Jump to content

Capital allocator preformance


ragnarisapirate
 Share

Recommended Posts

All,

 

I have been thinking on this for a few days now, and thought that I would post on here to get your thoughts...

 

All of our favorite capital allocators have had a period where they preformed like shit. Berkowitz recently, Munger towards the end of his partnership, Lampert a few years ago etc.

 

But, they all did incredibly well at the start of their careers.

 

Are there any out there that did terribly when they started? Or, did they not survive because they started out in a bad manner, which biased everyone against them. If you have 5 years of great performance, erase a lot of it for 2, convince people to stay with you, it seems like you would be golden.

 

Is this some sort of bias that we may have towards the more famous fund managers? Michael Burry is the only one that I can think of that might meet the criteria of "screwing up" for a few years, but, even he had a heck of a track record when on message boards; plus, he was one of the most "right" people on the housing bubble, so even he is probably a bad example for what I am getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...