were 90% net long, which hedge funds don't get 90% net long. Somebody says, well, that's an enormous amount of risk you're taking in the portfolio. I thought to myself, wow, it's the least amount of risk I think I've ever taken a portfolio because my downside on the collection of 40 or 45 names that I have in my portfolio was single digits. My upside was more than 50%. From my perspective, it was the least amount of risk I'd ever taken in the portfolio, although when you look at the net exposure I had in the fund, people say, well, you're taking a lot of risk. There's a couple of points there. I guess one is that we look at risk as the possibility of losing money. That's the risk. When an analyst recommends a name, I talk about what is the catalyst for this name in terms of how will we achieve the upside and what will convince you if you're wrong and what do you think can go wrong? For a bank, it may be that the analyst is using a downside that reflects a recessionary environment. Then (20/57)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: