intothebreach

Viking, I just want to say thanks for your continued analysis and sharing to the board; I learn something new every time. Much, much appreciated!

Here you go: https://wiseequities.com/pdffiles/rbc_stockpicks_quarterly/Top 30 Global Ideas for 2024 - Fourth Quarter Update - Oct 2024.pdf

Not a huge fan of Norton, but he was very good in Kingdom of Heavens, all in nuances. For those who have enjoyed Kingdom of Heavens, I highly recommend the Director's Cut Roadshow Version that adds back a significant portion that was edited out of the original version. It significantly expands the movie as one major subplot was simply taken out. Both versions also have many smaller parts played by great actors.

Over the years I bought many office chairs for an office, all of them either used on Kijiji and such, or like-new demonstrators at deep discounts from one of the stores selling them brand new (you cannot be picky on color choices). So if you can afford to be patient, you may want to check these sites. I've used the Aeron extensively in the past. It is a proven choice that many like a lot and $450 is not a bad price for it. I'm not personally wild about it, as I find the back support sub-par and that I feel the the plastic frame up front too much under my legs. It is however fantastic for breathability. My personal favorite is the Steelcase Gesture.

2016: 21.5% 2015: 4.5% 2014: 35.9% 2013: 32.0% 2012: 18.3% 2011: -13.0% 2010: 16.4% 2009: 31.3% 2008: -26.7% 2007: -12.1% (starting year) Best wishes to all of you for 2017!

Another alternative would be Hotwire. More specifically the White House area of DC as defined by Hotwire. For some reason, there's usually a very good deal to be had (not as good as Airbnb though), and you're just a couple of blocks from pretty much everything. Plan to add another $40-50 a night for parking. Last time I used it, we landed the Sofitel and there's a public parking just a block away (still expensive, less so than the hotel's). Very nice hotel.

Same here. And here is the part of the prospectus I found less than enticing: Am I reading this right in that they can only redeem the preferred once every five years? With the next window being March 31st 2021.

One aspect of the brand that I believe is non-negligeable is there is a lot of truth to the statement "nobody ever got fired for hiring IBM", especially in large corporations where it is less risky for an individual to fail in conventional ways than to try to succeed non-conventionally (to borrow a familiar expression). Although this would probably also apply to Microsoft.

Sculpin, Have you seen this provision? or is it something that was mentioned on the BNN segment? I'm asking because I took a rapid look at the prospectus, and it does not seem to be the case (limited to winding down of business.) I'd much prefer being wrong here, so do not hesitate to point out if I misread or missed something altogether. And thank you for the opportunity in the first place. Edit: Missed the "If" in Sculpin's post, so I think I have my answer. I probably should also point out that they seem to be able to recall the prefs only every five years. Again let me know if I err, not that familiar with preferred shares.

The one question I would have like to hear about did not get asked: If the directors that resigned did so over the VRX concentration, were they not doing their job of governance, and thus of looking out for investors? If so, has Sequoia considered or will Sequoia consider asking them back? Probably never going to happen due to politics or burned bridges, but still would have liked that as a question...

I subscribed to Manual of Ideas for a couple of years, and they are one of the rare that successfully combine quality with quantity. Their site also offers a wealth of content beyond the publication itself (haven't checked, some may be accessible without a subscription). Not the cheapest service, but in my opinion could be worth the cost as a source of ideas or a way to learn about multiple businesses (at some point I found myself lacking the time to use it properly). I still subscribe to YCharts, but we are talking about 2 different beasts here: YCharts is primarily a data service that is very well organized, and provide some of the most complete and easy to use fundamental charts at their price point. Morningstar could be another option to familiarize yourself with businesses, but I would caution to use them for the data and information and not to pay too much attention to their intrinsic value. In the end, I think it mostly depends on what you need. Bear in mind that you can also find a lot without paying a subscription (13F's and annual reports are free, numerous sites have financial data), so I would first make sure to define the need and validate that what's available for free is not sufficient to start. A great place to look that does not cost anything is the quarterly letters of select value investors (you can search this forum to get some ideas).

I very much like the question being asked here. From personal experience, some medium will work better for some people, and not so well for others. To one of my colleagues, podcasts are clearly worthwhile, fit well with his habit of walking everywhere, but are of no use to me as I seem to have zero patience for them. One thing I would add to what's already been posted is to do a curation of your source of content by some criteria you deem useful (could be quality, actionability, fun, ...) If I find that a news source (blog/site/paper/etc.) has been disappointing (click-bait articles and such), I'll stop visiting (businessinsider would be an example of something that was a no-brainer to drop for me), and I'll "promote" other sources, especially sources that are already curating content relevant to my interest (CoBF, daringfireball would be positive examples in my case). I think it's useful to reflect on the quality of the time spent reading, and adjust accordingly.

Right. I'm assuming the other 15 are neutral, or evenly balanced. So 1 favorable could end up tipping the scales favorably.

I stand corrected (thanks to actuary). I forgot that the 6 desired outcomes can be matched with any of the other 15 judges (in bold below), which brings 6 * 15 / 4080 = 2.2%. But more importantly, actuary's comment that we have 1 in 3 chances of getting a potentially "favorable" judge looks like pretty good odds to me.

17 judges. Since a judge cannot be picked twice for the same panel at the same time, we have 17 * 16 * 15 = 4,080 different possibilities with some of them being exactly the same (as in A/B/C = C/B/A = A/C/B = ...) 6 of these outcomes correspond to the desired 2 judges (A/B/-, B/A/-, -/A/B, -/B/A, A/-/B, B/-/A) So there should be 6 / 4,080 or slightly less than 0.15% chances of getting the desired scenario (assuming that the selection is purely random.)