#65994
Re: Cobas AM: Nueva Gestora de Francisco García Paramés
Algo que me había preguntado varias veces sobre las ventajas e inconvenientes de invertir a través de BRK (o similares) y directamente en cartera propia.
También habla de las diferencias de BRK y GreenLight, a nivel de las comisiones implicitas:
También habla de las diferencias de BRK y GreenLight, a nivel de las comisiones implicitas:
I also considered investing my savings in one of a handful of public companies that operate as low-cost yet high-quality investment vehicles. Berkshire Hathaway pays Warren Buffett an annual salary of $100,000 for arguably the finest capital allocation skills in the world. Buffett receives no bonus, no stock options, and no restricted stock, let alone hedge-fund-style performance fees.5 It certainly seems like investors considering an investment in a highly prized hedge fund should first convince themselves that their prospective fund manager can beat Buffett. Doing this on a pre-fee basis is hard enough; on an after-fee basis, the odds diminish considerably. Of course, buying a share of Berkshire is not quite associated with the same level of privilege and exclusivity as being accepted into a secretive hedge fund. Berkshire is not the only public holding company with shareholder-friendly and astute management. Alternatives include Brookfield Asset Management, Fairfax Financial, Leucadia National, Loews Companies, Markel Corporation, and White Mountains Insurance. While these companies meet Buffett-style compensation criteria, some public investment vehicles have married hedge-fund-style compensation with a value investment approach. Examples include Greenlight Capital Re and Biglari Holdings. These hedge funds in disguise may ultimately deliver satisfactory performance to their common shareholders, but they are unlikely to exceed the long-term after-fee returns of a company like Markel, which marries superior investment management with low implied fees. In light of the exceptional long-term investment results and low fees of companies like Berkshire and Markel, it may be irrational for any long-term investor to manage his or her own portfolio of stocks. Professional fund managers have a slight conflict of interest in this regard. Their livelihood depends rather directly on convincing their clients that the past performance of Berkshire or Markel is no indication of future results. Luckily for them, securities regulators play along with this notion, thereby doing their part in encouraging a constant flow of new entrants into the lucrative fund management business. Rest assured, we won’t judge too harshly those who choose to manage their own equity investments. After all, that is precisely what I did with my savings in 2003 and have done ever since. You could say that underlying my decision has been remarkable folly, but here are a few justifications for the do-it-yourself approach: First, investment holding companies like Berkshire and Markel are generally not available for purchase at net asset value, implying that some recognition of skill is already reflected in their market price. While over time the returns to shareholders will converge with internally generated returns on capital, the gap is accentuated in the case of shorter holding periods or large initial premiums paid over net asset value. Even for a company like Berkshire, there is a market price at which an investment becomes no longer attractive.
John Mihaljevic. The Manual of Ideas (Posición en Kindle271-294). Wiley. Edición de Kindle.