"Superinvestor Arnold Van Den Berg Delivers His Annual Client Review"

[Kraven]

If I invest in an index, let's say small value, and average about 15% after fees over a 80 year period, am I also a super investor? 

 

 

http://investment-fiduciary.com/2011/03/29/small-cap-value-risk-and-returns/

 

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous

 

I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one

 

It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return.  Schloss is clearly a superinvestor.  It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return.  Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor.  By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well.  Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player.

[Parsad]

If I invest in an index, let's say small value, and average about 15% after fees over a 80 year period, am I also a super investor? 

 

 

http://investment-fiduciary.com/2011/03/29/small-cap-value-risk-and-returns/

 

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous

 

I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one

 

It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return.  Schloss is clearly a superinvestor.  It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return.  Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor.  By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well.  Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player.

 

Yeah, I don't think Kraven could have explained that any simpler.  If I buy the Denver Broncos, does that make me one of the greatest quarterbacks ever like Peyton Manning?  If I invest in Berkshire Hathaway, does that make me a superinvestor like Buffett, because I achieved the same results as him?  Big, big difference! 

 

If you beat the market long-term by 3% annually, especially if you run a fund because you have a significant amount of limitations (redemptions, investment limits, client concerns, frictional costs, regulatory hurdles, etc), then you would be considered in the great category of investment managers...as only about 2% of fund managers get in that category!  If you beat it by more than that, then you could be considered in the superinvestor category.  Schloss and Van Den Berg are both superinvestors.  Cheers!

[stahleyp]

If I invest in an index, let's say small value, and average about 15% after fees over a 80 year period, am I also a super investor? 

 

 

http://investment-fiduciary.com/2011/03/29/small-cap-value-risk-and-returns/

 

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous

 

I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one

 

It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return.  Schloss is clearly a superinvestor.  It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return.  Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor.  By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well.  Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player.

 

So, if someone works 100 hours a week vs 1 hour per month, yet have the same returns - the 100 hour per week guy is more super than the other?

 

Now, if the 100 hour per week guy is a lot "less risky" whatever that means, then, yeah, I can buy that, but not just returns and work ethic combined.

 

By the way, Buffett called guys that were "superinvestors" did not beat an index by a couple points. These guys crushed it. You should beat it by at least 5% to be "super". anything else is good or great, etc.

 

What is average, good and great to you guys???

 

This doesn't look too super. :P

 

http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=CMAFX

[Kraven]

If I invest in an index, let's say small value, and average about 15% after fees over a 80 year period, am I also a super investor? 

 

 

http://investment-fiduciary.com/2011/03/29/small-cap-value-risk-and-returns/

 

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous

 

I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one

 

It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return.  Schloss is clearly a superinvestor.  It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return.  Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor.  By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well.  Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player.

 

So, if someone works 100 hours a week vs 1 hour per month, yet have the same returns - the 100 hour per week guy is more super than the other?

 

Now, if the 100 hour per week guy is a lot "less risky" whatever that means, then, yeah, I can buy that, but not just returns and work ethic combined.

 

By the way, Buffett called guys that were "superinvestors" did not beat an index by a couple points. These guys crushed it. You should beat it by at least 5% to be "super". anything else is good or great, etc.

 

What is average, good and great to you guys???

 

This doesn't look too super. :P

 

http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=CMAFX

 

Somehow we're speaking a different language.  You are focused on figuring out by what amount one must beat a certain yardstick in order to determine whether that person is a superinvestor.  You are missing the point.  Obviously some amount of success must be achieved and that entails beating the index what some amount.  However, the term "superinvestor" embodies someone who performs the act of investing in securities.  Someone who piggbacks on them is not an investor in the same respect.  I am not sure what part of this is confusing.  You have to do the act to be considered.  It would seem that you're trying to imply, as Sanjeev said, that someone who invests in BRK is the same as Buffett.  So by that definition I would gather the vast majority of this board is a superinvestor!

[Parsad]

If I invest in an index, let's say small value, and average about 15% after fees over a 80 year period, am I also a super investor? 

