I am very satisfied with my rock bottom purchases when everyone dumped their equities.