Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

YACKX = Yacktman Buys $71 Million worth of RIMM...Question Re: Stock vs Mutual Fund ownership

edited August 2011 in Fund Discussions
I would have to say D. Yatckman's timing to buy this stock was a lot better than mine. RIMM = Research in Motion which, needless to say has had a hell of a bad year. I have been takin' to the wood shed with my $ .005 million purchase...down 57% since March.

Here's the article on his purchase:

Now the $71 million question I DCA into RIMM at these levels or just buy some YACKX = Yacktman Fund and let the professional do my bidding?



  • I am not so sure about RIM. It could be a value trap. The smart phone market is so competitive right now that in the end there is a high possibility that Apple (iPhone) and Google (Android) could be the dominant players. Nokia (Symbian & Windows Phone) and RIM (Blackberry) are constantly loosing market share.

    Yacktman also owns HPQ among other fallen angles. I think he will be wrong at least on some of these. Hopefully, he is more right than wrong.
  • I agree with investor, even though I certainly hope it works out for Yacktman... I own YAFFX.

    I read an article in Barrons early this year that RIM was under valued and a good investment. Just recently (in the last month maybe), I read again in Barrons that they "admitted" that was a bad call, and now think RIM is a poor investment_ oops.
  • I just rechecked YACKX top holdings on M*. With their 10% in Newscorp - with HPQ, both which have recently suffered from negative news, it makes me less confident in their newest purchase of RIMM. Should I be more cautious about this fund?
  • edited August 2011
    Reply to @CathyG: Despite a few recent issues with some of the top holdings, the fund continues to do (comparatively) quite well YTD and MTD. I wouldn't be overly concerned, especially with Yacktman's ability to de-risk if required. No one's perfect (although I think a manager's ability to deal with problem positions or larger generalized bets says a lot - I tried a few shares of Janus Overseas over the last couple of months as a contrarian bet - still waiting for that ship to begin to turn around; thankfully it was a little bet given no minimum investment), but I do think Yacktman's excellent.
  • Reply to @CathyG:

    Hi Cathy. I guess you should be cautious of every investment, but imho the Yacktman funds have demonstrated an ability towards capital preservation well beyond the average large cap fund. Heck, even with holdings in Newscorp (and how could an investor foresee the London newspaper scandal?) and HP, his funds have held up "much" better then his peers or the benchmark S&P 500 over the last 3 months or year-to-date... #1 in it's category over the last 3 months.

    I'd be more worried if he was loading up on financials ala Berkowitz.

  • Reply to @MikeM: Thanks for your input on this, Mike. I don't plan on making any changes to my YACKX investment - but do want to watch it more closely in case it's another PTTRX situation which held so long at the top of its field, but has fallen to 86 YTD and near the bottom for the last 12 months. It still may do better in the longer term, but it would be impossible for a manager to perform well under all economic conditions - so if he has trouble investing in these ridiculous economic times he may be still investing under the assumption that reality and logic are what's moving the market.
  • Reply to @scott: Thanks, Scott. Good to know you and others have faith in YACKX's long-term investment decisions as I would really like to keep what I've invested there.
  • edited August 2011
    Reply to @CathyG: I think the issue with a Bill Gross and this is the biggest issue with Bill Gross (and this isn't necessarily a negative), is that if Bill Gross sees something happening down the road that requires a fairly large-scale change, Bill Gross can't wait until the morning that the investment turn happens. Given the size of Pimco TR, he has to begin to shift in advance and that may mean underperformance for 12-24 months, but then outperformance against other funds (and possibly significantly) if what he believed enough to cause a large-scale portfolio change happens down the road. I guess that my theory is that Bill Gross is underperforming because he's trying to position for the reality that he sees coming, which - given the size of Total Return - can't be done on a moment's notice.
  • Reply to @scott: Reasonable explanation, Scott, thanks. But, even if he's right, he would need to outperform its class substantially just to make up the negative differences obtained during the transition period. Still, he knows what he's doing and he's been right more often than wrong.
  • edited August 2011
    Reply to @CathyG: As much as I would like to question the merits of certain stocks in a portfolio, it would be Monday night quarterbacking.

    There is a reason you are hiring a fund manager. If you have hired Yacktman, he is doing exactly what he is supposed to do. There is still risk however. That is the nature of the beast.