 

 

http://investment-fiduciary.com/2011/03/29/small-cap-value-risk-and-returns/

 

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous

 

I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one

 

It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return.  Schloss is clearly a superinvestor.  It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return.  Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor.  By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well.  Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player.

 

So, if someone works 100 hours a week vs 1 hour per month, yet have the same returns - the 100 hour per week guy is more super than the other?

 

Now, if the 100 hour per week guy is a lot "less risky" whatever that means, then, yeah, I can buy that, but not just returns and work ethic combined.

 

By the way, Buffett called guys that were "superinvestors" did not beat an index by a couple points. These guys crushed it. You should beat it by at least 5% to be "super". anything else is good or great, etc.

 

What is average, good and great to you guys???

 

This doesn't look too super. :P

 

http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=CMAFX

 

That's exactly what I said above Paul:

 

If you beat the market long-term by 3% annually, especially if you run a fund because you have a significant amount of limitations (redemptions, investment limits, client concerns, frictional costs, regulatory hurdles, etc), then you would be considered in the great category of investment managers...as only about 2% of fund managers get in that category!  If you beat it by more than that, then you could be considered in the superinvestor category.  Schloss and Van Den Berg are both superinvestors.  Cheers!

 

In terms of working 100 hours versus 1 hour.  If you go to the dentist and get your tooth pulled out in one hour, does that suggest you should be pulling teeth versus the guy who has worked at it for thousands, if not tens of thousands of hours?  The argument just doesn't jive. 

 

I'm the first to criticize how awful the investment industry is, but I have to tell you that there are plenty of clients who haven't got a clue what it takes to be a good investor, after being on both sides of the coin.  Some of the finer details of the traits of these types of clients:

 

- If you aren't beating the market every year by five percent, they ask you what is wrong with you? 

- They pull money right at the bottom almost every time!

- They ALWAYS second guess your decisions...cannot emphasize enough!

- They don't realize the difference between looking after personal capital (no restrictions, totally temperament based, captive capital) and public capital (redemptions - not captive, restrictions, multiple-temperaments).

- We cannot make mistakes, but the destruction of their own wealth can be without precedent!

 

That being said, I love the business.  I love what I do.  And I'm more than happy to put up with the gripes, since we are serving them...but the irony in client behavior is quite perverse...and in the general investing public too, including those on here that manage their own personal capital!  Cheers!

[ERICOPOLY]

Look, if you can make 15% a year for 80 years then you'll be able to find lots of pretty ladies who will call you whatever you want. 

[Parsad]

Look, if you can make 15% a year for 80 years then you'll be able to find lots of pretty ladies who will call you whatever you want.

 

That's what Ben Graham did, and that's what I'm hoping to do myself!  ;D  Cheers!

[stahleyp]

If I invest in an index, let's say small value, and average about 15% after fees over a 80 year period, am I also a super investor? 

 

 

http://investment-fiduciary.com/2011/03/29/small-cap-value-risk-and-returns/

 

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous

 

I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one

 

It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return.  Schloss is clearly a superinvestor.  It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return.  Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor.  By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well.  Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player.

 

So, if someone works 100 hours a week vs 1 hour per month, yet have the same returns - the 100 hour per week guy is more super than the other?

 

Now, if the 100 hour per week guy is a lot "less risky" whatever that means, then, yeah, I can buy that, but not just returns and work ethic combined.

 

By the way, Buffett called guys that were "superinvestors" did not beat an index by a couple points. These guys crushed it. You should beat it by at least 5% to be "super". anything else is good or great, etc.

 

What is average, good and great to you guys???

 

This doesn't look too super. :P

 

http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=CMAFX

 

That's exactly what I said above Paul:

 

If you beat the market long-term by 3% annually, especially if you run a fund because you have a significant amount of limitations (redemptions, investment limits, client concerns, frictional costs, regulatory hurdles, etc), then you would be considered in the great category of investment managers...as only about 2% of fund managers get in that category!  If you beat it by more than that, then you could be considered in the superinvestor category.  Schloss and Van Den Berg are both superinvestors.  Cheers!

