Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (66368)	5/17/2000 2:42:00 PM
From: Michael Young	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 95453

<<Robertson has legendary performance that has so significantly outperformed the market over such a long period of time that it is moronic to say that one bad "season" of stockpicking and/or performance forced him out - ludicrous. That would be like calling for McGwire's retirement because he goes 0 for 9 over a couple of games.>> You don't understand how hedge funds operate. They get paid on performance, and they have "high water mark" clauses. Meaning they don't get any incentive fees at all until they recover losses from a previous bad period. Roberston's best people had been defecting over the past few years. Why? Because they weren't getting paid bonuses. And they weren't likely to get any in the future because the firm was in such a big hole. Robertson made some huge bets that went bad. Monster positions in U and a few others were simply bad stock picks. It wasn't because the market was "irrational." He simply picked bad stocks. Soros simply realized it is about impossible to get big returns on a consistent basis running a multibillion dollar fund. Watch Drunkenmiller do very well in the future managing a more reasonable amount of money. Both Robertson and Soros have huge egos. So it is expected they would blame an "irrational" market, rather than their own mistakes. Slider, you have some interesting posts. But you also babble about a lot of subjects about which you know very little. MIKE

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (66368)	5/17/2000 2:50:00 PM
From: Michael Young	Respond to of 95453

Slider, you can be one irritating guy. Taking the time to surf through six week old posts? ;) Actually, I held up very well through the tech rout. Mainly through reducing positions and playing bounces. Haven't been on margin since late January either. Loading up on VPI a few weeks ago certainly helped. CRK looks interesting here. Like to see it base around this level for at least a few days. I agree that FLC is a great buy, especially a few points lower. MIKE

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (66368)	5/17/2000 2:51:00 PM
From: jim_p	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Slider, It is very hard not to take profits here, but I don't because we continue to see a steady flow of new money coming into the patch. One thing that we have not talked about is how funds operate. The oil and gas sector is very small today compared to other sectors. Most of the funds are managed by an asset fund manager, who selects the stocks he wants to invest in. Most if not all of the funds have an Asset Allocation Committee that only meets once a year. This is the time of year that the committee's meet to determine the percentage of the funds assets that will be allocated to each sector. Over the last several years most of the funds have under weighted the patch because they have been burnt so badly in the past. This year I would venture to guess that we will see a lot of the Asset Allocation Committee's increase the allocation of funds that a fund manager is able to invest in the patch. A very small increase from 5% to say 7% of a large fund can have an incredible effect on our small sector. I believe we will continue to see money coming into the patch as a result of the funds going from an under weighting to a over weighting of funds available to invest in the patch. Jim