# Jim Chuong Partnership



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

I'm interested in finding out if any posters have any information or know anyone who invested with Jim Chuong (aka Rickson9). The reason I ask is because I was recently told that Mr. Chuong isn't simply a private investor. Despite a disclaimer that "all information is for entertainment purposes only", Mr. Chuong apparently invests money on behalf of clients.

Here's a note from his own Facebook page:

"Before linking the MoneySense interview, the following are a few housekeeping notes for those in my investment partnership:

A. The minimum investment into the partnership will be increased to $100,000 on January, 1st 2008.

B.The fee-for-performance in 2007 will be reduced. The fee charged will be 25% of profit over 6%. Previously the benchmark was 2%."


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Interesting find. Explains a lot.


----------



## bean438 (Jul 18, 2009)

I see he got banned. Did I miss a good show?
I would never give money to some guy on the internet with no credentials (don't you have to be a CFA to manage money?), and also has a snitty attitude.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

bean438 said:


> I see he got banned. Did I miss a good show?
> I would never give money to some guy on the internet with no credentials (don't you have to be a CFA to manage money?), and also has a snitty attitude.


FT and I had to ban Rickson9 because he refused to remove the link to his website that repeatedly advertised seminars. Many readers had a problem with it as the seminars were obviously commercial. I have since learned that Rickson9 is possibly trolling for clients for his "investment partnership" and poster's concerns were not entirely unfounded.

I want to clarify that I have no interest in this thread in talking about matters that, in my opinion, are private affairs of Jim Chuong. What I'm interested in, however, is finding out if anyone has invested with Mr. Chuong's partnership or if they know of anyone who did.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

CC, i'd seen all that - and much more - months ago. 

i didn't post anything here because there's a remote chance of a lawsuit. In this vein, may i urge you to be extremely careful.

presumably the reason for upping the minimum contribution from $25K to $100,000K as of january 2008 was to snag accredited investors only. These are wealthy & presumably sophisticated individuals who can be invited to take part in financial schemes with less documentation than the securities acts require must be provided to mom-and-pop investors. The authorities are assuming that an accredited investor has the ability to see through shams & scams. In ontario, the minimum investment from an accredited investor is 100,000k, but this amount varies from province to province.


----------



## MoneyMaker (Jun 1, 2009)

"25% of profit over 6%". was a young Buffett's partnerships going rate back in the 50's in believe


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> i didn't post anything here because there's a remote chance of a lawsuit. In this vein, may i urge you to be extremely careful.
> 
> presumably the reason for upping the minimum contribution from $25K to $100,000K as of january 2008 was to snag accredited investors only. These are wealthy & presumably sophisticated individuals who can be invited to take part in financial schemes with less documentation than the securities acts require must be provided to mom-and-pop investors. The authorities are assuming that an accredited investor has the ability to see through shams & scams. In ontario, the minimum investment from an accredited investor is 100,000k, but this amount varies from province to province.


Thanks for the warning. I'll be extremely careful.

Does anyone know if regulatory filings are not required if you offer investments to accredited investors and not to the general public.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

CC: I must say I am really surprised you did not know this. 

As for registration: private investment clubs are unregulated in Ontario (and I think all across the country). 

Investments directed to "accredited investors" (this term varies from province to province) are regulated, but the level of disclosure and the prospectuses are different than for other investments. Here's an article from when the "accredited investor" category was created which sets out the accredited investor rules. You can see that filings are still required - however, they are significantly less than for standard retail investment offerings. 

If I had to guess, I'd wager the Chuong Investment Partnership is a private investment club charging membership fees which may be calculated as a percentage of earnings. I do not think this club is "managing other peoples' money" per se -- I think club members are pooling their money and making administrative/membership payments to some members in exchange for administrative tasks.


