moore_capital54

Read my post history we have been positioning for this since Lehman. If anything we will be liquidating into the craziness.

+1 on this. I wonder who knew about it. I guess we will never know. This is definitely not something that would have been approved by head office in my opinion. I think it happened and then head office was left to deal with the media and consequences. Instead of blowing a milion dollars, Odyssey should have petitioned state and federal governments through education and information...someone should have taken that initiative...instead of simply throwing money at any specific political party. I would not have been happy with this whether it went to Romney or Obama. Just a waste of shareholder money and I deem it something out of the operating mandate of any corporation. Cheers! Come on.. let's be serious here guys. Your hero Watsa clearly shares the same fears that every other responsible business man does and made a transparent decision to avoid another 4 years. To think that the head office knew nothing about this is ridiculous. Of course head office knew about it. Seems a bit egregious but then I have no idea how much Google, MSFT, Apple, GE, P&G, or anyone else has donated to candidates. Shows you where US politics is at. It shows you that some people who have been living on planet earth for half a century or more realize that this is one of the most important elections in american history (IE: Jack Welch) while others foolishly believe that we will be able to reverse these policies if we go too far. Is anyone seeing what is going on in California. That is merely a preview of HyperInflation. The world's resources are not as elastic as the PHD Standard would have you believe. Keep printing keep subsidizing unproductive classes, in the end they will suffer the most.

+1 on this. I wonder who knew about it. I guess we will never know. This is definitely not something that would have been approved by head office in my opinion. I think it happened and then head office was left to deal with the media and consequences. Instead of blowing a milion dollars, Odyssey should have petitioned state and federal governments through education and information...someone should have taken that initiative...instead of simply throwing money at any specific political party. I would not have been happy with this whether it went to Romney or Obama. Just a waste of shareholder money and I deem it something out of the operating mandate of any corporation. Cheers! Come on.. let's be serious here guys. Your hero Watsa clearly shares the same fears that every other responsible business man does and made a transparent decision to avoid another 4 years. To think that the head office knew nothing about this is ridiculous.

We are short SPLK :) Enjoyed the presentation at the VIC (just returned from NYC actually) I hope to see some justice served on Marc Pincus when the class actions finally reach the courts. A guy like Pincus should be lucky to even own $100 million worth of anything given his performance (that is the value of his remaining ZNGA stake) yet he is sitting on an additional $400-500 million+ in cash from sales that were obviously undeserved. He sold shares on the private market, he sold shares in a tender offer back to the company, and he sold shares in a secondary only a few months ago.

Did you even follow through to this "research"? http://news.msu.edu/story/superman-strength-bacteria-produces-gold/ This whole thing was meant to be an art exhibit in the first place here is a direct quote from the Michigan University Website: it would be cost prohibitive to reproduce their experiment on a larger scale, he said. But the researchers’ success in creating gold raises questions about greed, economy and environmental impact, focusing on the ethics related to science and the engineering of nature. In addition, the artwork consists of a series of images made with a scanning electron microscope. Using ancient gold illumination techniques, Brown applied 24-karat gold leaf to regions of the prints where a bacterial gold deposit had been identified so that each print contains some of the gold produced in the bioreactor. These "scientists" should spend more time learning about geology and metallurgy and should consider changing their majors to engineering if they want to be serious about extracting gold from the earth.

Even for entertainment purposes this post scores as simply retarded. The bacteria is is simply a form of liberating gold from sulphides no different than the cyanidation process. You need to have gold at a certain crustal abundance that is economic (in this case it would have to be way in excess of what is required for cyanidation) for the process to occur. In other words you completely misunderstood and misrepresented what you posted. This process is well known and is called bioleaching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioleaching) There is actually a company on the TSX called Rebgold (RBG) http://www.reb-gold.com/s/Overview.asp that has a working prototype. We invested in the company way back when it was called Bactech. This is the problem with the world today. Media searching for sound bites and gullible sheep that swallow prior to developing sufficient knowledge on a topic. On a brighter note, the debates just concluded and its pretty obvious that Romney demonstrated why he should be elected.

