tol1 Posted July 6, 2018 Posted July 6, 2018 Anyone has first-hand (or quality second-) experience of how trading-heavy the Tiger cubs are? Any of them true value investors with longer-term holding periods? Tx
LC Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 I don't have too much experience but I did not get the sense these were long term value guys. More like medium term catalyst/ event driven stuff with more frequent churn.
tol1 Posted July 7, 2018 Author Posted July 7, 2018 Why "were"? There are still a few 1st generations ones investing.
topofeaturellc Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 As an overbroad generalization they would characterize themselves as Value, and certainly relative to pod shops they are. That said in a perfect world you'd say quality business trading at an entirely defensible valuation with a story that appeals, and you probably willing to hold so long as the story works and valuation isn't it insane, and the chosen metric can be entirely variable but not ridiculous. There are some shops that emphasize the value bit more where a value guy willing to work in the process can in theory work out, but I'm loathe to name names, partially because my info is pretty outdated. There are also places that have basically become stealth pod shops. That said I think pre gfc the tiger guys generated a decent amount of returns from balance sheet things that are mostly gone (like positive rebate on the short book) also the generally have to run with less leverage.
topofeaturellc Posted July 7, 2018 Posted July 7, 2018 In my experience they tend to have a core-periphery approach to trading the book. For core names it's most trading around, but for the long tail it can be quite active with short holding periods.
tol1 Posted July 8, 2018 Author Posted July 8, 2018 From the positions I see they still have significant overlaps. Keen to hear from current or ex-Tiger guys on portfolio turnover and the amount of work that goes into single investments.
winjitsu Posted July 9, 2018 Posted July 9, 2018 Julian's old mantra was to long the 50 best stocks and short the 50 worst. I think they're more traditional L/S alpha seeking [think pair trades, relative value, alpha shorts etc.] From my time as an allocator, I heard several of the tiger cubs used to have a conference call to share names / pitches, so you see alot of similar investments between funds. Now that we're on the 4th+ generation, no sure if that's true anymore.
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