benhacker

His original post mentioned Korea, which IB does not support...

I would try Jefferies.

berkshire101, It's quite simple. You usually just want to do an automated customer account transfer service (I think that's the acronym?) aka ACATS transfer. It takes maybe 7-10 days. As mentioned above, if you close out completely, Fido will charge you maybe $25-50 (I can't remember). All positions will be transfered in kind, and the basis (if properly reported / known at Fidelity) will be transferred accurately to IB within maybe 1-2 months (usually works well). Note, if you have some mutual funds at Fidelity, IB will need you to liquidate those if they aren't in their list of funds they can hold... but other securities should be just fine to move. It's really quite easy and seamless in my experience (I fund most new accounts for my clients this way and that is where I am speaking from). Also, even if you had a margin account, it's simple to transfer over, you just need to let IB know you have a loan at the other broker I believe. Two small notes: 1) If you have $0 cash at Fidelity when you transfer, the account closing fee will be considered "margin" and thus you can't transfer, so just a heads up to have net-cash after the closing fee. 2) On joint accounts, make sure you speak with IB support and title your new IB account *exactly* how they want given your Fidelity account... middle initials and other somewhat minor titling things matter to IB. 3) Also note to understand IB's joint account withdrawal rules... generally (I think it's still like this) they say that you can deposit from a bank titled under your name, or wifes name, but they will only let you withdrawal into a jointly titled account. Hope that helps, glad to see IB getting more business! :)

