The Legend Is Back...

I've been here the whole time!

Holy Shit!!! This is simply because he is bored or wanted to make some money. There must be something incredible he sees. I don't know if we should all be excited or scared.

From Wiki "returns of 489.34 percent (net of fees and expenses) " That is ridiculous.

maybe

I know he's been investing heavily in farmland with water rights - more specifically, almond farms. In addition to his usual deep value approach, I wonder if he's got any other secrets up his sleeve. I know that Steve Eisman and a few others have started to point fingers at Canada...could Burry be on it too?

Canada has some great investment opportunities, but there is a lot of concern over a Canadian real estate bubble. Particularly on the West Coast (i.e. Vancouver). Otherwise, Canada has some fantastic renewable resources investments which are certainly value-centric.

canadian housing is pretty much fucked

CanadianGekko

Canada has some great investment opportunities, but there is a lot of concern over a Canadian real estate bubble. Particularly on the West Coast (i.e. Vancouver). Otherwise, Canada has some fantastic renewable resources investments which are certainly value-centric.

With him, it's more about finding those one-off opportunities. The one's which are going to have huge impact. That being said, I don't think he's going to be investing too much in Canadian equities from a general standpoint. However, if he foresees a housing crash in Canada or something else extreme, I think that would grab his attention and money.

leveredarb

canadian housing is pretty much fucked

See, I don't know about that. I agree, prices have to come down and rates have to go up. But, from the data it doesn't look like those same ninja loans were handed out. I think there will be a gradual decrease, but not a significant crash as some people have stated.

Yeah, agreed. A large seepage. Not a crash.

To act as a devil's advocate here, isn't the sample here a bit too small to be calling this guy a legend? Paulson was supposed to be another such legend and look what happened there...

Although he only ran a fund for about seven years, he's been investing for over twenty.

The difference between him and Paulson is that Burry was one of the first, if not the first, to call out the subprime crisis. Paulson jumped on the bandwagon much later. People turned Paulson into a legend because he made a ton of money. But the only reason he was able to make that money was because others had already done the work on the thesis for him.

Martinghoul

To act as a devil's advocate here, isn't the sample here a bit too small to be calling this guy a legend? Paulson was supposed to be another such legend and look what happened there...

There's a Vanity Fair article, which is an excerpt from Lewis' book, that said Burry had very nice returns since he started his fund despite what happened in the overall market. I'm sure he did that off a small base, so it's not as significant, but you also had guys like Joel Greenblatt who backed Burry.

ytinifni

Although he only ran a fund for about seven years, he's been investing for over twenty.

The difference between him and Paulson is that Burry was one of the first, if not the first, to call out the subprime crisis. Paulson jumped on the bandwagon much later. People turned Paulson into a legend because he made a ton of money. But the only reason he was able to make that money was because others had already done the work on the thesis for him.

Martinghoul HarvardOrBust: Martinghoul:

To act as a devil's advocate here, isn't the sample here a bit too small to be calling this guy a legend? Paulson was supposed to be another such legend and look what happened there...

There's a Vanity Fair article, which is an excerpt from Lewis' book, that said Burry had very nice returns since he started his fund despite what happened in the overall market. I'm sure he did that off a small base, so it's not as significant, but you also had guys like Joel Greenblatt who backed Burry.

It's significant... He seems to have been able to consistently make money for 8 years, prior to 2008, which is a good track record. I can't help but take this with a pinch of salt, since a) 8 years isn't such a long time; b) it was, after all, the bull mkt and lots of people were making money.

At any rate, I am not suggesting that they guy doesn't deserve respect, but I always treat all these stories with some skepticism.

I thought the Paulson humping on this site would end after he proved to be a pretty reckless money manager over the last 3-5 years. But hey, guess not.

Martinghoul ytinifni:

Although he only ran a fund for about seven years, he's been investing for over twenty.

The difference between him and Paulson is that Burry was one of the first, if not the first, to call out the subprime crisis. Paulson jumped on the bandwagon much later. People turned Paulson into a legend because he made a ton of money. But the only reason he was able to make that money was because others had already done the work on the thesis for him.

Given the structure of this particular trade, being one of the early first isn't such a great thing. Jumping on the bandwagon much later, right before the sh1t hits the fan, is actually a sign of great timing. So Paulson deserves accolades in this particular case and the amount of money he made reflects that.

You should read The Big Short.

ytinifni Martinghoul: ytinifni:

Although he only ran a fund for about seven years, he's been investing for over twenty.

The difference between him and Paulson is that Burry was one of the first, if not the first, to call out the subprime crisis. Paulson jumped on the bandwagon much later. People turned Paulson into a legend because he made a ton of money. But the only reason he was able to make that money was because others had already done the work on the thesis for him.

Given the structure of this particular trade, being one of the early first isn't such a great thing. Jumping on the bandwagon much later, right before the sh1t hits the fan, is actually a sign of great timing. So Paulson deserves accolades in this particular case and the amount of money he made reflects that.

You should read The Big Short.

I personally know people that are characters in multiple Michael Lewis books (that are very different in nature) and I would advise people to take everything he says with a grain of salt. He is a great storyteller and chooses interesting topics but there are granular details that get left out.

Burry is a smart guy... but there are several other smart guys that fly completely under the radar. According to the Big Short he did roughly 25% pa during the time period he took outside capital. I can think of three other guys off the top of my head that did as well from 2000-2008 with relatively similar capital bases. Value stocks did incredibly well when the tech bubble burst and if you get somebody really talented to lay some alpha on top of that style differential, Burry still looks very good but you can see that he is not this superhuman capital allocator.

ytinifni Martinghoul: ytinifni:

Although he only ran a fund for about seven years, he's been investing for over twenty.

The difference between him and Paulson is that Burry was one of the first, if not the first, to call out the subprime crisis. Paulson jumped on the bandwagon much later. People turned Paulson into a legend because he made a ton of money. But the only reason he was able to make that money was because others had already done the work on the thesis for him.

Given the structure of this particular trade, being one of the early first isn't such a great thing. Jumping on the bandwagon much later, right before the sh1t hits the fan, is actually a sign of great timing. So Paulson deserves accolades in this particular case and the amount of money he made reflects that.

You should read The Big Short.

Gray Fox

I personally know people that are characters in multiple Michael Lewis books (that are very different in nature) and I would advise people to take everything he says with a grain of salt. He is a great storyteller and chooses interesting topics but there are granular details that get left out. Burry is a smart guy... but there are several other smart guys that fly completely under the radar. According to the Big Short he did roughly 25% pa during the time period he took outside capital. I can think of three other guys off the top of my head that did as well from 2000-2008 with relatively similar capital bases. Value stocks did incredibly well when the tech bubble burst and if you get somebody really talented to lay some alpha on top of that style differential, Burry still looks very good but you can see that he is not this superhuman capital allocator.

True you're absolutely right - Lewis is a storyteller, and a good one at that.

As for the other investors you mentioned, could you share some names? I'd love to look these guys up. I'm genuinely interested in learning about their philosophy, track record, etc.