Klarman Holding 50 Percent Cash

[dwy000]

2 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Exactly, this is why the no called strikes aspect is important. Don’t like it? Don’t understand it? Great, move on! For some reason a lot of people can’t move on. 
 

If investing was as simple as who could read the most books or apply the most plain vanilla doctrine there would be no point. Qualitative is 90% of the game. 

I think people can't move on because it's the same process and arguments that we use to make investments. 

 

When you rail on the market for not understanding JOE fundamentals and materially underpricing the stock long term, that's exactly the same argument in the other direction on Tesla.  People are looking out long term and going "how does this make any sense at this price"?  Ignoring the irrational pricing of Tesla is hard for the same reason as ignoring the irrational pricing of JOE at current price. Just different directions 

[Sweet]

Just now, Gregmal said:

Uhm, the thread…lol. The topics of stuff ranging from Bitcoin and Tesla to Amazon, Costco, Netflix…the gazillion cases made over the years about their valuations, most of which were predicated on “how much money they’ll earn next year”. 

Bitcoin has no cashflow.  Not sure why you are lumping it in with actual companies.

 

People aren’t saying it has to have ‘near term cashflow’ - never once heard anyone saying that.

 

I have heard people saying they don’t see X company making X income anytime soon.

 

You’re exaggerating a bit.

[Gregmal]

4 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

When you rail on the market for not understanding JOE fundamentals and materially underpricing the stock long term, that's exactly the same argument in the other direction on Tesla.  People are looking out long term and going "how does this make any sense at this price"?  Ignoring the irrational pricing of Tesla is hard for the same reason as ignoring the irrational pricing of JOE at current price. Just different directions 

Yes, but one I own and spend time on, the other I don’t care and have no interest. Lotta people, especially with Bitcoin or Tesla, sit around wasting tons of time and obviously emotional energy on it when they don’t need to, and have no reason to, let alone those whom transfer that animosity into short selling, and I just marvel at the stupidity in that. It’s so unnecessary 

[Sweet]

7 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

I think people can't move on because it's the same process and arguments that we use to make investments

There are definitely a group of people who can’t move on.  I don't care about loads of these things, doesn’t fit what I want so I do move on.  Most stocks are in this category for me.

 

And yet there are people who say the dumbest cultish shit on Twitter and other places all day.  For example:

 

Firstly, what the fuck is he trying to say about hurdle rates, and secondly how can he know that.  Add Cathy Woods dumb shit, and Elon the other day quite literally pulling numbers out of my his ass… I admit, that pisses me off.

 

These are completely different to Amazon, Costco, Netflix etc…. The CEO of those companies aren’t saying retarded shit.  Not even comparable.

Edited Friday at 08:00 PM by Sweet

[Gregmal]

9 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Bitcoin has no cashflow.  Not sure why you are lumping it in with actual companies.

Because the overwhelming majority of these arguments, whether it’s bitcoin or Tesla or Costco is derived from an overzealous emphasis on cashflow, not things like durability and optionality. 

[Sweet]

8 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Because the overwhelming majority of these arguments, whether it’s bitcoin or Tesla or Costco is derived from an overzealous emphasis on cashflow, not things like durability and optionality. 

Yeh, they still aren’t the same.

Bitcoin is a completely different beast.  

The arguments about the value of bitcoin are basically people talking past each other.

One talking about cashflows, the other side talking about use case.  Both have a point.

[73 Reds]

3 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Yeh, they still aren’t the same.

Bitcoin is a completely different beast.  

The arguments about the value of bitcoin are basically people talking past each other.

One talking about cashflows, the other side talking about use case.  Both have a point.

What can BTC be compared to other than a currency?  Maybe gold, but gold has additional utility and a long history.  The value of currencies are measured against other currencies, based on the underlying strength and economy of respective countries of issuance.   So it still doesn't really fit and the investment thesis is it will continue to grow in popularity and adoption based on past and current trends.  To me, the very definition of a momentum bet which may or may not work out depending on your time frame and perhaps most importantly, future evolution.   

[Blugolds]

2 minutes ago, dwy000 said:

I think people can't move on because it's the same process and arguments that we use to make investments. 