cwericb, I don't have an answer for you, but I'll share an example that I think you may like, and comment on it generally. A very smart poster over on the Fool who I respect a lot recently wrote a very long amusing note critical of Hussman (he has long been critical of him for good reason - my point has nothing to do with Hussman really though) in that he (Hussman) referred to 1937 US stock market recently as a "bubble". The poster then clarified that had you bought the "bubble" and held (assuming S&P / equivalent index like item at the time), you would have achieved 5.4% real return through until now, ending in 2008 to 2014 period only changed the results a moderate amount (say 0.4% real, from memory). His post was mostly humorous snark about Hussman, but it was intended to say that if you call 1937 a bubble, how do you justify that given the returns achieved in the aftermath? To me, this gets to some fundamental questions and assumptions that we as investors have to have a stake in, and often times the words we use "bubble" "intrinsic value" "overvalued" etc can detract from our discussions, because oftentimes our words make us seem further apart than we actually are (and of course, sometimes not). I'll chatter a bit about some assumptions about asset prices that I think are commonly held, and try to address your point: 1) Real assets, generally speaking, increase in value over a long time - assuming the price paid was roughly in the realm of reasonable. If the assets are productive in nature, generally this increase exceeds the rate of inflation, or the rate you can obtain holding T-bills. Held long enough, your return on the asset will equal it's long term growth, almost completely independent of price paid (with enough time). 2) Asset prices in general (at least if held over a medium basis) feedback into behaviors in the economies they are in. High house prices embolden home builders, owners, and lenders, low commodity prices discourage conservation, and eventually increase use (of course, all else equal, these are just two small examples), and of course high stock prices for a sector of the economy allow capital to flow toward endeavors in that industry more freely (through IPOs, debt raises, etc). 3) The long run return of different asset prices has some level of uncertainty. For example, US stocks have provided real returns of 5.5-6% for 100 years, but perhaps 3% or 8% real would still be reasonable as we look forward - we don't "know". Gold has kept with inflation pretty well, real estate has done inflation + 1% maybe, and land has done much better, although is very location specific. All these returns can help us guide the future, but there are many uncertainties (call them real risks) about future legal developments, labor / capital relations, wars, tax impacts that make the outcome generally uncertain for investors. To get back around to my point, there are a few things that feed into my half-answer of your comment above (which I think many rational people reading this thread would ask as well): 1) Canadian real estate, despite many who believe it to be overvalued (myself), may indeed turn out to be a good investment over a long time horizon, and even in the short horizon, there is no guarantee that it will even correct downward. 2) What Canadian real estate prices have done since some folks have been talking of a real estate bubble in Canada is in not particularly instructive. We know two things: 1) Virtually every bubble / boom financial market in the past has had haters calling it overheated 3,4, and 5 years early... 2) Virtually every market that has unevenly risen higher over years and decades without a collapse also had probably similar number of haters. :) 2a) I think what this thread can teach us is to see what specific arguments were made by specific posters, and what the investment / economic implications were (by those posters)... so we can hold them accountable, and learn both the errors of and the bounds of the logic they have used. 3) Just because an asset price increases (or even is LIKELY to increase) well over a period of years or decades, may *or* may not mean the current price should be avoided. We all have a fundamental assumption of what kinds of risks we want to accept (or what some would even consider "risk"): - Liquidity - Volatility - Permanent risk of loss - Loss of opportunity Circling back to my poster friend on the Fool, and 1937 not being a bubble... maybe we shouldn't use that loaded word. Perhaps when something is bought and it drops 50% in short order, that's unacceptable risk to some? Perhaps it's just part of the business? Maybe it's the volatility price you pay (just a liquidity issue?) to own an asset class (equites) that outperforms all others when tax and inflation adjusted over time. I don't know. This is a long way of saying that what happens in 2012-2015 doesn't matter to me personally (other than learning as I mentioned above) because my (financial) bet on the Canadian housing market didn't start until right at the end of 2014. But just because other's were wrong in 2012, doesn't mean avoiding CA RE wasn't prudent (I don't have a strong opinion). But also, if CA RE is a good long term asset class, perhaps all the short term chattering is irrelevant to long term investors (in fact I would virtually GUARANTEE that is the case... long term being >10 years). Paying a 50-100% premium for an asset class that will return 5% real, still means you are a winner with a long enough timeframe. However, I would only caution that the #1 mistake I see (and have seen) people make is to forget the simple fact I covered about asset prices up thread... that asset prices do actually feedback into the real economy. The psychology of booms and busts is real and based on human nature, high prices beget competition, loosening of downside scenario testing (which makes it worse when it does come). I like Canada, and I think long term it's a good bet, and that would include real estate. But based on every data point I see, forgoing investment now (in RE), will likely leave buyers with better opportunities later after the sheen wears off and reality sets in. I may be wrong, and if it takes long enough for my view to bear itself out, I *will* be wrong, even if someday I get to say "told you so" because time is not on the side of someone betting against the prices of real assets in well run countries. I just personally think that those buying into CA RE are using way rosier assumptions than others elsewhere investing in similar assets. To me I'm guessing that they will be disappointed, mostly because they are taking on heightened risks (volatility, liquidity, and loss of opportunity... but probably not risk of permanent loss if held for a good period of time) for the compensation they are getting. However, I am man enough to admit, that my estimate on the compensation for holding CA RE long term may simply not be as optimistic as reality, or the market may be ok with the long term rate of return from today's prices, and thus no adjustment is needed. There is of course a different implication of your question if we invert it: If prices were extremely elevated in CA RE 3 years ago, and the natural increase in value is less than markets have appreciated since then... doesn't that just mean we have much further to fall now? I don't know which is right... but I feel like the market tend to hurt the most people it can... I know several people (in Oregon in the US) invested in Toronto Condos and they are all quite happy with themselves. When the CA RE boom reaches Portland OR, I have trouble thinking this time will be different. But again, it's a good asset long term, so it may not be a huge deal. And of course those sitting out a boom or betting against don't necessary leave their proceeds in cash... that is not the appropriate measuring stick. Saying a CA RE investor is worse off in cash, isn't really an argument, cash is crap long term, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't spend their money on a better opportunity. When I short a stock, I use most / if not all of the proceeds to buy another stock I like better... the same is true with all life's decisions... not buying CA RE, doesn't mean you can't buy a Greek hotel, or a Florida swamp, or an Argentinian stock, or... We'll see. Ben (wish I knew the future, and sorry for the ramble)

We are now in the stage of action in CA real estate where there will be one last round of suckers to come in and go down with the ship. The data does not support external (non CA) money being a significant driver of this boom, it is a red herring to shove away the fact that this boom is Canadian in nature (which in my experience Canadian's find just as uncomfortable as folks in the US did in 2006). I would also argue (as was done above) that the relative valuation of US major markets are cheaper and/or more attractive relatively to CA, and big money Asians wouldn't on average have a problem switching. Whether Canada's market is a bubble or not is beside the point. It is clearly very very pricey. I think it best to avoid as a buyer right now if possible. All else is speculation. An entire housing ecosystem has developed around ever rising prices... change will be uncomfortable for many even if it's not a disaster. Ironically, I predict that when housing prices up North start printing negative YoY prices, this thread will dry up and no one will care. :) Always seems to be that way (see China)... we'd rather try to predict the turn than profit from the result.

I would be really hesitant to invest unless I knew the legal system very well in the country of question. Even in the US it's a bit unclear to me in some scenarios how this works (looked at one recently here, and I'm not sure how bullet proof it is). But to directly answer your question, I don't have any direct experience.