Fantastic video. Yet another example of a self made randian hero expressing what should be obvious to any capitalist in the US today.

Very rare interview with Michael F. Price: http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/09/michael-price-lots-of-pent-up-consumer-demand-rare-interview/ I am so impressed with this guy and agree with literally everything he said. As for the liberal argument here is another example of a smart billionaire investor who clearly sees the problems with the democratic party.

You are probably correct on that point AAOI, Dickens and Chesterton probably would not even imagine the modern welfare state. They could also not imagine the level of wealth that we currently have. What was important was the system and the balance. Also, if you follow that conservative lineage to more modern times you will find people like Eisenhower, Rockefeller and George Romney that were concerned with the Goldwater revolution and Nixon's southern strategy ... and were always "good sports". Also, is not to say we have not increased the scope of Liberty over the last 150 years and the State has played a key role in it. Why we should not increase also the scope of equality, fraternity, security, and even happiness with the level of wealth that we have ?... well that is a decision that the republican framework has been answering over time. And it is a great framework. There are reasons why we have these fences: like social security, the Fed, and financial regulation. And we saw what happened when we took one of those down without asking why it was there in the first place. And there other sectors where there is substantial evidence that the government does a better job than a privatized system ... like health insurance that is bound to become more important. You know that I would love to throw some Keynes and data to the mix (smile) . But since were are at the level of literature and philosophy, and I have not packed for an early flight, I will leave it at that. "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." PlanMaestro, you strike me as one of the most brilliant posters on the board. Please do me a favour and read some biographies about Vanderbilt (TJ Stiles) and Rockefeller before you say the level of wealth today is incomparable to that at the time of Dickens. Frankly the level of wealth today is nothing near the levels that had been previously experienced as a percentage of GDP. Today a billionaire can buy 10 high priced condo's with his wealth and based on Bloomberg there are only 100 humans with a net worth over $10 Billion. Forbes pegs 400 with over $1 Billion. The redistribution has ALREADY occurred. Money simply does not provide the same purchasing power it used to. .We now live in a world where the average family will need $5-10 million in gross income over 50-100 years just in order to keep up with the jones's. The carrot's will dangle in front of them as they try and grab this prize that is continually escaping them. Meanwhile the saver with the $5-10 million cannot earn an income on that capital without taking risk. And all the excess in the system is used for unproductive means...

Imagine that Warren, Charlie, Paulson, Simmons, Klarman and Soros had been born in a hut in the middle of the Congo rainforest ~70 years ago. The difference between the life they would have had there and the one they have had in the US is called civilization. The price of civilization is called taxes. You need to brush up on your history. Civilization didn't start in 1971, it started way before that. The idea of issuing money with no backing to support irrational promises and obligations to the electorate started then. As for your birth argument, what matters is not where they were born what matters is how these super successful and special people view the world from the unique prism they have and with the exception of buffett the overwhelming majority understand what it took for them to have experienced the upward mobility they have. Essentially, small government, prosperous and productive civilization where risk takers are both rewarded and punished based on the fundamental principles of capitalism. Bmichaud, I have known you long enough now to not be drawn into your arguments. You are still forming your opinions of the world and I have now seen you jump around maybe 10-20 times on ideologies and beliefs. I wish you the best of luck but I have no energy or time to be drawn into these debates. We are actually printing money right now with our TSX V book almost back in the black after this monster week (which i predicted here a few weeks ago). The only reason I responded to the poster was that I have previously experienced such beliefs by people who somehow think the majority of capitalists or wealthy people are democrats. That is ismply untrue, it's definitely true as it pertains to 2nd and 3rd generation heirs but the overwhelming majority of first generation, self made businessmen and women are conservative/libertarian/republican. QE3 is behind us, QE4 may be next, what is the real catalyst though will be 150 oil and super inflation which should start imminently.