----------



## CuriousReader (Apr 3, 2009)

Not claiming that I understand the laws & legality about this topic, but here's a source that I can find:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90s05_e.htm

(quick search on "100,000" and there's no result)

Part XI is about registration
Part XII is about exemption from registration


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Here are the accredited investor rules for individuals in Ontario:

Accredited investors include the following:

* individuals who beneficially own, either alone or with a spouse, cash, securities, insurance contracts and deposits which have an aggregate realizable value which exceeds $1 million (before taxes but net of related liabilities);

* individuals whose net income before taxes exceeds $200,000 in each of the last two years (or $300,000 with a spouse), and who have a reasonable expectation of exceeding that income level in the current year 

There are lots of non-individual accredited investor inclusions, too - for example, corporations, banks, etc. But if you are an individual, those are the rules in this province.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

filing where? i don't know for sure. I think this is a question to put directly to the ontario securities commission.

in my limited experience, hedge funds that sell only to accredited investors put out awesome prospectusus. The best & the biggest of law firms draft these documents, and they are mind-boggling indeed. What i don't know is whether such documents are filed for public viewing on SEDAR. I believe there is also a part of SEDAR that is not for the general public ... (sigh.)

.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> CC: I must say I am really surprised you did not know this.
> 
> As for registration: private investment clubs are unregulated in Ontario (and I think all across the country).
> 
> ...


Thanks for the clarification. You might be right about the "Partnership" set up as an investment club. TIC apparently stands for (or used to stand for) Toronto Investment Club.


----------



## furgy (Apr 20, 2009)

There was a blurb about him on PFBlog in 2005:
I don't know where they got the info , and bear in mind that it is from 2005.

This is the whole link.

http://www.pfblog.com/nakedpicks/4325_fatboys_formula_for_diversification.shtml


Jim Chuong has setup his Chuong Investment Partnership much like Buffett's. He charges a 33.3% fee on profits above 2%. Unfortunately, the partnership is limited to Canadian citizens only. And only 35 seats are available. 

Who is he? How did he get to the point of managing money for other people? 

He has a degree in materials engineering from U of Toronto, not in finance. With a materials engineering degree, you would think he would work in some engineering firm. But no, he started a company with a friend that offered Internet programming services.

Here's a guy who graduated with a material engineering degree in 1997, became a computer programmer in 1998 and started his investment partnership in the same year. 

Jim Chuong is a self-taught investor with no formal training in finance. His "mentors", if you will, are books such as Peter Lynch's One Up On Wall Street and Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor. His investment partnership earned an average annual return of 22.9% since inception in 1998.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

furgy said:


> There was a blurb about him on PFBlog in 2005:
> I don't know where they got the info , and bear in mind that it is from 2005.
> 
> This is the whole link.
> ...


I don't remember reading that column but the "Arbee" in the post is me 

It refers to this post: 

http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/to-not-diversify-is-just-stupid/


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

furgy, what makes you think he really holds an engineering degree from U of T, other than his own say-so.


----------



## furgy (Apr 20, 2009)

Humble , re-read my post , I said I didn't know where they got the info.

I didn't write it.

What makes you think I believe any of it?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

http://www.thestar.com/Business/Investing/article/533467


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

Hmmm... it gets curious. First, the "Chuong Partnership" invests in small companies and compares results with the large cap S&P 500. The past ten years hasn't been kind to large-cap stocks. The appropriate benchmark would be a small cap index such as S&P 600 or (with some trepidation) the Russell 2000.

Second, the S&P returns quoted are without dividends. Nice try but it's total returns that matter, not simply changes in price levels.

Third, it is not clear if the "Partnership" returns are after expenses because a 33.3% fee over 2% is a remarkably high fee structure.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

What's funny to me is that Star article refers to the "Beardstown Ladies" investment club, a pretty well-known fraud.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

_"Third, it is not clear if the "Partnership" returns are after expenses because a 33.3% fee over 2% is a remarkably high fee structure."_

This is the guy that advised never to use financial advisors because they take too big of piece of the pie. Even a 25% piece when Mr. Market decides to move his stocks up above 6%, is still a supersized helping if you ask me.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

OptsyEagle said:


> _"Third, it is not clear if the "Partnership" returns are after expenses because a 33.3% fee over 2% is a remarkably high fee structure."_
> 
> This is the guy that advised never to use financial advisors because they take too big of piece of the pie. Even a 25% piece when Mr. Market decides to move his stocks up above 6%, is still a supersized helping if you ask me.