 

In terms of working 100 hours versus 1 hour.  If you go to the dentist and get your tooth pulled out in one hour, does that suggest you should be pulling teeth versus the guy who has worked at it for thousands, if not tens of thousands of hours?  The argument just doesn't jive. 

 

I'm the first to criticize how awful the investment industry is, but I have to tell you that there are plenty of clients who haven't got a clue what it takes to be a good investor, after being on both sides of the coin.  Some of the finer details of the traits of these types of clients:

 

- If you aren't beating the market every year by five percent, they ask you what is wrong with you? 

- They pull money right at the bottom almost every time!

- They ALWAYS second guess your decisions...cannot emphasize enough!

- They don't realize the difference between looking after personal capital (no restrictions, totally temperament based, captive capital) and public capital (redemptions - not captive, restrictions, multiple-temperaments).

- We cannot make mistakes, but the destruction of their own wealth can be without precedent!

 

That being said, I love the business.  I love what I do.  And I'm more than happy to put up with the gripes, since we are serving them...but the irony in client behavior is quite perverse...and in the general investing public too, including those on here that manage their own personal capital!  Cheers!

 

Ah, I didn't read enough into your definitions there. My bad. You bring up some valid points with regulation, client redemptions, etc.

 

So, you guys think that Buffett, who coined the term, would consider this guy along the lines of his crew? Most of the guys he was talking about were at 10%+ vs the index. Personally, I think we throw the term around too much. "Superinvestor" should be something special. I'm too passionate about this stuff, I think. haha

 

I would argue that if you are working a ton and you didn't beat the market by a really good amount (say 5%), you are the opposite of a superinvestor.

 

Hard work means squat if you can't beat an index that you play in after fees. And you better do it be a good amount if people are gonna call you super.

 

If I started a fund and just invested in a small cap value etf and didn't tell anyone, I would be called a superinvestor too.

 

For what it's worth, I would say this guy is a really good investor. Not exactly great, or super though.

[stahleyp]

Look, if you can make 15% a year for 80 years then you'll be able to find lots of pretty ladies who will call you whatever you want.

 

That's what Ben Graham did, and that's what I'm hoping to do myself!  ;D  Cheers!

 

I hope you skip the part about dating your dead son's gf. :P

[Parsad]

Look, if you can make 15% a year for 80 years then you'll be able to find lots of pretty ladies who will call you whatever you want.

 

That's what Ben Graham did, and that's what I'm hoping to do myself!  ;D  Cheers!

 

I hope you skip the part about dating your dead son's gf. :P

 

No kids...it's all good!  Cheers!

[Yours Truly]

If I invest in an index, let's say small value, and average about 15% after fees over a 80 year period, am I also a super investor? 

 

 

http://investment-fiduciary.com/2011/03/29/small-cap-value-risk-and-returns/

 

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous

 

I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one

 

That gets a bit strange because if a fundholder puts all of his money into Schloss' fund and mirrors Schloss performance, isn't the fundholder also a superinvestor?

 

Sorry poor reading comprehension on my part.. I mis-read it as he, himself, was to start a small value fund

[Yours Truly]

Look, if you can make 15% a year for 80 years then you'll be able to find lots of pretty ladies who will call you whatever you want.

 

That's what Ben Graham did, and that's what I'm hoping to do myself!  ;D  Cheers!

 

I hope you skip the part about dating your dead son's gf. :P

 

LOL, 6 months here and 6 months there

[returnonmycapital]

If I invest in an index, let's say small value, and average about 15% after fees over a 80 year period, am I also a super investor? 

 

 

http://investment-fiduciary.com/2011/03/29/small-cap-value-risk-and-returns/

 

 

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous

 

I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one

 

It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return.  Schloss is clearly a superinvestor.  It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return.  Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor.  By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well.  Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player.

 

So, if someone works 100 hours a week vs 1 hour per month, yet have the same returns - the 100 hour per week guy is more super than the other?

