Hielko

Is it really that weird? If there would be no rescue of the banks I bet savers would have lost a lot more.

Now we need all her fans to follow this great example, although preferably not in internet stocks since that could hurt on the short side :P

Here: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1067983/000119312513109017/d467360ddef14a.htm

Another perspective about interest rates: Shouldn't interest be a function of how valuable money now is versus how valuable money in the future is? I would argue that in the past you would have a lower life expectancy and the quality of life would be lower if you would be older, so the future value of money would be lower. To compensate for the lower future value of money you would need a higher interest rate. If there isn't a big difference between the value of spending now or spending in the future a real return of zero sounds reasonable to me. Just a thought...

Why calculate returns based on collateral requirements? I don't think that makes a lot of sense. You're not doing that when you buy stocks or bonds right? I'd say calculate returns based on capital at risk.

What's your point exactly? I see a lot of things that can get better, so there is a lot of potential for upside?

An asset light business does not imply a strong brand imo. I do think you need to look at return on tangible equity within the same industry. Market share stability and historical margins are probably also good indicators of how strong a brand is.

Interesting to watch this, thanks!

Who cares about 2% up or down?

So they sold out BRK at a price of $95,000 (avg in 2009) to diversify into bonds and funds. Not looking smart right now, are they? Seems to me that Mr Booth had held it together for decades and had it on the bulls-eye for all those years without throwing a single dart. Now they are throwing darts all over and the museum will be poorer for a long time, thanks to the financial kool-aid advisors!! I doubt it. Bonds and equity have done pretty well since 2009. Decent probability they have outperformed BRK in this timeframe.

I'm curious about how you were able to get comfortable with them, as others have noted, given that they are based in China. What specific markers do you look for indicating quality? In a sense, I suppose investing in Chinese microcaps is a true contrarian bet. 8) Check out the blog post I linked above. But it's simple: company IPO'ed in 1995 and raised $30M. They have paid almost $100M in dividends since without raising new equity or debt. If that's all part of an elaborate fraud: you got me! The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Meecham does an incredible amount of dilligence and holds a mere handful of stocks. The risk of fraud seems very low. Besides, are they a Hong Kong listed co, despite being outside the Hong Kong limits? I would never trust the due diligence of someone else as proof that a company isn't a fraud. So many well known hedge funds and managers ended up with worthless Chinese paper, and you would have thought in all cases that they had done tons of due diligence...

I'm curious about how you were able to get comfortable with them, as others have noted, given that they are based in China. What specific markers do you look for indicating quality? In a sense, I suppose investing in Chinese microcaps is a true contrarian bet. 8) Check out the blog post I linked above. But it's simple: company IPO'ed in 1995 and raised $30M. They have paid almost $100M in dividends since without raising new equity or debt. If that's all part of an elaborate fraud: you got me!

No offence, this looks like one of those Chinese companies that look too good to be true. Mind you I just only looked at it very briefly. Be careful That's why it's cheap: nobody likes US listed Chinese companies, especially if it's obscure and unknown. But not everything is fake in China. Wrote almost a year ago some of my thoughts on why DSWL isn't a fraud on my blog here. Since then they have paid a special dividend and increased the regular dividend. That's not how you run a fraud! ;)

Thoughts on XPO or Barry? None. Can't have an opinion on everything :)

I think DSWL is a good deal, I own it 2 :). Not only is it trading at cash, but paying a solid dividend and business is profitable.

Seems to be working again.

I get the following error when I try to post something:

Are these regulatory filings? What is the filing number? Not my area of expertise , but guess you would need to look on pacer.gov

It's unfortunate, but I think its better to learn expensive lessons early than late! That's one possible lesson. She could also learn how to make money by successfully marketing herself. If she's lucky she will learn both.

She's just positioning herself to learn a valuable lesson at a young age.

Great summary of the story: http://chartgirl.com/pdf/HEDGEFEUD.pdf

Have to that's an interesting show to follow even though I don't have a long or short position.

Basically what Otsog said, but one small correction: I would expect that a too tight, but very aggressive player will win the highest percentage of hands when he plays. In general aggressive players win more often than passive players because they can win by getting the other player to fold. A passive player only wins if he has the best hand. (I'm by the way playing poker for a living)

I don't think this is a business with a big moat or high switching costs. Multiple reasons: * If you are running something big and important you probably already have a secondary location as a backup. This should make it relative easy to switch one of your locations because you can switch to your backup location during the switch. * The expensive server hardware has a limited life: most servers are probably upgraded in a 2-5 timeframe. Easy to move your hardware if you are upgrading anyway. * A lot of servers are virtualized and/or moved to the cloud. This makes the physical location of the server less important, and makes it a lot easier to move servers around. Besides these observations about a possible 'moat', two other concerns: * Developments in technology are moving faster for datacenters than for office's. A datacenter that is a few years old could possible need to compete with a newer one that has for example a more efficient cooling. This means expensive upgrades in the future, or a poor competitive position in the future. * These REIT's seems to be very expensive based on the yield they produce. Doesn't seem attractive at all.

Lol, I was thinking this is a weird press release... and I hadn't even read the part about "question 17"