racemize

Toilet paper?

So, S&P changed their website, so I can't pull the TR from them anymore. I've come up with a work around: This gives you last day's TR: =(Index(ImportHtml("http://quicktake.morningstar.com/index/IndexCharts.aspx?Symbol=SPX", "table", 10),3,7))/100 and this will add yesterday's TR and the current change in S&P (though I'm not sure what will happen at night when the other updates, yet): ={CELL FOR TR}+GoogleFinance(".INX","changepct")/100 I suspect this will end up breaking at night (when the changepct shouldn't be added, or perhaps it should be added, but it has to be listed as "0"). I'll find out and figure it out tonight, likely.

I'm also on Feedly. It seems ok, but I'm not totally sold on it. They did improve it a lot since the mass migration though, so I bet it will evolve over time.

I think there's a good Buffett explanation on that (I guess from the 70s)--or perhaps it was focused on the advantages of non-capital intensive businesses in periods of inflation? I think the same reasoning applies though.

my nickname on bridgebase is racemize. I also know a couple of others that play somewhat regularly.

thanks very much nofreelunch, this is very interesting.

if we got a forgiving group together, we could play with each other and explain the conventions as we played. This is how I learned in college (with one person who knew SATC well), and I highly recommend it.

I'm almost reluctant to put this one up, since it will be changing this month. Nonetheless, here's my desk (I hope I count as a Value Investor!). Since I started investing, I haven't done much music recording, so I'm selling the whole studio/desk to a friend of mine. I'll be getting this desk in a month: http://www.humanscale.com/products/product_detail.cfm?group=float

I play a fair amount with my college friends online. I recommend bridgebase and playing with your friends while using voice chat, e.g., google hangout.

I spent a long while thinking about this question (particularly after reading all of Howard Marks' essays). I copied his format and wrote my own essay on it. Here is a link, if you are interested. https://www.dropbox.com/s/5b536u4uqvxnr1v/2012-04-02%20-Stevens%20Fund%20Essay%20-%20Know%20Your%20Graph.pdf Later I read Fooled by Randomness, which covers all these concepts pretty well on its own, so people may not find this essay all that insightful. In any event, this is the way I think about/define risk.

I agree, it is likely that the bar should be raised, particularly on "incremental" inventions/modifications. That being said, I do prosecute cases in both the US and abroad, and we typically get the cases allowed in all jurisdictions, though the Europeans have a slightly different manner of judging cases (e.g., software and signals are in, and moreover claims have to pass the "inventive step" bar). It could be that we generally have higher quality clients/patents coming through our firm though.

Patent Agent here--I will readily admit that the patent process has issues, but a lot of this article isn't described right and doesn't reflect what is actually going on. For example, the term "patent troll" used to have a particular meaning, e.g., a company that uses a set of invalid patents to extort money from people who cannot afford to take the patent to court to invalidate it. This is clearly very bad. However, at this point, "patent troll" is meant for anyone who sues people, but doesn't implement the idea (as is pretty much every one of the "patent trolls" in this article), which I object to. If patents exist, and they represent intellectual property, then the owner should have the right to sell them to monetize his assets (e.g., if he cannot enforce the patents). If they are valid, then they should be enforceable by the new owner. Now, if they aren't valid, then they should be re-examined or invalidated in court. If they are valid, then people should really stop complaining about it, or shift the argument from so-called "patent trolls" to changing the bar for validity. That being said, obviousness is extremely hard to determine in hindsight. If the idea is really good, it will almost always seem obvious to everyone after they are using it. (e.g., "of course automatic windshields are obvious once you are given manual windshield wipers" even though it took many years for that to emerge). Additionally, the discussion of the patent they were talking about ignored the claims. The claims are what defines the patent, not the description. I can write a patent application that seems to be describing what's already been done, but if there is just a single paragraph in the description that describes a new idea, and that idea is novel, and the claims are directed to that idea, then the rest of the description doesn't matter--only that paragraph and the claims will really matter. Building on that, the analysis of a patent based on word matching is complete bs (or at least mostly bs). The patent has to be analyzed by prior art searches directed towards the content of the claim--that's really the only good way to do it... Anyway, I usually don't bother talking about patents on the Internet, since the Internet despises them and it almost always results in a flame war, but I figure this forum may appreciate the other side of the argument, for balance's sake. That being said, I won't be participating in a flame conversation here, should one emerge.

I've been looking a fair amount at the for-profit education, but it is very hard to get behind them due to the slimy sales practices that they have engaged in (at least in the past). Strayer looks interesting, but I might put it in my "too hard" pile. In any event, there's a lot of regulation risk, so the whole industry may have some structural issues. Further, education seems primed for disruption, e.g., MOOCs.

from reddit: http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_r8bvtbyb/uiconf_id/12817141

Man, this is not reddit...

Congrats, and good luck going forward!

I guess this is a different fund of his? http://whalewisdom.com/filer/chou-associates-management-inc this one has BRK at the top, but similar other positions.

Is there a reason data roma and whale wisdom have different data for Berkowitz? (And is this an issue for others)? http://whalewisdom.com/filer/fairholme-capital-management-llc http://www.dataroma.com/m/holdings.php?m=fairx

I generally post interesting things from there on the board, for non-redditors here.

Does anyone know if these are floating around anywhere? I'd love to read them. Munger indicated he would not publish them in the meeting this year, but perhaps someone has gotten them from an old partner?

I agree, my impression is that they will still not change their course of action, though I wish he would have specified under what conditions they would (I guess when they subjectively think they cannot keep pace with the S&P over long periods of time going forward).

how long do these things go?

my invitation says Hilton at 10:00.

FIATY went by really really fast (Mario was moving through a 175 slide presentation and he only mentioned it offhandedly) For BCO, the major thesis was that it was tied to the velocity of money and is currently in a cyclical downturn, which should turn whenever velocity picks up. In addition, they have a lot of foreign exposure that the presenter liked. I have trouble remembering much else at this point (I'm fairly exhausted).

From Bob Robotti: Stolt-Nielsen (long term hold)