 

When you rail on the market for not understanding JOE fundamentals and materially underpricing the stock long term, that's exactly the same argument in the other direction on Tesla.  People are looking out long term and going "how does this make any sense at this price"?  Ignoring the irrational pricing of Tesla is hard for the same reason as ignoring the irrational pricing of JOE at current price. Just different directions 

 

This is my thinking also.

 

But to go further, I also dont bash on other people for investing in BTC. Oh you bought an investment that isnt in my wheelhouse and I put in the too hard pile, good for you. I might see some value but I dont know how to determine how much there is, and so for some people in BTC maybe it IS say 50% investing (by their definition) and 50% speculation and for me maybe its 30% speculation and 70% gambling...I wouldnt need to have 100% conviction in what future returns will be to invest (with ANY ticker) but I like to have a general idea that it should be worth more in the future via plans, management, trends etc. This is hard for me with BTC. Just like it was with NFTs, did some people make a bunch on NFTs, sure, maybe, but I never understood it and so I walked away...but for those that made boatloads...good for them. There is not a finite amount of money and investments floating around out there. 

 

People who are BTC bros, are just as confident that it will be worth significantly more down the road as those who aren't and think its MLM for finance bros. I dont care either way. There are plenty of other options out there to choose from.

 

Lets just call a spade a spade, if you are screaming from the rooftops that BTC is a scam, not an investment etc, how much of that is due to the fact that you are really pissed that a bunch of people potentially made a ton of money easily? Sure you're slugging through 10k's looking for a diamond in the rough, then take a position and have to wait for months/years or more for the value to be realized and meanwhile you are holding a bag or taking a paltry single digit return while some kid who has never even read a report has a higher net worth because he took some of his paper route money and bought BTC early. That can sting. 

 

If BTC goes to the moon, good for them, if it crashes to zero, so be it. If Im not an investor, it really doesnt matter to me. Just like it didnt matter to me when people were buying beanie babies for $5 and selling them online for hundreds a piece, years ago a friends mom made more on Ebay one-year slinging babies than she did at her full-time job.  good for them, and now that you could probably find the same ones in Goodwill, doesnt matter to me. Everyone wants to be "right" about BTC ↑↓. I dont need to be right or wrong about BTC just like I didnt with beanie babies, vinyl records, watches, collector cars, paintings etc. I've only gotta be concerned with being right about whats in my portfolio.  

 

 

 

 

[Gregmal]

Yup I agree wholly on the jealousy thing. Look at all the hate Cathy got. Meanwhile the fund manager who can’t sniff an index and bullshits his way through letters appealing to authority or quoting Warren Buffett? Little to no scrutiny. 

[dwy000]

18 minutes ago, Blugolds said:

 

This is my thinking also.

 

But to go further, I also dont bash on other people for investing in BTC. Oh you bought an investment that isnt in my wheelhouse and I put in the too hard pile, good for you. I might see some value but I dont know how to determine how much there is, and so for some people in BTC maybe it IS say 50% investing (by their definition) and 50% speculation and for me maybe its 30% speculation and 70% gambling...I wouldnt need to have 100% conviction in what future returns will be to invest (with ANY ticker) but I like to have a general idea that it should be worth more in the future via plans, management, trends etc. This is hard for me with BTC. Just like it was with NFTs, did some people make a bunch on NFTs, sure, maybe, but I never understood it and so I walked away...but for those that made boatloads...good for them. There is not a finite amount of money and investments floating around out there. 

 

People who are BTC bros, are just as confident that it will be worth significantly more down the road as those who aren't and think its MLM for finance bros. I dont care either way. There are plenty of other options out there to choose from.

 

Lets just call a spade a spade, if you are screaming from the rooftops that BTC is a scam, not an investment etc, how much of that is due to the fact that you are really pissed that a bunch of people potentially made a ton of money easily? Sure you're slugging through 10k's looking for a diamond in the rough, then take a position and have to wait for months/years or more for the value to be realized and meanwhile you are holding a bag or taking a paltry single digit return while some kid who has never even read a report has a higher net worth because he took some of his paper route money and bought BTC early. That can sting. 