A quick calculation shows that a 25% fee over a 6% return resulted in a fee of 3.78%.

A 33% fee over a 2% return from 1998 to 2004 and a 25% fee over a return of 6% results in an average fee of 5.29%.

I don't care how good of an investor you are but over the long-term a 4% drag is far too large to overcome.

For those interested here are the annualized returns:

Chuong Partnership (as reported): 12.8%
Small-cap Index: 5.1%
S&P 500 (reported on ticonline website): 1.1%
S&P 500 (total returns including dividends): 2.9%

Take out the 1998 return, in which the Chuong Partnership claims to have beaten the small-cap index by more than 70 percentage points, and here's how the returns over 11 years stack up:

Chuong Partnership (as reported): 8.0%
Small-cap Index: 5.4%
S&P 500 (reported on ticonline website): -0.77%
S&P 500 (total returns including dividends): 0.79%

You could characterize these numbers as investing smarts. I simply prefer to label it "luck".


----------



## canehdianman (Apr 7, 2009)

The accredited investor exemption is set out in section 2.3 of National Instrument 45-106, and is Canada-wide. There are several different categories for this exemption.

There is also a "minimum amount invested" exemption in section 2.10, but it is $150,000, not $100,000.

I do not believe that Rickson9's partnership would qualify under the investment club exemption.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I have to admit that although I had a few disagreements with him, I'll kind of miss hearing his musings on the Buckle, Columbia Sports Wear, etc and his philosophy of ignoring macro factors in favour of balance sheets. (I still believe that big picture factors should be considered.) His manner certainly wasn't very smooth, if he was attempting to be a salesman. In his defense, I don't think he ever blatantly pushed any products on the forum, but I don't know enough about what he was doing regarding his investment scheme to come to a full conclusion.

That being said, I did notice some of the things mentioned. As well, he totally disregarded the exchange rate in calculating returns, which is important since we deal in Canadian dollars.


----------



## MoneyMaker (Jun 1, 2009)

I enjoyed his musings.. too bad he's gone.. there's always berubeland to entertain me


----------



## MoneyMaker (Jun 1, 2009)

OptsyEagle said:


> _"Third, it is not clear if the "Partnership" returns are after expenses because a 33.3% fee over 2% is a remarkably high fee structure."_
> 
> This is the guy that advised never to use financial advisors because they take too big of piece of the pie. Even a 25% piece when Mr. Market decides to move his stocks up above 6%, is still a supersized helping if you ask me.


Again, I think he was just blindly trying to replicate the 1950's Buffett Partnerships fund, only difference it appears is that he isn't investing in 'cigar butts'... "Buffett ran a partnership before BRK and got paid 25% after clearing the 6% hurdle rate."


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

For moneymaker 

This may seem strange but good for him. There are a lot of people out there who think 6% is very nice and anything above that is gravy and they would be grateful to split anything above that benchmark. We even have people on here talking about the benefits of Ally earning 2% 

Fee for performance structures are great in my book. I understand that if he doesn't perform he doesn't get paid. 

It can't be worse than Scotia McLeod who traded away $100,000 of my parents hard earned money. I understand that they however are accredited. 

If I was Rickson I'd be going back to school pronto....


----------



## tojo (Apr 20, 2009)

I think many of us had our suspicions about this guy...value investing + portfolio concentration is how he described his style. The total lack of diversification, focusing on US consumer discretionaries is downright scary. He saw it as a trait of the few that have the "genetic predisposition" for this type of investing. More like reckless to me... http://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/showpost.php?p=4671&postcount=27.