    First, the fact that a manager has a beaten down stock in the portfolio does not mean the fund took most of the beating. It is very likely the manager has purchased the security after the sell-off or even if it is down, it might not be as much as you think. The average cost could be much lower.

    Secondly, good value managers actually look at beaten down stocks to see if the intrinsic value is higher and there is a potential to realize that value. I.e. they are looking for appreciable discounts to that value. Sometimes they are wrong but if they have purchased the stock after sell-off they do not need the stock to go back to original price levels to make money.

    Thirdly, on average beaten down stocks lose less. Market might still not like the company but expectations will be set low so it is easier to beat expectations. On the other hand, if a glamour stock disappoints, the punishment is much more severe. Nothing grows to the sky and even those most beloved companies will disappoint one day.

    Still there are risks with concentrated value investing. If the bets pay off, they pay off handsomely. On the other hand, if they are wrong, it creates much resentment from shareholders. Look at Fairholme. Berkowitz could be right in the end but investors do not have patience to stay with him.

    So, if this style is making you uncomfortable, you should probably look at other funds. Probably, you would want less concentration as well. Both YACKX ad YAFFX are heavily concentrated.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • edited August 2011
    Reply to @CathyG: I think everyone comes to the table with their own thoughts and feelings regarding their investment desires. While you "hire" a fund manager that doesn't mean you are not allowed to have strong feelings about a fund's direction especially if it's a very significant movement in a direction); if you take action you could absolutely be right or wrong. I don't want to be in financials - I've been saying for a couple of years that - simply - they didn't learn from 2008 and many of their problems were kicked down the road. I didn't think they were values then and I don't see any reason to own them now.

    I don't particularly like tech because so much of it just doesn't stand the test of time over the years, whether due to not keeping up with the evolution of technology, being a fad, management issues or other reasons. I certainly appreciate value investing, but it's still extremely risky in its own right (see HP, which appeared to be a good value and then fell another 20% last week.) That's not to say that HP isn't still potentially a good value, but I think it's a matter of can they turn it around, what's the "time value" of having to wait for them to do so, etc. I certainly like value investing, but think piling into a particular sector believed to be "value" is immensely risky; I think there are a number of great values across the market right now (especially if this isn't a repeat of 2008 and I'm not convinced it isn't), but these come from a number of different sectors.

    Best Buy's another one, down nearly 50% in the last 3 years. I don't like retail and think it's overbuilt in this country, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a national electronics retailer on that level anymore, but who knows. You could have a catalyst come along like if online retailers were ever forced to charge sales tax in every state. It could be a value at these levels, or not. RIMM is another one. However, expectations for these companies have been lowered significantly. That doesn't mean that things can't get worse, but you have something of a cushion if they do not.

    I do agree with investor that "Thirdly, on average beaten down stocks lose less", although as he notes, it does not take the risk out of the equation. It's a matter of having a company whose expectations are lowered, possibly significantly. It's not a company trading at a 100 p/e who has to either beat expectations significantly or get obliterated. I've noted a number of tech companies over the last several months who lost double digit %'s because they met expectations - they had reached valuations where if numbers weren't fantastic, things would turn sour quickly.

    I picked up a bit of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) about a month or so ago just under 30 as a value play - hasn't done terribly well over the last several months, but thought it was at a reasonable valuation. Additionally, provides basic needs, has a significant history and offers a decent enough yield.
  • edited August 2011
    Reply to @Investor: Thanks for your input, Investor. While my overall philosophy is to not have a portfolio concentrated into only a few investments, it's ok with me if the manager of one of my smaller percentage funds does - especially if he turns out to be right more often than he is wrong, which seems to be so in Yackman's case.
  • Reply to @scott: What surprises me most is the direction of some of the stocks I would have thought would be holding on well during these bad times - like Best Buy (especially with close of 2 of their largest competitors) - and Target (with 0.5% 3 year return). Would probably have bought 99 center store (NDN) if I was thinking along investment lines a couple years ago.
  • Reply to @CathyG: I actually really like Target (although I remain amazed they appear to have little or no international plans) but it's one of those things where I don't have the ability to invest in too many things and that's just not high enough on my shopping list.
Sign In or Register to comment.