 

Now, if the 100 hour per week guy is a lot "less risky" whatever that means, then, yeah, I can buy that, but not just returns and work ethic combined.

 

By the way, Buffett called guys that were "superinvestors" did not beat an index by a couple points. These guys crushed it. You should beat it by at least 5% to be "super". anything else is good or great, etc.

 

What is average, good and great to you guys???

 

This doesn't look too super. :P

 

http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=CMAFX

 

That's exactly what I said above Paul:

 

If you beat the market long-term by 3% annually, especially if you run a fund because you have a significant amount of limitations (redemptions, investment limits, client concerns, frictional costs, regulatory hurdles, etc), then you would be considered in the great category of investment managers...as only about 2% of fund managers get in that category!  If you beat it by more than that, then you could be considered in the superinvestor category.  Schloss and Van Den Berg are both superinvestors.  Cheers!

 

In terms of working 100 hours versus 1 hour.  If you go to the dentist and get your tooth pulled out in one hour, does that suggest you should be pulling teeth versus the guy who has worked at it for thousands, if not tens of thousands of hours?  The argument just doesn't jive. 

 

I'm the first to criticize how awful the investment industry is, but I have to tell you that there are plenty of clients who haven't got a clue what it takes to be a good investor, after being on both sides of the coin.  Some of the finer details of the traits of these types of clients:

 

- If you aren't beating the market every year by five percent, they ask you what is wrong with you? 

- They pull money right at the bottom almost every time!

- They ALWAYS second guess your decisions...cannot emphasize enough!

- They don't realize the difference between looking after personal capital (no restrictions, totally temperament based, captive capital) and public capital (redemptions - not captive, restrictions, multiple-temperaments).

- We cannot make mistakes, but the destruction of their own wealth can be without precedent!

 

That being said, I love the business.  I love what I do.  And I'm more than happy to put up with the gripes, since we are serving them...but the irony in client behavior is quite perverse...and in the general investing public too, including those on here that manage their own personal capital!  Cheers!

 

I love it when they pull the money out at the bottom. Almost as much as being second guessed. Which is why I follow the Walter Schloss school of client disclosure: " Never tell a client what they own."

 

[stahleyp]

If I invest in an index, let's say small value, and average about 15% after fees over a 80 year period, am I also a super investor? 

 

 

http://investment-fiduciary.com/2011/03/29/small-cap-value-risk-and-returns/

 

 

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous

 

I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one

 

It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return.  Schloss is clearly a superinvestor.  It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return.  Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor.  By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well.  Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player.

 

So, if someone works 100 hours a week vs 1 hour per month, yet have the same returns - the 100 hour per week guy is more super than the other?

 

Now, if the 100 hour per week guy is a lot "less risky" whatever that means, then, yeah, I can buy that, but not just returns and work ethic combined.

 

By the way, Buffett called guys that were "superinvestors" did not beat an index by a couple points. These guys crushed it. You should beat it by at least 5% to be "super". anything else is good or great, etc.

 

What is average, good and great to you guys???

 

This doesn't look too super. :P

 

http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=CMAFX

 

That's exactly what I said above Paul:

 

If you beat the market long-term by 3% annually, especially if you run a fund because you have a significant amount of limitations (redemptions, investment limits, client concerns, frictional costs, regulatory hurdles, etc), then you would be considered in the great category of investment managers...as only about 2% of fund managers get in that category!  If you beat it by more than that, then you could be considered in the superinvestor category.  Schloss and Van Den Berg are both superinvestors.  Cheers!

 

In terms of working 100 hours versus 1 hour.  If you go to the dentist and get your tooth pulled out in one hour, does that suggest you should be pulling teeth versus the guy who has worked at it for thousands, if not tens of thousands of hours?  The argument just doesn't jive. 

 

I'm the first to criticize how awful the investment industry is, but I have to tell you that there are plenty of clients who haven't got a clue what it takes to be a good investor, after being on both sides of the coin.  Some of the finer details of the traits of these types of clients:

 

- If you aren't beating the market every year by five percent, they ask you what is wrong with you? 