 

If BTC goes to the moon, good for them, if it crashes to zero, so be it. If Im not an investor, it really doesnt matter to me. Just like it didnt matter to me when people were buying beanie babies for $5 and selling them online for hundreds a piece, years ago a friends mom made more on Ebay one-year slinging babies than she did at her full-time job.  good for them, and now that you could probably find the same ones in Goodwill, doesnt matter to me. Everyone wants to be "right" about BTC ↑↓. I dont need to be right or wrong about BTC just like I didnt with beanie babies, vinyl records, watches, collector cars, paintings etc. I've only gotta be concerned with being right about whats in my portfolio.  

 

 

 

 

To bring it full circle, there are similarities to Klarman. For a long time the guy outperformed and dominated. And then all of a sudden it was over.  And while he was doing great nobody would tolerate naysayers. When it was all over and he's underperformed, suddenly everyone knew he was just lucky all along and it proves he wasn't great. The same process seems to apply to every flavor of the month/,year/decade. 

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

To me, the very definition of a momentum bet

For sure… and I’ve been tempted by the trade.  But I view it only as that, a trade, I don’t view it like owning a business etc.  I don’t much care if goes up or down, it’s actually the fanboys that get me… as do fanboys with many other investmwnrw I might add.

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, dwy000 said:

To bring it full circle, there are similarities to Klarman. For a long time the guy outperformed and dominated. And then all of a sudden it was over.  And while he was doing great nobody would tolerate naysayers. When it was all over and he's underperformed, suddenly everyone knew he was just lucky all along and it proves he wasn't great. The same process seems to apply to every flavor of the month/,year/decade. 

I think the lesson is be humble… right?  Very few will not have periods of underperformance.  I think if you are too cocksure about yourself, and your method, be that value investing, growth, trading… whatever… you may not do well when the investment winds change

[Vish_ram]

42 minutes ago, Sweet said:

I think the lesson is be humble… right?  Very few will not have periods of underperformance.  I think if you are too cocksure about yourself, and your method, be that value investing, growth, trading… whatever… you may not do well when the investment winds change

 

+1

 

What I find it fascinating is that some investing styles work for a period of time and then it vanishes. Bill Miller/Magellan/CGM Focus fund (Ken Heebner) did great for a while. 

 

Buffett seems to have outlasted all of them. Without Apple, Buffett returns for last 20 years will be poor or underperformed SPY.

 

SPY itself is like an index of momentum plays. Sectors come in and out of favor. Folks who are stuck to one sector for too long start underperforming. 

[Blake Hampton]

My thoughts:

 

The economy is generally quite strong right now but is propped up by unsustainable factors. If you’re a company that can’t make good amounts of money relative to the price I’m paying right now, I’m simply not interested in owning your stock. God help that same company when money tightens up and the economy’s in the tank.

[Blake Hampton]

The rest of this bullshit is simply speculation.

 

“Over the years, a number of very smart people have learned the hard way that a long string of impressive numbers multiplied by a single zero always equals zero.”

— Warren Buffett

[thepupil]

2 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Yup I agree wholly on the jealousy thing. Look at all the hate Cathy got. Meanwhile the fund manager who can’t sniff an index and bullshits his way through letters appealing to authority or quoting Warren Buffett? Little to no scrutiny. 

Cathy deserves every bit of hate she got. She has incinerated billions ($14 billion as of July 2024) of lemmings’ capital.
 

she and her team make all kinds of outlandish predictions with little basis in fact. She is overly confident and highly promotional. 
 

a closet indexer giving you S&P minus 1 or 2% is doing just fine relative to Cathy.
 

 

Edited Friday at 11:48 PM by thepupil

[cubsfan]

49 minutes ago, Blake Hampton said:

My thoughts:

 

The economy is generally quite strong right now but is propped up by unsustainable factors. If you’re a company that can’t make good amounts of money relative to the price I’m paying right now, I’m simply not interested in owning your stock. God help that same company when money tightens up and the economy’s in the tank.

 

Might work fine for you. Obviously you'll miss growing businesses that can innovate and will re-invest all their capital for growth, showing no/little profit. Some of them are the best businesses in the world.  Your choice.

