One tendency of financial papers I’m not a big fan of is to come out with their critical articles when star managers are amidst a major slump. Perhaps I shouldn’t feel sorry for billionaires, but it’s also a disservice to investors. Why don’t you publish your articles about Einhorn’s clubbing or gambling when his performance is great? The WSJ even comes up with an anecdote to discredit Einhorn, manager of Greenlight and Chairman of Greenlight Re (NASDAQ:GLRE), that dates back to 2001. 17 years ago, he apparently lambasted Burbank (another recently unsuccessful superstar who recently shut down a fund but deserves more patient investors). Come on, seventeen years ago! Really? If you want to write these sort of critical articles, do it when there are a lot of inflows into Greenlight. Right now, there isn’t that much outside money left. I don’t know what the exact goal is of the WSJ article is, but it mentions:
Doesn’t give clients a lot of information Quotes a few unhappy clients Recently he’s been doing really, really badly performance-wise Einhorn plays a lot of poker At times spends a lot of money in Vegas Flew him and his crew to Vegas in private jet Is going through a divorce
I’ll go over the above concerns one by one and offer my take on Einhorn’s slump. I’ve put the WSJ words between quotation marks like this:
People familiar with the fund attribute Mr. Einhorn’s troubles in part to his unconventional ways – sticking to value stocks, for example, and keeping clients at a distance – which he hasn’t changed even as investors bolt.
Many top hedge fund managers have unconventional ways. Value investors tend to be a contrarian bunch. If anything, it seems like a virtue Einhorn isn’t changing his ways when