racemize

But this question doesn't actually ask anything. Why do people do irrational things? Why is there money in mutual funds if 85% underperform? Probably the answer is, he's good at selling.

I'd rather they maintain control by either keeping the votes from outside loyal shareholders (there's got to be tons for FFH) or stop issuing shares. But that isn't going to happen it appears. Same thing as the recent Google actions.

Indeed, I feel like I talk to a lot of guys out there who invest sub<10M, and seem to use the "I don't market" as a badge of honor. It could also be from a desire to "I'd rather focus on finding undervalued securities" rather than selling your service and building a business. Echoing Ben, I don't think you need to market that much if you are a small operation and are just interested in investing as a profession without a boss. Starting is a little rough as the overhead eats up quite a bit of returns at the beginning. Also, you'll want to have a decent record together before rational people will give you money, so that will take a while. So let's say you start at ~2 million, you take 3-5 years to get a record together. If you've done decently well, you'll have several more million come in from new investors just from word of mouth, and you'll also presumably have increased that original money quite a bit in the mean time. Let's say that gets you to the 6-10 million range after 5 years. Now, you should be able to live off of the fees (or be close), so as long as you don't screw up, you really never have to worry about money again. With a fixed fee arrangement, your salary now increases at your rate of return. If you can run at 15%, you double every 5 years. So 15 years in you are in the 20-50 AUM million range, don't need to worry about income, and don't have to have any additions at all. Why bother with "selling your service" or "building your business" (as if you haven't built it already at this point)? Disclosure: I'm in year 2 in this process with ~3 million AUM, launched with 1.8 million AUM.

proxy is to change the super voting shares from 10 to 50 per share.

I thought this was pretty interesting. Curious as to any informed opinions on his thesis?

I guess Lancashire was too tied down to do this strategy there? Or maybe he just got bored...

You might want to check and see if your local library already subscribes. Morningstar and valueline are available through mine.

I'm such a Luddite that I don't have one. Might you suggest a model? I think the paperwhite is probably the way to go for price/value. I just upgraded to the voyager, and while it is better, I'm not sure it warrants the increase in price.

So, I just got around to this book, after reading the manias/panics book. I have to say, I was pretty disappointed. The book is littered with assertions regarding the "speculative" nature of stock investments without any reference to valuation. Galbraith makes a big deal out of talking about how much prices rose. The thing is, I don't care how much prices increased if there isn't some discussion of underlying earnings or valuation; if they were going from 1 P/E to 2 P/E, that's a very different situation than going from 20 to 40 P/E. The one time he did mention valuation, I believe it was when the GM CEO said that GM should sell for 12 or 15 P/E, which was apparently higher than the current valuation--that does not seem like a crazy speculation to me. In fact, many people on the board think GM should be selling at those P/Es! Moreover, I've also read articles like these: http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2013/02/how-overpriced-were-stocks-in-1929.html Certainly, the investment trusts, their leverage, the margin of investors, and the lack of bank insurance could (and did) lead to instability, but it doesn't seem like we were dealing with anything close to 1999. Only the CAPE showed very high levels, but that is mostly because there was a massive increase in earnings/productivity over that decade, from the previous recession. If he wants to say the earnings weren't real, then he should have made that case. In fact, he seems to indicate that no one could really tell the economy was collapsing when the crash came (which feeds into his quote about not being able to make forecasts). I'm having trouble reconciling what was going on without just saying there is a lot of hindsight bias in his assertions. Thus, it seems like it would be difficult for an investor to realize how much trouble they were in in 1929, given the facts at the time. I haven't found any evidence that I would be able to figure it out at least. Any comments on the above? I'd like to be disproved here.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-weather/article/Rainy-weather-likely-to-continue-through-summer-6281538.php

FFH.TO is in CAD, but is the main exchange that it trades under. I would definitely buy it there through IB.

I read this article earlier today, and I happen to be reading Getty's How to Be Rich. Toward's the end, he says this about the generation at the time:

Ha, that's what I get for thinking the post before last was still current. I'll see myself out.

