mpauls Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share Posted October 16, 2009 My initial thought of this post was to compile a list of fund performances that are generally difficult to come by, but for completeness good performing mutuals might also be included, many of which will be found below. http://www.synthesispartners.net/Partnership%20Blog/mutualfunds.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinod1 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 My initial thought of this post was to compile a list of fund performances that are generally difficult to come by, but for completeness good performing mutuals might also be included, many of which will be found below. http://www.synthesispartners.net/Partnership%20Blog/mutualfunds.png All the funds excepting three are emerging market funds in various forms. More of an indication of asset-class exposure rather than an indication of alpha. Vinod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Galleon has two funds on that list. The founder has been charged with insider trading, along with five other people. Buyer beware! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpauls Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share Posted October 16, 2009 Ha that's awesome! Obviously this was a screen. I have not looked over the list. There may very well be more 'errors' of sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpauls Posted October 17, 2009 Author Share Posted October 17, 2009 Those of you impressed by Paulson's returns, prepare yourselves. recall, since 1994, Paulson Partners LP = 17%. S&P = 8.8% Merger Arb = 8.7% Hedge Fund Index = 6.7% So Paulson did slightly better than 3x the market. You may need to sit down. Since 1991, Brookdale International Partners did better than 20x the markets, with very little risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Hi Mpauls, Can you clarify? Paulson did 17% and the markets did 8.8%...isn't that 2 times better, not 3? Also, what are Brookdales numbers like and how do they operate their fund? Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benhacker Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Sanj, He means Cumulative out performance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Hi Ben, that's what I originally thought, but Paulson must have done better than 3 times the market cumulative since 1994. Bruce Berkowitz at Fairholme has done 4 times better since 2000, so there's no way Paulson has only done 3 times better since 1994, unless he had very low returns previous to the last few years. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Sorry guys, I went back and looked at the original post and noticed there was a graph there showing Paulson's performance. I actually used that graph and recalculated his numbers from 1994-2006, before he enjoyed the huge gains from his macro-bet. His annualized return over 12 years was around 15%, while the S&P500 would have been about 10% during the same period. So yes, his numbers before his macro-bet were significantly lower and on par with many other excellent managers. I still would like more details on Brookdale. Unfortunately, I think making these types of lists are hardly ever an apples to apples comparison. Short-term events, leverage, etc often are the reason. Long-term, I think the actual disparity and margins between the best managers is far narrower than most investors think, especially when you equate the types of holdings, regionality, cash, concentration and such. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Another name I often hear these days is Joel Greenblatt and his magic formula investing. I'm no fan of these types of investment philsophies, so I'm naturally very skeptical. I found this article discussing how magic formula would have done last year: http://www.magicdiligence.com/articles/how-is-joel-greenblatt-performing I'm sure Joel's partners over the years can attest to his success, but again, I'm wondering exactly how the returns were generated...concentration, cash positions, hedges, leverage, currency bets, etc. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpectedValue Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Actually Sanjeev, Greenblatt just came out with an updated back test of his book's methodology, to take into account the recent turmoil in markets: http://info.formulainvesting.com/results/ +194% for Magic Forumula versus -20% for S&P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Yeah, that seems more congruent to me. What was Greenblatt's actual hedgefund results when he operated one relative to the S&P500? And did he use any sort of leverage or hedges? Did he short stocks? How much cash did he carry? The one set of numbers that I think weigh both return and risk is Seth Klarman's. I'm sure some of you have his numbers, but for the last decade, he carried huge amounts of cash and still killed the S&P since inception. Anyone have Lou Simpson's numbers over the last few years since Buffett posted his numbers in the BRK annual report? Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpectedValue Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 http://grab.by/ajV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpauls Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 Unless you are a partner you will not find much info on Brookdale International Partners, except for an isolated single year performance figure. They are a small fund and invest in complex mis-pricings of all kinds. They are quite similar to Baupost. Though they do not tend to hold much cash, they employ very little risk. In no single year since the 1980's have they lost money. Unfortunately, I think making these types of lists are hardly ever an apples to apples comparison. The first part is creating a list, the second part would be to look at the list in more detail, determine which funds or managers did well because they acted sensibly and which did well for no reason of their own. This second part comes later, so don't worry if there are oranges among apples at this point. I think the actual disparity and margins between the best managers is far narrower than most investors think Indeed this is partly true. True to the extent that we are talking about the best, separate from just good (e.g., Bill Miller=good, Seth Klarman, Buffett=Best) Once you ID the "Best" I would agree the difference is small, however identifying them is much more difficult simply because they don't want you to find or ID them. That is, this task is complicated by the difficulty of acquiring performance figures. The point of this list is not only to compile really good funds and managers, but to identify their performances with some level of detail or fact. So there are many people who are thought to be good because they manage many billions, not as a function of compounding, but a function of marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpauls Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 forgot I had this: http://www.synthesispartners.net/synthesisdocs/interconnectedness.png So there are several on this list that are unaccounted for: Notables Glenn Greenberg's Chieftain Capital, Price's MFP Capital, Sonkin's Hummingbird Capital, and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frog03 Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Interesting thread to reread. Claire Barnes is still on fire : http://www.apolloinvestment.com/performance.htm Allan Mecham has similar outperformance to Buffett's early years James Wang of Oceanstone has done 35% net over 6 years (w/out leverage) Steven Palmer has done 30% over 14 years (AIG then Alpha North Partners) with serious volatility though Any new names that need to be added? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stahleyp Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 that Apollo website looks kinda iffy. haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I think Chuck Akre is a great manager. You need to look at his performance while at FBR & now at his own firm to get a real understanding of his CAGR. He takes large bets with a GARP style investment philosophy and tends to have a really long time horizon. I'll give some pro's and Cons I suppose. Pro: 1. History of outperformance 2. Heavily weights his best ideas 3. Simple and understandable investment approach 4. The few that I know who have met him highly recommend his ethics & character, overall a good person. Con: 1. Has not closed his fund in the past (Likely has not needed to) 2. Does not really stick to his small/mid-cap range as he likes large caps right now (I dont really care but some might) 3. Management fee a little steep for me but given his relatively small AUM I look past this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I can't see the links that show Paulson's performance figures.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hellsten Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Ocean Stone is now 73.95% in cash: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1366043/000116204412001193/oceanstonenq.htm If I'm reading this correctly they had 37% in cash in June: http://www.oceanstonefund.com/docs/Oceanstone%20Annual%2012.pdf Anyone have any insights to why they have so much cash? Are they preparing for a market crash, or have investors lost confidence in them? Still seems bullish on Dell, office supplies, cars and greeting cards :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Ocean Stone is now 73.95% in cash: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1366043/000116204412001193/oceanstonenq.htm If I'm reading this correctly they had 37% in cash in June: http://www.oceanstonefund.com/docs/Oceanstone%20Annual%2012.pdf Anyone have any insights to why they have so much cash? Are they preparing for a market crash, or have investors lost confidence in them? Still seems bullish on Dell, office supplies, cars and greeting cards :) I have not been following Oceanstone very closely but is it because cash is coming faster than can be invested? The fund is tiny but after a couple of positive articles in the financial press I'm sure the fund seen some nice inflows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hellsten Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I have not been following Oceanstone very closely but is it because cash is coming faster than can be invested? The fund is tiny but after a couple of positive articles in the financial press I'm sure the fund seen some nice inflows. Net assets is now $27,604,579 vs. $26,266,361 in June, so that doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe they are simply following the investment strategy outlined in the fund's prospectus: To determine a stock's intrinsic value, the Fund uses the equation: Intrinsic Value = IV/E Ratio × EPS . For this determination, a stock's EPS (its earnings per share for trailing 4 quarters) is calculated from its trailing four quarterly earnings reports and a reasonable range of its IV/E Ratio (intrinsic value-earnings ratio) is determined by a rational and objective evaluation of the current available information of its future earnings prospects. In deciding when to sell a portfolio stock, the Fund generally sells a stock when (1) the Fund realizes that it has made a mistake in judging the stock's future earnings prospects, (2) the stock becomes properly valued or overvalued due to the change of its intrinsic value and/or its price, or (3) the Fund needs capital for a better investment opportunity. The Fund also sells stocks in its portfolio, when it needs cash to pay for shareholder redemptions. Consequently, the Fund may engage in active and frequent trading that may result in short-term capital gains. When the Adviser believes that market conditions warrant a temporary defensive posture or is unable to find enough suitable investment opportunities, the Fund may invest up to 100% of its assets in cash and cash equivalents. The taking of such a temporary defensive posture that is inconsistent with the Fund’s principal investment strategy may adversely affect the Fund’s ability to achieve its investment objective. That would be the easy answer, but probably not the correct one. This is their cash levels at various points: 13% June, 2007 19% December, 2007. 40% June, 2008 11% December, 2008. 4% June, 2009 6% December, 2009 18% June, 2010 25% December, 2010 37% June, 2011 20% December, 2011 37% June, 2012 74% October, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hellsten Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Oceanstone Fund is now 83.24% in cash: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1366043/000116204413000200/oceanstonencsrs.htm Here's the explanation: U.S. stock market is highly “rational and objective” and “reasonable”, and price of a company's stock usually reflects its intrinsic value very accurately. However, for various reasons, undervalued stocks can sometimes become available for a short time. Recently, most of the Fund’s assets have been in cash, because the Fund has not been able to find enough undervalued stocks. Going forward, the Fund strives to find at least some of the undervalued stocks when they become available, to achieve a good long-term return for the shareholders. Historical levels: 13% June, 2007 19% December, 2007. 40% June, 2008 11% December, 2008. 4% June, 2009 6% December, 2009 18% June, 2010 25% December, 2010 37% June, 2011 20% December, 2011 37% June, 2012 74% October, 2012 83.24% December, 2012 So far he has timed the market very well. Maybe he's using the Presidential Cycle: http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2012/10/presidential-cycle-and-stock-market/ or expects a meteorite to hit Wall Street? Just kidding… Anyone else raising cash levels in their portfolio(s)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stahleyp Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Ballsy. I like this guy. 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