- They pull money right at the bottom almost every time!

- They ALWAYS second guess your decisions...cannot emphasize enough!

- They don't realize the difference between looking after personal capital (no restrictions, totally temperament based, captive capital) and public capital (redemptions - not captive, restrictions, multiple-temperaments).

- We cannot make mistakes, but the destruction of their own wealth can be without precedent!

 

That being said, I love the business.  I love what I do.  And I'm more than happy to put up with the gripes, since we are serving them...but the irony in client behavior is quite perverse...and in the general investing public too, including those on here that manage their own personal capital!  Cheers!

 

I love it when they pull the money out at the bottom. Almost as much as being second guessed. Which is why I follow the Walter Schloss school of client disclosure: " Never tell a client what they own."

 

ie, small cap value etf.  ;D

[Parsad]

If I invest in an index, let's say small value, and average about 15% after fees over a 80 year period, am I also a super investor? 

 

 

http://investment-fiduciary.com/2011/03/29/small-cap-value-risk-and-returns/

 

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous

 

I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one

 

It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return.  Schloss is clearly a superinvestor.  It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return.  Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor.  By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well.  Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player.

 

So, if someone works 100 hours a week vs 1 hour per month, yet have the same returns - the 100 hour per week guy is more super than the other?

 

Now, if the 100 hour per week guy is a lot "less risky" whatever that means, then, yeah, I can buy that, but not just returns and work ethic combined.

 

By the way, Buffett called guys that were "superinvestors" did not beat an index by a couple points. These guys crushed it. You should beat it by at least 5% to be "super". anything else is good or great, etc.

 

What is average, good and great to you guys???

 

This doesn't look too super. :P

 

http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=CMAFX

 

That's exactly what I said above Paul:

 

If you beat the market long-term by 3% annually, especially if you run a fund because you have a significant amount of limitations (redemptions, investment limits, client concerns, frictional costs, regulatory hurdles, etc), then you would be considered in the great category of investment managers...as only about 2% of fund managers get in that category!  If you beat it by more than that, then you could be considered in the superinvestor category.  Schloss and Van Den Berg are both superinvestors.  Cheers!

 

In terms of working 100 hours versus 1 hour.  If you go to the dentist and get your tooth pulled out in one hour, does that suggest you should be pulling teeth versus the guy who has worked at it for thousands, if not tens of thousands of hours?  The argument just doesn't jive. 

 

I'm the first to criticize how awful the investment industry is, but I have to tell you that there are plenty of clients who haven't got a clue what it takes to be a good investor, after being on both sides of the coin.  Some of the finer details of the traits of these types of clients:

 

- If you aren't beating the market every year by five percent, they ask you what is wrong with you? 

- They pull money right at the bottom almost every time!

- They ALWAYS second guess your decisions...cannot emphasize enough!

- They don't realize the difference between looking after personal capital (no restrictions, totally temperament based, captive capital) and public capital (redemptions - not captive, restrictions, multiple-temperaments).

- We cannot make mistakes, but the destruction of their own wealth can be without precedent!

 

That being said, I love the business.  I love what I do.  And I'm more than happy to put up with the gripes, since we are serving them...but the irony in client behavior is quite perverse...and in the general investing public too, including those on here that manage their own personal capital!  Cheers!

 

Ah, I didn't read enough into your definitions there. My bad. You bring up some valid points with regulation, client redemptions, etc.

 

So, you guys think that Buffett, who coined the term, would consider this guy along the lines of his crew? Most of the guys he was talking about were at 10%+ vs the index. Personally, I think we throw the term around too much. "Superinvestor" should be something special. I'm too passionate about this stuff, I think. haha

 

I would argue that if you are working a ton and you didn't beat the market by a really good amount (say 5%), you are the opposite of a superinvestor.

 

Hard work means squat if you can't beat an index that you play in after fees. And you better do it be a good amount if people are gonna call you super.

 

If I started a fund and just invested in a small cap value etf and didn't tell anyone, I would be called a superinvestor too.