I believe you are mistaken if you believe that smart hedgies are for the most part democrats. My experience is that an overwhelming majority are republican. Many hedgies jumped on the Obama bandwagon in 2008 IE: Loeb but have since realized that was the biggest mistake. In my experience, 9 out of 10 successful people I know are conservative and/or republican/libertarian leaning. I generally don't like ZH because they are too negative for me and I find influence people to be bearish on markets. But yesterday I was sent a very good piece from ZH: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/what-mitt-romney-also-said-glimpse-endgame This situation may have reached the tipping point where it cannot be reconciled without massive inflation. The most ironic part of all this is that in the end the nannystate will have punished the lower classes more than anything as the price of their basic goods/services/energy will rise in real terms to levels which don't correlate with their levels of productivity. The rich will have no problems buying groceries when prices double...

Yeah I know a few guys who have $5-20mm+ TFSA's doing stuff similar to Eric but mostly on TSX V Juniors during the good years (1999-2010) I think what Eric has achieved is quite rare, it reminds me of what the guys at Cornwall capital did in Michael Lewi's book. Essentially taking huge asymmetric bets on LEAPS. I look forward to following Eric's performance with great interest over the coming years (hopefully you continue to be transparent) I believe that investors should have no qualms about sharing their performance and nominal dollar figures. I think being ambiguous about such things is a red flag.. especially given that we are all relatively anonymous here.

Okay, but my personal 401k+IRA+RothIRA started out higher than $200k on the day I retired in January 2008 and today it is up to slightly more than 11x. I'm not going to mention the price starting figure in 2008 because I don't want to be too specific on divulging net worth. I've mentioned previously that roughly 50% of my net worth is in my RothIRA. So by stating that it started at 200k and is up 11x, I'm already conceding that my net worth must be at least $4.4m today. So supposing I hold a 100% notional position in BAC and the common stock price triples in 5 years. Then at that point it's only yet another triple from $40mm. And, of course, supposing I started out with more than $200k in my tax-advantaged accounts in early 2008... Not sure I followed all the suppositions, but I will say that if you in fact turned $200k to $2.2mm+ in less than 4 years I am very impressed and you are truly an outlier. As for continuing to invest in this manner and/or achieving similar returns, I wish you the best of luck and hope you can follow on those fantastic results! I will only say that from a purely economic stand point if you can achieve those results you should lever up your personal returns by starting a fund and commanding an incentive fee. I am fully aware that not everybody cares about being a fiduciary and/or dealing with all the bs that comes with managing other peoples money but I just think that having such an audited track record would do you wonders and supercharge your already incredible compounding machine!

I am always surprised that such a large pool of intellectuals have such a difficult time grasping the difference between managing $50k or $50mm.. I have elaborated enough on this topic. For those that believe that you can replicate those returns I suggest you start your own funds maybe you will be in the next copy of Jack Schwagers market wizards! Ok, well I guess I missed the part where you explained it earlier, so I'll take it as a loss. In any event, I didn't say 50m, I said the difference between 50k and 500k. Certainly there is a huge difference between amounts of money that move a stock price or compete with volume and what not (e.g., professional managers such as yourself), but individual investors aren't at that level. For individuals, I think Eric's comment makes the most sense and is how I view my own tiers of situations. Regardless, in the other thread, you indicated 300k was a "decent amount of capital", so perhaps I'm just not understanding what you mean? Starting with $50m, one could set aside $10m in BRK and risk the other $40m. Life would hardly be handouts and jobs at taco stands if the $40m went to zero. Perhaps soon we'll get to a point where the large cap financials don't trade at such low valuations -- perhaps then it will be exceedingly difficult to earn large returns on $40m invested. And how do you get to the $50mm? Either you have earned that money by investing in which way my argument is you cannot do so investing in a manner that would have generated 50-100% on a $50-200k portfolio.. there will be pull-backs where the leverage kills you and you will be wrong too at least once in your career. So the other option is to be a fiduciary and raise $50mm in which case you are just going to "risk" the other $40mm of other people's money and all know how that is going to end!

