I didn't offer transparency. I provided one quarterly report in letter form. That was all you got. I basically demanded that if you're going to invest in my fund you need to accept my terms. The terms not being super highs, but just, I'm not going to cater to you.

I don't believe anything unless I understand it inside out. And even if I understand something, it is not uncommon that I disagree with accepted view (even if it's a Nobel laureate).

I hated discussing ideas with investors, because then I become a Defender of the Idea, and that influences your thought process.

My positioning with my investors was always, I need three to five years.

Read every line item until you get it.

I think a lot of funds get their ideas from Wall Street. I just like to find my own ideas. I read a lot. A lot of news. I just follow my nose. A lot of times it's a dead end, but sometimes there's value there.

When I stand on my special-issue "Intelligent Investor" ladder and peer out over the frenzied crowd, I see very few others doing the same. Many stocks remain overvalued, and speculative excess - both on the upside and on the downside - is embedded in the frenzy around stocks of all stripes. And yes, I am talking about March 2001, not March 2000.