<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Again, Not Worried About Reinsurance Group of America</title> <atom:link href="http://alephblog.com/2008/06/03/again-not-worried-about-reinsurance-group-of-america/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://alephblog.com/2008/06/03/again-not-worried-about-reinsurance-group-of-america/</link> <description>Helping Institutions and Ordinary People Invest Better by Focusing on Risk Control</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 21:31:47 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: AllanF</title><link>http://alephblog.com/2008/06/03/again-not-worried-about-reinsurance-group-of-america/comment-page-1/#comment-17721</link> <dc:creator>AllanF</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:16:58 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://alephblog.com/?p=723#comment-17721</guid> <description>&lt;i&gt;5% of what they are today, and back then I had 10 positions, not 35. There’s been growth.&lt;/i&gt;
Is my math wrong, or is that the understatement of the year!?! :-) 5% of position size is 20x &amp; no. of positions is 3.5x == ~70x. I hope this isn&#039;t impolite, but even 10 very small positions has to be 5 figures? 70 times that is 7 figures or very darn close to it. Congratulations.
Just the other day I was in a discussion of what typical account sizes of pundits really is. The loose consensus was that far less than most readers would probably expect. FWIW, my naive expectation is that a pundit makes/has made enough to support himself from investing. My jaundiced expectation is that they probably have the same low 6 figure account of any 40-50 y.o. high-wage earning professional with an IRA and 401k. Cramer, to his immense credit I think, has shown his AA account size from day 1.
Oh, and I too appreciate the individual stock coverage. Thanks.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>5% of what they are today, and back then I had 10 positions, not 35. There’s been growth.</i></p><p>Is my math wrong, or is that the understatement of the year!?! <img
src='http://alephblog.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> 5% of position size is 20x &amp; no. of positions is 3.5x == ~70x. I hope this isn&#8217;t impolite, but even 10 very small positions has to be 5 figures? 70 times that is 7 figures or very darn close to it. Congratulations.</p><p>Just the other day I was in a discussion of what typical account sizes of pundits really is. The loose consensus was that far less than most readers would probably expect. FWIW, my naive expectation is that a pundit makes/has made enough to support himself from investing. My jaundiced expectation is that they probably have the same low 6 figure account of any 40-50 y.o. high-wage earning professional with an IRA and 401k. Cramer, to his immense credit I think, has shown his AA account size from day 1.</p><p>Oh, and I too appreciate the individual stock coverage. Thanks.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Tomxp</title><link>http://alephblog.com/2008/06/03/again-not-worried-about-reinsurance-group-of-america/comment-page-1/#comment-17707</link> <dc:creator>Tomxp</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:57:14 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://alephblog.com/?p=723#comment-17707</guid> <description>I very much enjoy your individual stock coverage and hope that you&#039;ll continue it.  RGA seems like a no-brainer -- always a bad sign! (grin) I suspect that the specter of increased supply will weigh on the stock unless/until earnings results with more usual mortality cause it to perk up.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I very much enjoy your individual stock coverage and hope that you&#8217;ll continue it.  RGA seems like a no-brainer &#8212; always a bad sign! (grin) I suspect that the specter of increased supply will weigh on the stock unless/until earnings results with more usual mortality cause it to perk up.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
