Liberty Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 I thought this was an interesting interview about this investor's journey and his thought process about investing: https://www.ivey.uwo.ca/cmsmedia/3776019/tarasoff-bg-interview-2017.pdf (found it here: https://twitter.com/June_Street/status/859759108609757184) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzCactus Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Thanks...Any idea what his returns have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted May 3, 2017 Author Share Posted May 3, 2017 No, it was the first time I heard of him. If anyone knows more, I'm also curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted May 3, 2017 Author Share Posted May 3, 2017 Found this presentation he gave in 2012: http://csinvesting.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/amzn-valuexvail-2012-josh-tarasoff1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Schwab711 Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 1st paragraph of p.5 is awesome. It looks like Josh has a very small fund: http://www.trackhedgefunds.com/greenlea-lane-capital-management-llc Another presentation from 2011: http://api.ning.com/files/76pdWw62ucQ8YDD6mo-hQdIl2o81RKN7Cv42r4Iuuh7xD3MSmo46xFRs-AwIxF9JxhzDeib861UtVhn-noBTj0LGpp3kONcA/11_Tarasoff.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelius Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAubRoZbI9U Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelius Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 He also wrote a piece called "How to create value without earnings: The Case of Amazon" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubsfan Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 About 5 years ago, I saw Josh do a presentation on Markel - was terrific. Of course, I didn't buy it.... But he's a sharp and thoughtful young guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 The other one is that when there’s a new way of doing something where if you do it that way instead of the old way, it’s a win-win for every party involved and no one loses, then that’s certain to happen too. I think pet medical insurance is an example of that, where if the pet owners can’t afford to pay $5,000 to save the pet’s life, then paying $40 a month premium in order to be able to save the pet’s life benefits the pet, the pet owner, and the veterinarian who gets to do the highest-level procedure to make more money. It’s truly a win-win. Even in cloud computing, there’re losers, who are the incumbents. And there are losers in online retail, who are the incumbents. There’s literally no loser in pet medical insurance. No. Just no. Paying $40 per month is not a win for pet owner. Sorry. Maybe it is for people who throw money at pets as if they are family members, but it's not for a regular person. Sorry, if kitty gets cancer, it's not getting $5K procedure and it's not getting pet insurance. It is going to eternal hunting grounds where mice run slowly and bowl is always full of organic kibble. Not to say that he and FFH won't make tons of money on pet insurance. Cause there's tons of people who think that Fido is a family member and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 I think that there’s almost literally a direct conflict between salable as an investor and being good as an investor. I'm not sure it's so black and white. However, what I discovered while looking for other people to manage my money: it is very hard to accept others' investment choices that contradict your own worldview when you are yourself an investor. E.g. you think that SHLD is a donut; how can you give money to someone who invests into SHLD? Maybe this is extreme example, but there are similar issues. On the other hand if someone makes the same investment choices as you do, then what's the point paying them fees to do what you can do yourself? ;) I guess it is possible to find someone to trust implicitly without analyzing their positions and processes (or maybe they don't tell you their positions and processes... then you trust even more implicitly ... haha ;) ). It is quite hard though. BTW, it is easier to trust/not-get-flustered when someone invests outside your area of competence. I guess that goes back to trusting implicitly. 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 His thoughts about recency bias are worth listening to. you are always most excited about your most recent idea, which is a huge bias, by the way. It causes a lot of portfolio turnover. One of the biggest factors in how excited and enthusiastic you are about an idea is just how recent this idea is. That doesn’t correlate with how good an idea is. There’s no logical reason for it to be the case. QFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted May 3, 2017 Author Share Posted May 3, 2017 The other one is that when there’s a new way of doing something where if you do it that way instead of the old way, it’s a win-win for every party involved and no one loses, then that’s certain to happen too. I think pet medical insurance is an example of that, where if the pet owners can’t afford to pay $5,000 to save the pet’s life, then paying $40 a month premium in order to be able to save the pet’s life benefits the pet, the pet owner, and the veterinarian who gets to do the highest-level procedure to make more money. It’s truly a win-win. Even in cloud computing, there’re losers, who are the incumbents. And there are losers in online retail, who are the incumbents. There’s literally no loser in pet medical insurance. No. Just no. Paying $40 per month is not a win for pet owner. Sorry. Maybe it is for people who throw money at pets as if they are family members, but it's not for a regular person. Sorry, if kitty gets cancer, it's not getting $5K procedure and it's not getting pet insurance. It is going to eternal hunting grounds where mice run slowly and bowl is always full of organic kibble. Not to say that he and FFH won't make tons of money on pet insurance. Cause there's tons of people who think that Fido is a family member and all that. It's a personal choice. There's no right or wrong answer, it's subjective. If you love your pet, insuring against it potentially dying because you don't have thousands on hand might make all the sense in the world and be a small price indeed compared to the alternative. Doesn't matter if you wouldn't do it if many others would, just like it doesn't matter if I wouldn't spend money on a luxury