I think probably the easiest / most straight forward thing to do to manage your capital through a recession is to always plan as if a recession *might* happen soon in the way you structure your portfolio today. That is to say, if you invest in a company that may be hurt by a recession (badly), then size the investment appropriately (or mentally be aware of the trade off you are making). Buy companies who will do well over the whole business cycle... ie, companies that will (long term) benefit from recessions as they take share. I think trying to predict a recession is probably not a great idea, but perhaps bending your portfolio structure within some bands based on overall market valuation is appropriate (kind Graham's notion, but maybe using different tools to shift conservative / aggressive, or perhaps using other valuation techniques). Just some ideas of how to approach this: 1) Do more workouts / liquidations / merger arb when Shiller PE (or your chosen valuation metric) is >20x+ 2) When markets are scary (going down fast), look for historically great firms that are down a lot with newly low margins... but that used to have high margins. Few want to bet on expanding future margins in a crash, but that is the time to do so. For me personally, what kept me sane through the crash was knowing that most of my companies would survive with minimal dilution (it was a bet I made before I bought and before there was a recession), and even if the economy contracted heavily, I would own survivors who could buy assets cheap, consolidate competitors, and take share... of the companies I owned that weren't great quality, I felt their liquidation values even in depression were better than market prices so my downside was limited. The final thing is perhaps more a mental thing than anything else which is that you have to think about how you will think / act in a deep recession before one comes. Are you holding cash now to deploy in a recession? If so, you must force yourself to deploy it when the time comes... if you are a pessimistic person, you can always predict worse during a bad market... and you can logically convince yourself not to act (raise discount rates, increase margin of safety, lower long term per share growth estimates, all of the above). If you are an "always fully invested" person, just keep going... don't change your style during the downturn. I think there is logic to both positions, and much of how conservative you should act is a personal / emotional / risk tolerance thing... but make sure you are honest with yourself ahead of time and don't decide to "learn" a bunch of new stuff right as the world is falling apart. I found selling cheap to buy cheaper during the recession was hard just because prices would move so fast... you don't need to make a decision every day, but just maybe every month re-evaluate what you own and think "should I still own these, in these proportions?". I found that every few years it's good to go back and read business articles from past recessions... you will remember that nothing is new, there is always uncertainty. Buy assets for less than they will ultimately deliver to you in cash, use a margin of safety, and never convince yourself you know it all... that's all you can do. Keeping market history fresh in your mind is a good way to keep your head when the battle starts. My 2 cents,

Ourkid, Fairfax originally put $100m into Prime Restaurants, and then contributed that to get their stake in Cara (at that time it had lost 40% of value or so)... then they added another $100m. Since then, it has done well, my comment was on their inception in this business, to which I included the Prime Restaurant investment. So I believe (again, from what Bluedevil said, and my memory) they put in $100m in early '12, and $100m in '13, and now it's worth $350m. That's a good investment for sure... my original post above was thinking only the first $100m was the basis... in which case I was thinking it was a fabulous one. I hope that's clear. My returns recently have sucked, so I'm not trying to throw stones or brag in a backhanded way or anything like that.

Thanks Bluedevil, you are absolutely right. I haven't realized they consolidated their holdings, and then added the $100m CAD investment. Still a good investment, but not amazing. Thanks, Ben

This looks like another (silent) home run. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cara-to-raise-200m-in-ipo-as-early-as-april-1.3005465 Net cost is $100m, I don't think they put more capital in in the last year. Valuation of their ~40% post money stake is >$350m. Just glancing, so I may be missing something, but this seems pretty nice.... I think they first bought their stake in Prime Restaurants in early 2012. Anybody following this one more closely?

Yeah Writser, I did love the game. I went to a card shop to get a bid on my collection and there were several normal woman there... and they were buying / playing Magic... times have changed. ;-)

I recently detailed my interesting experience of realizing my Magic card collection was worth significant money, and proceeded to sell it. I shared the story here --> http://boards.fool.com/way-ot-magic-mtg-card-prices-31643551.aspx?sort=whole#31672922 for those who may be interested. It's quite a lesson in markets, and the popularity of something that I would have thought would be really obscure. Pretty cool. Ben

A company I follow with RE operations in China has described the situation in China's RE market as undergoing a continuous slow down. These guys are straight shooters, so I think the acknowledgement on the ground by those willing to see is that the boom is undergoing at least a substantial correction.

