In the past two weeks following some clones has paid for my AlphaClone subscription for the next 10000 years or so….thanks for the great product. One question though-why no coverage of Gotham/Greenblatt?

Jim
http://www.tradinggraphs.com

In the past two weeks following some clones has paid for my AlphaClone subscription for the next 10000 years or so….thanks for the great product. One question though-why no coverage of Gotham/Greenblatt?

Jim
http://www.tradinggraphs.com

But the point of my post (and I have been writing about him for years) was that Klarman is a good manager to follow. I wrote the article then a couple weeks later the stock got bought out. It just seemed like a timely example, no more no less.

I've talked about Galleon and Baupost, both of which are on AC. I've talked about funds that don't make sense to clone and those that do. I just thought this was a timely example since readers would remember the article from a few weeks ago.

Meb, I understand the defensive posture, but your 'clones' cover funds which include a VAST universive of stocks/ETFs. You could easily tout a winning security almost daily (if not more often) because I would bet it's somewhere in some possible clone. Then you start sounding like those Google ads you hate. So I think the point is – it's too hard for you to not be wrong. You can easily pick a clone (or clones w/ strategies) that contain winners. Conversely, you can easily pick clones (or clones w/ strategies) that protect losses the best.

To draw a simple comparison – it'd be like having a service (or fund) which contained all 500 from the S&P. I'm 100% sure I can come up with a combination of securities (aka 'strategies')that destroy the index. Maybe it's the top 2 positions, or maybe it's the top 50 with many technical criteria – point is – the possibilities are endless. I think the research (papers, etc) is all interesting, but I'd rather only hear about that vs a stock picking blog. I hate paper traders and monday morning QBs.