car or a fancy business suit if many others will. Maybe you love an artist and will spend hundreds to see them live but I think they're worthless and wouldn't pay a dime. We're both correct from our perspective. And I write this as a non-pet owner who can still see how many people feel deep attachment to their pets and want to take good care of their health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travis Wiedower Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 Good interview. Agree with Jurgis on the recency bias being valuable thoughts. Also, he likes expensive compounders run by the founder... odds he owns IBKR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikek Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 Yeah Josh is a really smart guy. I think he still owns Amazon, MKL, and Trupanion. As for the pet insurance comment, I don't own a pet but I do know a lot of people that treat their pets like family members. People seem to have a very strong attachment to their pets. It's not for me but I can see the value in pet insurance for people. I don't own Trupanion stock but the founder has some really good annual share letters. I could see why that investment could work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottHall Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 The other one is that when there’s a new way of doing something where if you do it that way instead of the old way, it’s a win-win for every party involved and no one loses, then that’s certain to happen too. I think pet medical insurance is an example of that, where if the pet owners can’t afford to pay $5,000 to save the pet’s life, then paying $40 a month premium in order to be able to save the pet’s life benefits the pet, the pet owner, and the veterinarian who gets to do the highest-level procedure to make more money. It’s truly a win-win. Even in cloud computing, there’re losers, who are the incumbents. And there are losers in online retail, who are the incumbents. There’s literally no loser in pet medical insurance. No. Just no. Paying $40 per month is not a win for pet owner. Sorry. Maybe it is for people who throw money at pets as if they are family members, but it's not for a regular person. Sorry, if kitty gets cancer, it's not getting $5K procedure and it's not getting pet insurance. It is going to eternal hunting grounds where mice run slowly and bowl is always full of organic kibble. Not to say that he and FFH won't make tons of money on pet insurance. Cause there's tons of people who think that Fido is a family member and all that. It's a personal choice. There's no right or wrong answer, it's subjective. If you love your pet, insuring against it potentially dying because you don't have thousands on hand might make all the sense in the world and be a small price indeed compared to the alternative. Doesn't matter if you wouldn't do it if many others would, just like it doesn't matter if I wouldn't spend money on a luxury car or a fancy business suit if many others will. Maybe you love an artist and will spend hundreds to see them live but I think they're worthless and wouldn't pay a dime. We're both correct from our perspective. And I write this as a non-pet owner who can still see how many people feel deep attachment to their pets and want to take good care of their health. I literally spent like $3k getting rid of my cat's cancer a few months ago, and did it without a second thought. Animals mean a lot to me; they have always been there through feast and famine, and I will do what is in my power to make sure they have the treatment they need to live a happy life. He was growing cysts and some of them were cancerous and had to be removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 The other one is that when there’s a new way of doing something where if you do it that way instead of the old way, it’s a win-win for every party involved and no one loses, then that’s certain to happen too. I think pet medical insurance is an example of that, where if the pet owners can’t afford to pay $5,000 to save the pet’s life, then paying $40 a month premium in order to be able to save the pet’s life benefits the pet, the pet owner, and the veterinarian who gets to do the highest-level procedure to make more money. It’s truly a win-win. Even in cloud computing, there’re losers, who are the incumbents. And there are losers in online retail, who are the incumbents. There’s literally no loser in pet medical insurance. No. Just no. Paying $40 per month is not a win for pet owner. Sorry. Maybe it is for people who throw money at pets as if they are family members, but it's not for a regular person. Sorry, if kitty gets cancer, it's not getting $5K procedure and it's not getting pet insurance. It is going to eternal hunting grounds where mice run slowly and bowl is always full of organic kibble. Not to say that he and FFH won't make tons of money on pet insurance. Cause there's tons of people who think that Fido is a family member and all that. It's a personal choice. There's no right or wrong answer, it's subjective. If you love your pet, insuring against it potentially dying because you don't have thousands on hand might make all the sense in the world and be a small price indeed compared to the alternative. Doesn't matter if you wouldn't do it if many others would, just like it doesn't matter if I wouldn't spend money on a luxury car or a fancy business suit if many others will. Maybe you love an artist and will spend hundreds to see them live but I think they're worthless and wouldn't pay a dime. We're both correct from our perspective. And I write this as a non-pet owner who can still see how many people feel deep attachment to their pets and want to take good care of their health. I literally spent like $3k getting rid of my cat's cancer a few months ago, and did it without a second thought. Animals mean a lot to me; they have always been there through feast and famine, and I will do what is in my power to make sure they have the treatment they need to live a happy life. He was growing cysts and some of them were cancerous and had to be removed. That 3K could have saved more than 10 cats who instead were killed because shelters don't have space. Yeah, attachments matter. And ethics is a harsh mistress ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem ) Meow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottHall Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 The other one is that when there’s