It was asked if he acted on the behalf of others and invested their money. He claimed he did not: http://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/showpost.php?p=4715&postcount=29.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I know I'm in the minority here and it feels a little weird to be defending the guy considering I've had a couple of dustups with him, but I think we should be very carefull about implying that he was doing something deceptive or underhanded. Those quotes mentioned, were stated almost a year ago and he may very well have not been representing people at that time.

I guess the question is, is it his business practice that we are concened about or whether he includes a link to his site? Personally, I don't mind if accountants, financial planners, authors or whoever include a link provided they don't primarily use the forum as a means to promote their business and provided their business is a legal one. In fact, how they relate to people would be a useful indication of whether one might like to do business with them. That being said, I realize that it is up to the moderators to set the rules and the user's obligation to follow them if they want to remain members of the forum.


----------



## leslie (May 25, 2009)

I'd say he should be allowed to stay. He never (only once?) shilled about his seminar. I don't see where the harm is.


----------



## Ben (Apr 3, 2009)

Spidey said:


> I know I'm in the minority here and it feels a little weird to be defending the guy considering I've had a couple of dustups with him, but I think we should be very carefull about implying that he was doing something deceptive or underhanded. Those quotes mentioned, were stated almost a year ago and he may very well have not been representing people at that time.
> 
> I guess the question is, is it his business practice that we are concened about or whether he includes a link to his site? Personally, I don't mind if accountants, financial planners, authors or whoever include a link provided they don't primarily use the forum as a means to promote their business and provided their business is a legal one. In fact, how they relate to people would be a useful indication of whether one might like to do business with them. That being said, I realize that it is up to the moderators to set the rules and the user's obligation to follow them if they want to remain members of the forum.


This sums up my view as well.


----------



## canehdianman (Apr 7, 2009)

FWIW, I agree with Leslie.

I never saw him hawking his seminars. In fact, I would have never noticed it unless someone hadn't clicked his signature link and posted about it.

I also enjoyed his contribution to the discussion.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

I like that this forum has no advertising or links to businesses. And I like that the forum operators stay monitor the site closely.

Having said that, I didn't get the feeling from Jim Chuong that he was trolling for clients, however if he was unwilling to remove the link and conform to the rules of the forum, then that was his decision to make.


----------



## CuriousReader (Apr 3, 2009)

Cal said:


> Having said that, I didn't get the feeling from Jim Chuong that he was trolling for clients,


One of the triggers to this was his latest thread titled Off Topic: My 2009 ramblines available online in which through his post, he clearly pointing us to his site which at the time advertising for some seminars he's holding. (The post been edited out since then)

I have nothing against him ... but I've seen his post that he subtly try to fish for clients by doing something like "hey I am making lots of money" ... then somebody would ask "how" ... and he'll answer "go to my seminars".

And another thread in off topic Rickson9 millionare at 30  where he (intentionally / unintentionally) got to others' nerve by giving one-word answers and being vague.


----------



## NormR (Apr 8, 2009)

CanadianCapitalist said:


> What I'm interested in, however, is finding out if anyone has invested with Mr. Chuong's partnership or if they know of anyone who did.


Yes, I know someone who invested in his "fund" several years ago. I don't know how it worked out.

It seems to me that he ran/advertised the fund for several years. (I think someone spotted an ad on Craigslist of all places.) I had assumed that he shut down the fund a little while ago. (I've no idea if this was for regulatory or personal reasons.) 

However, at the time, he wasn't a licensed IC/PM in Ontario. At least according to the OSC's website where you can look up people/firms. But the partnership might have been based in the U.S.