 

For what it's worth, I would say this guy is a really good investor. Not exactly great, or super though.

 

Put it this way.  Van Den Berg's record is almost as good as Peter Cundill's, and Buffett said that the type of manager that they would look for at Berkshire would be like Cundill.  So are they superinvestors?  You'd have to ask Buffett.  Are they great investors, good enough for Berkshire, and probably outperform 99% of fund managers over the long-term...most definitely!  Cheers!

[alwaysinvert]

but the irony in client behavior is quite perverse...and in the general investing public too, including those on here that manage their own personal capital!  Cheers!

Ouch!

[twacowfca]

If I invest in an index, let's say small value, and average about 15% after fees over a 80 year period, am I also a super investor? 

 

 

http://investment-fiduciary.com/2011/03/29/small-cap-value-risk-and-returns/

 

YES I would.. irregardless of what class of asset it is.. 15% after that many years is tremendous

 

I guess you wouldn't include Walter Schloss as a 'superinvestor' then even though Buffett calls him one

 

It's not the return achieved but the combination of return resulting from individual efforts to obtain that return.  Schloss is clearly a superinvestor.  It's by virtue of the fact that he selected various securities to achieve that return.  Someone invested in his fund or an index fund is not a superinvestor.  By your definition, hiring an architect and contractor who build a beautiful home makes one a great homebuilder as well.  Or, by choosing a good fantasy football team makes one a great football player.

 

So, if someone works 100 hours a week vs 1 hour per month, yet have the same returns - the 100 hour per week guy is more super than the other?

 

Now, if the 100 hour per week guy is a lot "less risky" whatever that means, then, yeah, I can buy that, but not just returns and work ethic combined.

 

By the way, Buffett called guys that were "superinvestors" did not beat an index by a couple points. These guys crushed it. You should beat it by at least 5% to be "super". anything else is good or great, etc.

 

What is average, good and great to you guys???

 

This doesn't look too super. :P

 

http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=CMAFX

 

That's exactly what I said above Paul:

 

If you beat the market long-term by 3% annually, especially if you run a fund because you have a significant amount of limitations (redemptions, investment limits, client concerns, frictional costs, regulatory hurdles, etc), then you would be considered in the great category of investment managers...as only about 2% of fund managers get in that category!  If you beat it by more than that, then you could be considered in the superinvestor category.  Schloss and Van Den Berg are both superinvestors.  Cheers!

 

In terms of working 100 hours versus 1 hour.  If you go to the dentist and get your tooth pulled out in one hour, does that suggest you should be pulling teeth versus the guy who has worked at it for thousands, if not tens of thousands of hours?  The argument just doesn't jive. 

 

I'm the first to criticize how awful the investment industry is, but I have to tell you that there are plenty of clients who haven't got a clue what it takes to be a good investor, after being on both sides of the coin.  Some of the finer details of the traits of these types of clients:

 

- If you aren't beating the market every year by five percent, they ask you what is wrong with you? 

- They pull money right at the bottom almost every time!

- They ALWAYS second guess your decisions...cannot emphasize enough!

- They don't realize the difference between looking after personal capital (no restrictions, totally temperament based, captive capital) and public capital (redemptions - not captive, restrictions, multiple-temperaments).

- We cannot make mistakes, but the destruction of their own wealth can be without precedent!

 

That being said, I love the business.  I love what I do.  And I'm more than happy to put up with the gripes, since we are serving them...but the irony in client behavior is quite perverse...and in the general investing public too, including those on here that manage their own personal capital!  Cheers!

 

 

Interestingly, Arnie relates in the great video that the 38 year annual return of the stocks in his clients portfolios was 15%+ per annum.  That qualifies him as being a superinvestor in my book.  The reason that the clients actual return was 13%+ was that he always kept 20% of the assets in cash.

