Post New

Mohnish Pabrai was a huge fan & friend of Charlie Munger, I wonder how Charlie felt about Mohnish's investment style.
Mohnish has managed the Pabrai Funds for over 20+ years with approx $1B AUM under management. He runs an extremely concentrated portfolio with current emphasis in Turkey with 3 companies cover 80% of the portfolio.

Always interesting to compare recent,(thru 6/30/2025), as well as long term performance comparisons.
PIF-2 is the oldest Pabrai fund started in late 2000.

Yrs <S&P 500> .... <BRK-A> .... <PIF-2>

1..........14.7%/Yr........19.2%/Yr.......-24.8%/Yr

3..........19.7%/Yr........21.6%/Yr........20.2%/Yr

5..........16.9%/Yr........22.4%/Yr........11.5%/Yr

10.........13.4%/Yr........13.4%/Yr.........5.9%/Yr

15.........14.7%/Yr........12.8%/Yr.........8.2%/Yr

20.........10.6%/Yr........11.4%/Yr.........6.7%/Yr

<hope the formatting doesn't blow up>

ciao

I wonder how Charlie felt about Mohnish's investment style

I suspect Charlie didn't think highly of Pabrai's investment style based on two data points:

1. Charlie never gave money to Pabrai to manage unlike he did with Li Lu, and the Australian money manager.
2. In one of his last interviews with the founder of Stripe (Collison), he complained about a money manager he knew who had terrible money weighted results (Charlie said he lost money net for investors or something like that) despite having a better time weighted result. It was because that manager achieved good result with tiny capital, raised a lot money and produced terrible results with bigger pool of capital, so he net lost money for investors. One can only guess who that money manager might have been..

Pabrai & Guy Spier rode the lunch auction they won with Warren train to market themselves endlessly.

Results are not great.

2. In one of his last interviews with the founder of Stripe (Collison), he complained about a money manager he knew who had terrible money weighted results (Charlie said he lost money net for investors or something like that) despite having a better time weighted result. It was because that manager achieved good result with tiny capital, raised a lot money and produced terrible results with bigger pool of capital, so he net lost money for investors. One can only guess who that money manager might have been..

I wonder if this was Masayoshi Son from Softbank? He had some amazing early successes, but results since he got a lot of capital haven't been very good.

I am suspicious, bordering disdain, of money managers who charged 2/20. The witch art would then be in the asset collection. Who would not be able to become super well off, even by barely flipping coins? It doesn't add up, yet people - with their own distorted incentives - enthusiastically fork over investment capital that is supposedly under their fiduciary oversight.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.