Yes I will explain what I meant. Portfolio construction that achieved an 11% return on $300k most probably could have been replicated on a larger amount of capital (maybe as much as $5mm) but for the guys saying they earned 50-200% this year it had to have been on much less capital. It would be rather unlikely to construct a portfolio that earned 50-100% this year on a $50-100k portfolio which could have been replicated on a decent sized portfolio.

I am always surprised that such a large pool of intellectuals have such a difficult time grasping the difference between managing $50k or $50mm.. I have elaborated enough on this topic. For those that believe that you can replicate those returns I suggest you start your own funds maybe you will be in the next copy of Jack Schwagers market wizards!

In the other thread you said I'm not sure I understand the above, as I doubt many people on this board are dealing with < 50k (although I'm not sure what your threshold is). It seems like most people here are not just playing with small amounts. Hopefully you now realize the logic behind my comments as your poll confirms that the majority of the posters are managing $100k or less... I have been around the game long enough to know that nobody generates 50-100% returns consistently with significant aum.

Good Poll! I think you should have $250k-500k and then $500k-1mm I think that one could deploy $500k as easily as $1mm nowadays.

Very good return on a decent amount of capital! I commend you for sharing the portfolio size as it definitely provides much needed clarity. Providing large nominal returns without portfolio size are a waste of time for readers imho We are up about 21% in the value funds and down about 4% in the resource funds (the TSX V has been very tough this year) but I have a good feeling both will end up 10-20% higher by the end of the year. Combined AUM $120mm~

Agree Dazel, mate our juniors are next, I have a feeling the TSX V is primed.. our resource funds are up about 10% last 30 days :)

She's Back! Congrats Board, we are having a monster month here... going to be retesting our March highs due to averaging down over the summer.

Gay people are born gays..they just realize/reveal it late because of social pressure..A straight person just doesn't become gay because it is allowed. Actually there is much debate about this. Pavlovian Conditioning in my view proves that homosexuality can actually be introduced into any person's sexual preference, think Jails or stranded islands. I think the scientific community's attempt to rationalize that people are born gay is totally baseless.

The key word here is "unnecessary". That's not the same as claiming to have proven a negative. It just means that the models of reality work just fine without having to postulate for a god. This is worth emphasizing because the same miscommunications about logical reasoning keep reappearing throughout the thread. Sorry but saying that god is unnecessary is extremely arrogant for someone who simply built a model which essentially reverse engineers an existence without reconciling that existence. I would be more impressed if the academics were more humble and admitted that their research confirms how little we know about our existence.

The key word here is "unnecessary". That's not the same as claiming to have proven a negative. It just means that the models of reality work just fine without having to postulate for a god. Like occam's razor. It says that if you have two explanations for something, ceteris paribus the simplest one is probably true. In other words, you should remove unnecessary complexity and go with the simpler (thus more probable) explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor For example, imagine we found a computer microprocessor from an alien species and had no idea how it worked. There's a group that studies it in detail and comes up with hypotheses about how it works, and then it tests them and sees if they were right or wrong. Over time, after many experiments they accumulate lots of knowledge about the alien CPU and they know how it works. Then there's a second group that says: "yeah, it works just like how the first group says, except that it also works using undetectable magic". Occam's razor would slice off the magic because it is unnecessary. The first explanation was sufficient in itself to explain the observed data, the magic was superfluous, or unnecessary. Another way to understand this is via the conjunction fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy So reverse engineering our material existence allows scientists to be arrogant enough to say something they have made absolutely no progress disputing is unnecessary. Ok I get it now..

This is a bizarre thing to say.... I'm pretty sure that science has never claimed certainty that a higher being doesn't exist. Science doesn't claim anything with certainty. It's ok, you probably just don't understand what science is. Here's a primer to help you get up to speed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method I am pretty sure I had a 10 minute conversation with Leonard Mlodinow at a conference where he told me that God was unnecessary due to his research...