 

Also, he has been exceptional in communicating with his clients, helping them understand the thoughtfulness of his team's decisions and the exceptional care of his clients' funds.  This very likely encouraged many of his clients stay with him for the long run and actually realize those exceptional returns.  :)

[Guest ajc]

 

2014 Annual Client Review (

)

 

Arnold Van Den Berg discussing global quantitative easing, the potential for deflation/inflation and what sectors CM is looking at.

He's direct and mangles some of his words as always, but delivers some persuasive arguments.

 

 

 

[CorpRaider]

Thanks for sharing.

[stahleyp]

I'm back to bashing him again. It just kinda makes me a little angry when someone speaks with confidence and their results are horrendous (I even listed his institutional shares...even worse with retail). Keep in mind (at least as of today), he's about 90% invested. This is the performance even without "cash drag"...assuming he's been more or less invested the whole time.

 

 

http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=CMAFX&region=usa&culture=en-US

 

10 year - bottom 99

 

5 year - bottom 99

 

3 year - bottom 99

 

1 year - bottom 99

 

YTD - bottom 99

 

Not only do you have to deal with abysmal performance, his fund lost only a few percent less than the S&P 500 during 2008! Hussman's numbers are also terrible...but at least he helped avoid most of 2008.

[peter1234]

I'm back to bashing him again. It just kinda makes me a little angry when someone speaks with confidence and their results are horrendous (I even listed his institutional shares...even worse with retail). Keep in mind (at least as of today), he's about 90% invested. This is the performance even without "cash drag"...assuming he's been more or less invested the whole time.

 

 

http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=CMAFX&region=usa&culture=en-US

 

10 year - bottom 99

 

5 year - bottom 99

 

3 year - bottom 99

 

1 year - bottom 99

 

YTD - bottom 99

 

Not only do you have to deal with abysmal performance, his fund lost only a few percent less than the S&P 500 during 2008! Hussman's numbers are also terrible...but at least he helped avoid most of 2008.

 

Very interesting, thanks for the info.

 

He was listed in the book: The World´s 99 Greatest Investors: The Secret of Success

with good returns: 14.4% vs. 12.2% of the S&P 500 over 39 years.

 

Do you think this long term record is right and the last 10 years were not good or the long term record does not sound right?

 

???

[Packer16]

I think the EMH has caught up to some of these managers especially the large cap ones.  This has not only happened to CM but Longleaf, Weitz, Tweedy Browne, Sequoia and others.  I think it has gotten to the point where you have to ask is the 1% fee worth paying versus a value tilted index fund.

 

Packer 

[frommi]

Short form of the presentation:

 

blablabla Inflation blablabla Inflation blabla ....  ;D

 

He has positioned his portfolios into this direction with goldminers etc. Looks more like macro bets than like value bets and i think he is much to early for that. In his presentations its clearly visible that problems arise in the stock market when inflation goes above 3-4%, so he should probably ask himself if we are already at that point. The current numbers have a deflationary trend and are far from that terrain, so what is going on in his mind? (Perhaps its because he has publicy expressed that we get inflation and now has to defend his position while losing money.)

[bookie71]

To bean expert you simply need  to talk and act like you know what you are doing.

.

.

Remember, the old definition of an expert is, EX= has been; SPURT= drip under pressure

;D

[Guest ajc]

 

I'm back to bashing him again. It just kinda makes me a little angry when someone speaks with confidence and their results are horrendous (I even listed his institutional shares...even worse with retail). Keep in mind (at least as of today), he's about 90% invested. This is the performance even without "cash drag"...assuming he's been more or less invested the whole time.

 

 

http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=CMAFX&region=usa&culture=en-US

 

10 year - bottom 99

 

5 year - bottom 99

 

3 year - bottom 99

 

1 year - bottom 99

 

YTD - bottom 99

 

Not only do you have to deal with abysmal performance, his fund lost only a few percent less than the S&P 500 during 2008! Hussman's numbers are also terrible...but at least he helped avoid most of 2008.

 

 

You're right.

I listen for his views on the Fed, inflation and 1 or 2 other minor things which I find somewhat interesting.

However, his discussion of individual stocks has always been terrible and those pitiful 10-year returns deserve their own neon signage.