----------



## MoneyMaker (Jun 1, 2009)

tojo said:


> I think many of us had our suspicions about this guy...*value investing + portfolio *concentration is how he described his style. The total lack of diversification, focusing on US consumer discretionaries is downright scary. He saw it as a trait of the few that have the "genetic predisposition" for this type of investing. More like reckless to me... http://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/showpost.php?p=4671&postcount=27.
> 
> 
> > many value investors implore this strategy; bruce berkowitz (morningstar fund manager of the year and decade), monish pabrai, etc... and do fairly well, they have courage in their convictions whilest i'm assuming, also hold a higher margin of safety


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I don't believe R9 was soliciting for clients on this forum for the simple reason that he was too rude, condescending, and nonchalant in many of his posts.
If that's his way of soliciting for customers, then I'm afraid he's not a very good salesperson.
That said, I did not find anything wrong with his investment approach.
Based on how he describes it, read financial statements to find good solid companies in niche markets that are undervalued for some reason and buy them during discounts and hold for significant gains.
Similarly in his RE investments, find properties that are undervalued for reasons not related to the quality of the property itself and hold for significant gains/income.
Nothing wrong with that as long as it is your money and not someone else's (esp. someone who doesn't understand the strategy and the risks involved).

Yes, he did solicit on a couple of occasions for his so-called seminar however I doubt if anyone would have signed up based on his terse and often rude responses.


----------



## steve_jay33 (Aug 29, 2009)

At least R9 posted some interesting threads. And most of his threads had good discussions (negative and positive) Loss to the forum in my opinion. 


Warren Buffett advocates concentration rather than diversification for the enterprising investor. Why would you put an equal amount of your money in your 100th best idea, instead of your 1st idea. If you want to diversify, buy an index fund and save your time.


----------



## takingprofits (Apr 13, 2009)

Any loss to the forum is not the fault of the owners/moderators. Rickson refused to follow the rules. Seems he felt he was entitled to special treatment.

Personally I don't see a loss. I have avoided the forum because I couldn't stand reading "my wife and I" in every single post.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

First of all you have to credit ssimps for holding Rickson9 to the fire like he did.

CC if Rickson9 didn't want to follow your rules then throw him in the ditch. It was fun to have him on because he did raise the dirt around here but if you can't listen to the chief then get out.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

FT and I did not take the decision to ban R9 lightly. Our multiple private requests to R9 to modify his sig file since seminar announcements on his site were becoming a serial affair went unheeded. As did a public request to address concerns of posters here. We were simply left with no alternative.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Good and responsible call, CC & FT.


----------



## OntFA (May 19, 2009)

Interesting. Seems I missed all of this action. But anybody wondering what Jim did in the past need only visit this list of archived links which covers roughly ten years.


----------



## ssimps (Dec 8, 2009)

leslie said:


> I'd say he should be allowed to stay. He never (only once?) shilled about his seminar. I don't see where the harm is.


Every post he made had a link to his ad site and his sig. stated at different times things like 'learn how to become a millionaire like me' or 'millionaire at 30'. 

Once he told someone that they were too poor to buy a seat at one of his $500 seminars so they should shut it, so seminars were discussed even without clicking on his ad.

He refused to remove the ad link, suggesting that he felt the link to the ad was important to him.

On his site he likes to cite articles that he is mentioned in, even in one line, but conveniently leaves out the one I found where he stated his net worth was $400K at age 33, when he was telling everyone he was a millionaire @ 30. 

Based on what he now has on his site, his latest seminar is basically about how to get rich quick like he claims he did without having to do any real work.

The list is almost endless. 

This is the harm that I see: 

I would not want on my conscious a member on the forum being 'suckered' into either one of his seminars because they follow a link because of the text listed beside the link; and who knows what he suggests to people at these 'seminars' that he charges for. Probably nothing of course.

Again, what is a millionaire doing charging $150-500 for financial seminars, held at restaurants etc? It seems to me that there must be a belief of more potential reward than the $150. Of course he is probably just a nice millionaire trying to teach others the way and just cover the cost of the dinner.

This is not my site and it was not my decision to ban him, but I think it was the right decision. I do not feel any remorse for his loss; in fact I feel safer visiting this site now that he is gone.

I was watching a CBC show about some guy that they exposed who sells 'get rich quick' seminars in Canada and then at the seminar the guy starts explaining how to get the full details they need to give him 40 - 50K; something to that effect at least. Parallels??? No, none I am sure, just thought I would plug CBC.