From their April 30th press release: Why are you quoting 2014 Q3 BVPS?

Any of you fine folks have good notes on the meeting? Usually there are excellent ones floating around, but I haven't gotten ahold of one this year.

I think they pull it from the mutual fund and not the 13F, but I'm not sure.

Before investing, I used to do a lot of music recording, and I would look forward to and enjoy buying new recording equipment. After investing, I scratched the same "new" itch and was buying an asset that appreciated. It felt like the best of both--buying and saving at the same time.

Isn't that double counting, both for the good businesses and the bad businesses, since that quality should already be incorporated into your rough valuation of the company? I see what you mean. I think I'm usually pretty cheap on valuation anyway. Perhaps I'll say it this way--I try to determine the predictability of the returns. If the returns seem very predictable and match my hurdle, then a lesser MOS can be used (e.g., BRK at book value). If the returns seem less predictable and match my hurdle, then I would want a larger MOS (thus, providing more return if it doesn't work out, and less downside as well) (e.g., EZPW at current prices). I think the same thing could be achieved by valuation, as you say, however.

I also have that feeling. I look at the numbers constantly, but they don't feel all that real any more. I'm not planning on using that money anyway, just making it grow until I die and give it all away..... I wonder about this, here comes a heretical thought. You save up and spend all this time investing, you never spend any of it and then you give it all away. What was the point exactly? Is it so you get your name on a building when you give it away? How many people remember the names on buildings at places? If you're truly doing this for an impact (my presumption) you could probably make a bigger impact by donating your time and life to some mission. People remember Mother Theresa even though she doesn't have a name on a building. If you're saving for the future, or you spend part of your savings I get this. But if you live on less in some monkish lifestyle and never touch a dime to unload all of it I'm missing something. Why not just disavow money in the first place, live the monk lifestyle and then make an impact through your time? Well, two-fold answer: 1) I'm looking for financial independence, but I'm also working on a career avenue that might pay indefinitely. Unless/Until that takes off, I'm still using the "live off the interest" plan, so I'm saving/investing for that plan. In that case, the principal will still be given away at the end anyway. Even in this case, the numbers just don't feel that real to me. I look at them and try to make them bigger, but they have no impact on my life anymore. When they get big enough that I don't need to work, they'll have an impact and I'll notice, I guess. 2) I just like investing.

Unless BVPS has gone up significantly last quarter, it is still sporting one of the highest multiples it has had in recent memory. augustabound--I have the same recollection. Moreover, his BRK stake is so small relative to AUM, I'm not sure it is worth discussing, honestly.

I use a sliding scale--the better the business, the less MOS required, using a hurdle rate of 10% per annum expected return. So BRK at book value or maybe up to 1.2 or 1.3 will meet it, at the higher end. But if it is something that is a terrible business or one I'm less interesting in owning for a very long time, I want more like a 50% MOS.

I also have that feeling. I look at the numbers constantly, but they don't feel all that real any more. I'm not planning on using that money anyway, just making it grow until I die and give it all away.....

I just tried from the very beginning to consider everything in percentages, and not the actual dollar amounts, and mange the money the same way indefinitely. As a result, I haven't noticed much of a difference from starting at the thousands of dollars to moving to the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'm not sure how helpful that is, as it was just a mindset I tried to get in before the sums got big. It may evolve when it gets even bigger, but I'm not expecting it to at this point.

I've read most of Jared Diamond's books and they are very, very good. It has been a while since I read any of his books, so I don't recall if this was true with all his books, but I feel depressed after reading his stuff and I am typically a pretty up beat person. I know what you mean. I'm an optimist to a fault, and I don't end up agreeing with many of his conclusions, yet I like reading things that make me look at things from a different angle. Also his writing is engaging, his experiences in New Guinea are fascinating, and he's very persuasive in his arguments. He tells a good story and keeps you reading. I've always heard good things about Diamond's books, but I've read quite a few historians views on his books as hackish and just finding data to validate a theory he came up with. I haven't read any yet, so just throwing out what I've heard.

adding to the intj bandwagon.