Seems simple. How much is US Dollar index up? I have 25% over 1 year (trade weighted). Oil is down, say 55%? So you have the effect wrt to the dollar right. You had the chart in your original reply, I guess I wasn't sure what answer you wanted or were expecting.... did my above answer get to your point? So USD movement is 30-40% of Oils decline? (maybe trade weighted isn't the right way to look at it, but probably similar answer to Oil trade weighted or something). Ben

I believe the link is correct. I think this is covered in Snowball... He compensated original partners at 4%... so basically he was on the hook for that + fund expenses regardless. The 6% / 25% was later when he consolidated the partnerships, or maybe just later on, I can't remember.

I'm with FarEastWarriors on this. The national dealership revenue breakdown is kind of the opposite of profit. Revenue is like 55:35:10 for new:used:service sales. But I would bet new car sales make the dealership $0 on average or close... used cars can be nice, agree there. But I would bet service margins are astronomical... I'd guess blind that is 75% of dealership profits. consequently, if you talk to someone who works at a dealer (assuming they aren't running it) they may not perceive how the money is made... or maybe I'm confused! Some details here after some googling, basically says the service is most of the profits. ROIC for dealerships is high. New cars don't make a ton, used is more. Service is the most. (page 10) I guess makes sense re: new cars, they make money (haven't always in years past) but it's a loss-leader for service. http://www.nada.org/NR/rdonlyres/DF6547D8-C037-4D2E-BD77-A730EBC830EB/0/NADA_Data_2014_05282014.pdf This is a curious area, mostly because if electric cars really take off, they will turn the dealership model over and screw it... because the service aspect of an electric car should be fewer small ticket items, so I would imagine less need for a dealership. I wonder if this isn't one of those businesses though that is perceived as dieing, but actually has a very long cash flow tail, with little competition and a strong competitive dynamic with car makers? Leucadia and Berkshire both jumping in... it will be interesting to see it unfold.

You think regular folks look to the CPI to make their purchase decisions? I personally don't think so... most people I talk to always seem to think their "cpi" is higher than official (probably because CPI aggregate is lower than cpi equivalent for bottom 2/3rds of income). If the government starts increasing CPI artificially, I would guess people would not notice or think the government is sandbagging which would make them fear inflation more. Just my 2 cents. I kind of feel like Packer about Fairfax's CPI bets... but you never know. Maybe it's just a play on a world war without saying as much... don't know.

Thanks for these links JEast... our silence is appreciation for the links, not disinterest. ;)

It's been a good run Sanj. I've only been aboard for maybe 10 of the years, but I've learned a lot, and appreciate the many ideas I've been exposed to over the years!

Someone found and forwarded me what I think is the original blog comments where Nate raised some of his points: http://www.oddballstocks.com/2013/11/why-go-buffett.html If interested. I didn't see anything related to the lack of dividend or lawsuit reference, but there is a poster recounting the George Roberts quote about Buffett. Just thought I would post for completeness

Nate, is this the article you remember?

Thanks for the response Nate. I understand your perspective on reactions to Buffett criticisms... I selfishly want to hear any and all bad stories I can so I can do more work to see if it changes my opinion on Buffett... hence my harassment. :) Understand that others may reflexively attack negativity (or maybe I do too!). Thanks for spending 30m trying to find, I have searched and found nothing as well... hard to find specific stuff on Buffett since he is so well covered.

Harney Investment Trust is a disclosure vehicle, not a tax vehicle. If anyone has hard information to the opposite please share. By putting insurance assets in HIT, Berkshire only has to disclose their stake in HIT, where-by normal holding, in insurance company filings (NAIC filings in the US), insurance companies would have to disclose line-item investments in both bonds, stocks, and derivatives. David Merkel wrote a stupid article on this back in the day basically saying how Berkshire is not being "transparent" even though very few people follow NAIC filings seriously, and the only reason he cares is the same reason Buffett hides this... because everyone would ape Buffett's picks, whereas few of us are tracking AIG NAIC filings to check their transparency. HIT has nothing (again, I believe) to do with tax reduction. Owning equities with insurance float via a corporation does of course have some benefits that a straight equity investor doesn't have (it also has some complications)... but none of this has to do with HIT. Nate, I would second the request for any link on your commentary around partnership assets and tax stuff. Buffett isn't a saint, and I'm all for digging up little details on him... but given the nature of the board, I'd like to see some clear links as opposed to third party quotes "some guy who I can't share his name from KKR said ABC..." as if we should care more because he works for KKR ;-)... or some lawsuit that I can google that maybe implies something, but can't find easily... a link would be good. Just giving you a hard time, but more explicit info would be good.

My notes have 49% owned, $150m basis from prior 10-K.

The series H conversion turns them into a 3mo rate + 256 floater... also not valuable at this time. $18 CAD may be an ok price, but just be sure you know what you are buying.