[Spooky]

On 1/25/2025 at 8:23 PM, vinod1 said:

t is an ok book, but nothing stood out to me. I always write up notes on a book that I really liked and want to incorporate it into practice. I think I have notes of about 10 investment books, this did not make the cut.

 

 

What are your top ones?

[Spooky]

7 hours ago, Gregmal said:

Yup I agree wholly on the jealousy thing. Look at all the hate Cathy got. Meanwhile the fund manager who can’t sniff an index and bullshits his way through letters appealing to authority or quoting Warren Buffett? Little to no scrutiny. 

 

Cathy Woods has incinerated so many people's money.

 

I broadly agree with the thrust of your comments though - you need to invest on a qualitative basis, pure mathematical value investing does not work any more, the market is too efficient. If you're buying the statistically cheapest stuff you are buying crap.

Edited yesterday at 04:28 AM by Spooky

[Sweet]

To the Canadians on the board… why not become a state?  *runs away*
 

Not trying to be provocative but there definitely would be a range of benefits, drawbacks too though I admit to not understanding them well.

 

[bizaro86]

1 hour ago, Sweet said:

To the Canadians on the board… why not become a state?  *runs away*
 

Not trying to be provocative but there definitely would be a range of benefits, drawbacks too though I admit to not understanding them well.

 

 

Health care is the biggest reason imo. Either we'd have to dismantle our system (which is better than the American one, imo) or every sick and uninsured person would move to Canada once it was a state for the health care (which would blow up the system).

 

Other cultural issues (eg guns) would also be a pretty big non-starter.

 

Finally, it's because that isn't a serious offer. If we wanted to the Republicans wouldn't let us, because Canada would vote nearly entirely Dem and would be the new biggest state. It would be like adding another California to the political map - guaranteed 2 new senators and probably a 45 person swing in the house. No way the Republicans sign up for that.

[Spooky]

3 hours ago, Sweet said:

To the Canadians on the board… why not become a state?  *runs away*
 

Not trying to be provocative but there definitely would be a range of benefits, drawbacks too though I admit to not understanding them well.

 

 

There are so many reasons. We have better public education, less violent crime, no school shootings, don't have a huge percentage of the population incarcerated, better healthcare coverage, more political parties, less money required for elections, etc. etc. etc...

 

Also, how can all of Canada be one state? You are going to lump in Alberta + Quebec into one state? Doesn't make any sense...

 

Have the people talking about his even been to Canada?

Edited 18 hours ago by Spooky

[John Hjorth]

1 hour ago, bizaro86 said:

Health care is the biggest reason imo. Either we'd have to dismantle our system (which is better than the American one, imo) or every sick and uninsured person would move to Canada once it was a state for the health care (which would blow up the system).

 

Other cultural issues (eg guns) would also be a pretty big non-starter.

 

Finally, it's because that isn't a serious offer. If we wanted to the Republicans wouldn't let us, because Canada would vote nearly entirely Dem and would be the new biggest state. It would be like adding another California to the political map - guaranteed 2 new senators and probably a 45 person swing in the house. No way the Republicans sign up for that.

 

8 minutes ago, Spooky said:

There are so many reasons. We have better public education, less violent crime, no school shootings, don't have a huge percentage of the population incarcerated, better healthcare coverage, more political parties, less money required for elections, etc. etc. etc...

 

Also, how can all of Canada be one state? You are going to lump in Alberta + Quebec into one state? Doesn't make any sense...

 

Have the people talking about his even been to Canada?

 

These replies above  from @bizaro86 and @Spooky are very educational, in a positive way,

 

Thank you.

[Spooky]

1 hour ago, bizaro86 said:

Finally, it's because that isn't a serious offer. If we wanted to the Republicans wouldn't let us, because Canada would vote nearly entirely Dem and would be the new biggest state. It would be like adding another California to the political map - guaranteed 2 new senators and probably a 45 person swing in the house. No way the Republicans sign up for that.

 

Ya cause they are going to treat us the same as Puerto Rico - no representation.

[Sweet]

2 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

 

 

These replies above  from @bizaro86 and @Spooky are very educational, in a positive way,

 

Thank you.

Yes thanks both