a new way of doing something where if you do it that way instead of the old way, it’s a win-win for every party involved and no one loses, then that’s certain to happen too. I think pet medical insurance is an example of that, where if the pet owners can’t afford to pay $5,000 to save the pet’s life, then paying $40 a month premium in order to be able to save the pet’s life benefits the pet, the pet owner, and the veterinarian who gets to do the highest-level procedure to make more money. It’s truly a win-win. Even in cloud computing, there’re losers, who are the incumbents. And there are losers in online retail, who are the incumbents. There’s literally no loser in pet medical insurance. No. Just no. Paying $40 per month is not a win for pet owner. Sorry. Maybe it is for people who throw money at pets as if they are family members, but it's not for a regular person. Sorry, if kitty gets cancer, it's not getting $5K procedure and it's not getting pet insurance. It is going to eternal hunting grounds where mice run slowly and bowl is always full of organic kibble. Not to say that he and FFH won't make tons of money on pet insurance. Cause there's tons of people who think that Fido is a family member and all that. It's a personal choice. There's no right or wrong answer, it's subjective. If you love your pet, insuring against it potentially dying because you don't have thousands on hand might make all the sense in the world and be a small price indeed compared to the alternative. Doesn't matter if you wouldn't do it if many others would, just like it doesn't matter if I wouldn't spend money on a luxury car or a fancy business suit if many others will. Maybe you love an artist and will spend hundreds to see them live but I think they're worthless and wouldn't pay a dime. We're both correct from our perspective. And I write this as a non-pet owner who can still see how many people feel deep attachment to their pets and want to take good care of their health. I literally spent like $3k getting rid of my cat's cancer a few months ago, and did it without a second thought. Animals mean a lot to me; they have always been there through feast and famine, and I will do what is in my power to make sure they have the treatment they need to live a happy life. He was growing cysts and some of them were cancerous and had to be removed. That 3K could have saved more than 10 cats who instead were killed because shelters don't have space. Yeah, attachments matter. And ethics is a harsh mistress ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem ) Meow. You are almost a good troll, Jurgis. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted May 4, 2017 Author Share Posted May 4, 2017 The other one is that when there’s a new way of doing something where if you do it that way instead of the old way, it’s a win-win for every party involved and no one loses, then that’s certain to happen too. I think pet medical insurance is an example of that, where if the pet owners can’t afford to pay $5,000 to save the pet’s life, then paying $40 a month premium in order to be able to save the pet’s life benefits the pet, the pet owner, and the veterinarian who gets to do the highest-level procedure to make more money. It’s truly a win-win. Even in cloud computing, there’re losers, who are the incumbents. And there are losers in online retail, who are the incumbents. There’s literally no loser in pet medical insurance. No. Just no. Paying $40 per month is not a win for pet owner. Sorry. Maybe it is for people who throw money at pets as if they are family members, but it's not for a regular person. Sorry, if kitty gets cancer, it's not getting $5K procedure and it's not getting pet insurance. It is going to eternal hunting grounds where mice run slowly and bowl is always full of organic kibble. Not to say that he and FFH won't make tons of money on pet insurance. Cause there's tons of people who think that Fido is a family member and all that. It's a personal choice. There's no right or wrong answer, it's subjective. If you love your pet, insuring against it potentially dying because you don't have thousands on hand might make all the sense in the world and be a small price indeed compared to the alternative. Doesn't matter if you wouldn't do it if many others would, just like it doesn't matter if I wouldn't spend money on a luxury car or a fancy business suit if many others will. Maybe you love an artist and will spend hundreds to see them live but I think they're worthless and wouldn't pay a dime. We're both correct from our perspective. And I write this as a non-pet owner who can still see how many people feel deep attachment to their pets and want to take good care of their health. I literally spent like $3k getting rid of my cat's cancer a few months ago, and did it without a second thought. Animals mean a lot to me; they have always been there through feast and famine, and I will do what is in my power to make sure they have the treatment they need to live a happy life. He was growing cysts and some of them were cancerous and had to be removed. That 3K could have saved more than 10 cats who instead were killed because shelters don't have space. Yeah, attachments matter. And ethics is a harsh mistress ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem ) Meow. How many cats have you saved lately? 1 - 0 for Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 My main Q for TRUP is that, as an insurance company, its growth is bottlenecked by the reserves they need. I've heard the company described as a subscription company -- which seems dangerous when you don't consider that those subscriptions... eventually have cash outflows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 You are almost a good troll, Jurgis. :) Thank you. 8) To answer the other poster, I don't know the number and I don't know individually the cats I saved. If you need the info, you'll have to call the organizations I donate to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted November 20, 2017 Author Share Posted November 20, 2017 Video presentation of Tarasoff (55 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m18fG6FQpE Found via Ian Cassel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StockDuck13 Posted November 9, 2018 Share Posted November 9, 2018 Anyone have the pdf of this interview? It doesn't look like it's available anymore. Edit: found it, see attached if interested. Josh_Tarasoff.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now