<?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>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:59:17 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<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='/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>