Smells, smells, smells to me. I need to start putting the garbage out at my house more than one a year.

If R9 wants to take me to court because of my personal opinions about him and his practices, bring it on. I'd like the chance to learn about the 'true' Jim Chuong so I can share it with others after the case gets dismissed and / or things are revealed that put him in much bigger legal trouble.

Legal note: These are my opinions only and are not the opinions of anyone else or the forum owners.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

What started the whole problem was me asking him why he was charging $500 for seminars on buying real estate when he had told me at some point on this very forum that all the real estate he owned was his own condo. 

Ssimps came to my rescue when he posted this.... 

http://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php?t=1514&page=2

Then like the next day he starts this post 

http://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/showthread.php?t=1560

As to my original inquiry he could just have posted that he had learned a lot and that's what he thought it was worth. Who am i to say what intellectual property is worth and it really doesn't take you a lot of info to save you $500 in real estate so that might make the investment worth it. In any case there are absolutely tons of people trying to sell people courses in this and that for thousands. 

The problem kind of is that some of the people come on here to discuss investments and talk about getting wealthier and issues like Roger's upping my cable and a number of us have other businesses. I personally don't come here to try to get clients. If someone approached me I wouldn't say no either. In fact they could get a better idea of what kind of person I am by reading my posts rather than hiring someone off the street. Plus I feel like I add value by contributing tons of free info for anyone to use. I quit doing collections and evictions full time to help smaller landlords and quite frequently I give them tons of free info too. So it's a fine line and honestly the areas where most of us can add the most is in our field of expertise. 

In any case I will miss rickson for a long time he was a jolly fellow who reminded us all about the importance of reading financial statements. It wasn't what he did per se that was disturbing but rather his responses to what were honest straightforward questions. There's a lesson to be learned for all of us and it's not about advertising on internet forum IMHO.


----------



## CuriousReader (Apr 3, 2009)

I feel like there's something missing ...

Rickson9 (Jim Chuong) started and ran Toronto Investment Club which later renamed Chuong Investment Partnership. He claimed in his first year (1998), he got 68.0% return and all the way up to 2007 he consistently make quite a return other than a 99, '02, and '05 where he made modest lost (http://web.archive.org/web/20080530040304/www.ticonline.com/2004.investment.partnership.html)

and if I am not mistaken he said he doesnt run the private investment club anymore. If that's the case, questions for me are:

If his investment was so successful, how did he just suddenly stopped?
I dont see any announcement / planned run down of his club, so seems like it was all of a sudden shut down?
What happened to the holdings? Did he just cash everything out and distribute the cash?
Also, his investment philosophy seems to be following Buffet's, buy-and-hold only a few stocks. But lately, he's been talking a lot about RE flipping in the US - did he just jump to RE? Did he use some money from his partnership to buy RE?


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

CuriousReader said:


> [*]Also, his investment philosophy seems to be following Buffet's, buy-and-hold only a few stocks. But lately, he's been talking a lot about RE flipping in the US - did he just jump to RE? Did he use some money from his partnership to buy RE?
> [/LIST]


I joined this forum in September 2009 and sometime between then and now Rickson mentioned in a post on this forum that he did not own any other real estate (other than his condo) and that he did not know anything about it and he liked to stick to evaluating stocks because he was really good at it.

Next thing I know he's selling seats to a $500 seminar on how to buy real estate in the US. Before he was selling seats to a $30 seminar on how to pick stocks. I was thinking it might be kind of cool to go, learn something etc.. 

According to what he says he has picked up a few rentals condo's in Pheonix for cheap in decent areas and they are already tenanted and delivering a decent return. He's still consistently buying and holding not flipping. I have heard of a lot worst investments. As long as he can keep it rented to good people he'll make money even if they don't go up a cent. On the upside when the market rebounds he has potential to make a killing.


----------



## Y&T2010 (Dec 29, 2009)

Aaah that explains a lot!! 
I was wondering about his seminars! They were costly (?what $500 for a one day seminar was it?)


----------

