writser

IB has been getting some attention lately on this forum in several thread. However, only as being a good broker. As an investment it has not been discussed for a while (with the exception of benhacker who mentioned he is long if I remember correctly). A recent VIC write-up piqued my interest today and I did some preliminary reading on IBKR. IBKR writeup at VIC: http://www.valueinvestorsclub.com/value2/Idea/ViewIdea/128170 . Septemper 2014 Investor Presentation: https://investors.interactivebrokers.com/download/IB_investor_presentation_091614.pdf Conference call transcripts (Peterffy is a smart guy): http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/IBKR/transcripts What I consider key points: No position but a very happy customer.

Having studied computer science myself I enjoy the scientific side of this discussion. However, we nerds have a tendency to get caught up a bit in the technical details (because we love them). So we talk about the bandwidth requirements of 4k video, IPV6, and 3d video chatting. But as an investor, I think trying to estimate the future demand for bandwidth is not that useful. First of all: in tech it is notoriously hard (impossible) to predict the future. Maybe ADSL or wireless will completely wipe out cable. Maybe new technologies will require much more / much less bandwidth in a decade. Who knows? Secondly, is it a given that increased demand for bandwidth leads to higher profitability? I don't think so. Maybe it's better if the industry stagnates and consolidates. Also, another important driver for the future: growth in emerging markets, has not been mentioned in this discussion so far. Not to mention the regulatory landscape. And not to mention the prospects currently priced in in individual stocks. I think a lot of other questions are more relevant from an investors perspective. Not only is it impossible to determine the future demand for bandwidth, it is also impossible to determine what effects this will have on the industry. But by all means please continue the discussion :) .

Yeah, I was being a bit cheeky. Indeed traders had informants on board of English warships, among other things. Those ships were faster and the traders hoped to get information about the contents of the actual transport ships before they arrived in the Netherlands. Also funny was that people who were known to have good sources sometimes fooled the market, i.e. they started selling, everybody joined in suspecting they had inside news and they bought back at a lower price. What I always find fascinating about books such as these is how smart people were back in the days :) . For some reason I tend to think that anybody who lived more than a few centuries ago was basically retarded. Reading history books makes you realize that, apart from huge advances in science, humans haven't changed that much the past few centuries. I also liked 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'. Being Dutch I especially appreciated the chapter about the tulip mania, my favourite part being the foreign sailor who accidentally chopped up and ate a black tulip bulb because he thought it was an onion - costing his employer a few million dollars (inflation adjusted). There was also a chapter on street slang in London that could in theory still apply to any big city 200 years later. Quoz!

I haven't read the original yet, but I did enjoy the recently published 'The World's First Stock Exchange'. An entertaining read about the history of the Amsterdam Stock exchange in the 1600's. This book referred a few times to the Confusiones. Naked short selling, market manipulation, complex derivatives, insider trading, high frequency trading, it all happened 400 years ago as well. Nothing new under the sun :) . Can recommend this book. Gives a nice overview & perspective of the history of the stock market and is filled with great historical anecdotes dug up from ancient court orders and other documents. http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Exchange-Columbia-Business-Publishing-ebook/dp/B00IHGTVUO/

A security code should be mandatory for every large brokerage account as far as I am concerned. Much safer and also works as a deterrent to prevent yourself from logging in every time you're behind the pc. And yes, the interface is not very user-friendly at first. However, there is lots of good documentation available on the IB site. You have to put some effort in it, IB is geared towards professionals. On the flipside their combination of low costs, high possibilities and good service cannot be beaten by any other broker afaik.

IB and IB only. Check out the discussion in this thread: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/5965-jp-fujimak-corp/50/

[amazonsearch]Snowball[/amazonsearch] Surprised to see there was no topic in the 'Books'-section yet about "The Snowball". I started reading this yesterday and am devouring it. Almost finished now. I can understand some of the criticism that I've read so far (unfocused, too much attention for his personal quirks) but I really love the book despite its shortcomings. Not only gives the book a great overview of his life it is probably also the best read on Munger I read so far. I really enjoyed reading about Warren's crazy obsessions, some sections were really funny. Private cooks everywhere having to learn how to make burgers: awesome. Munger being obnoxious everywhere: awesome. Having to ask Rose Blumkin to sign a non-compete at age 95: awesome. Can highly recommend this book. Haven't read the Lowenstein boek, how does it compare?

I read a quote from one of the old guys (Charlie or Warren) about this subject a while ago. Something along the lines of: "Our discount rate is the expected rate of return on our second-best idea". This struck me at the time as a valuable insight. There is no 'correct' discount rate, your analysis only makes sense in comparison with alternative investments. When faced with uncertainty I prefer to calculate an expected value over multiple scenarios instead of adjusting the discount rate upwards by an arbitrary amount. Because in thatt case you force yourself to make explicit your assumptions.

Maybe the more relevant question is: should I have _these_ stocks?

I'd suggest opening an Interactive Brokers account. Spreads are around 0.001% for the most liquid pairs. You can also trade / hold Canadian equities there very cheaply. https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/?f=%2Fen%2Ftrading%2Fpdfhighlights%2FPDF-Forex.php

Frankly I have no clue why someone would think 7x EV/FCF is the cheapest stock out there. So many exceptions posted already and several of them have been discussed on this forum in great detail. It would be nice if the topicstarter chimes in again. What am I overlooking? Are you looking for US stocks only? Am I missing some other considerations?

Solitron comes to mind as a US example. Lots of Japanese companies also trade way lower (example from this forum Murakami, EV/FCF ~1.65). Lots of stuff with negative / zero EV due to extremely conservative balance sheets. Not sure if that's what you are looking for though.

I don't think this is a very productive way of discussing the issue (as far as that is even possible). You're wrong. Why? Just read this article, this article and watch this youtube video (it has only 3k views but it proves my point). And this one. Let's face the truth, neither side is going to click on the long list of links the other side posts in this topic or read the 10 books that are suggested to them. Also, you can find websites / youtube videos to support basically every view. Case in point: Jesus was a nazi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOb5vrUts9A . I guess you should denounce your faith now? Let's not turn this thread into a linkfest ..

2 days max.

Yeah, but I think it's useful to point out the distinction before people require you to come up with evidence that proves Santa doesn't exist.

To be fair, that's up for debate. Atheism can either mean 'a lack of belief in deities' or 'a belief in the lack of deities'. Bertrand Russell said about this: I guess you're talking to the ordinary man :) .

Agreed. For starters, you assume there is only _one_ deity. if you want to reduce the # of kids born with single parents (which I agree would probably be a good thing) why wouldn't you encourage the use of the pill, condoms and abortions? Better safe than sorry, right? Not to mention condoms help with battling AIDS.

Thanks for the DS interview, never heard of the guy before. Good read.

Only your deity or are others acceptable too? Bit strange that all men have a desire for sex and then the church opposes premarital intercourse, anti-conception, abortion, and prostitution. Makes it a bit more difficult to enjoy it ...

This thread gets only better and better. I actually start to think I'm one of the moderates now .. :) . Next achievement: all 'most recent posts' are in this topic. Then we can finally force Parsad to rename this forum to Corner of Christ and Dawkins. Stocks are boring anyway. Stahley, could you please explain what you mean by this? I literally don't understand it.

By the way, I'm spending too much time in this thread. Google ads is now displaying attractive 'Muslim girls for marriage' when browsing this forum.

What are the odds that a couple of finches exist on the Galapagos islands that look exactly similar but all have different beaks? What are the odds that in the US kids believe in Santa Claus and in the Netherlands kids believe in Sinterklaas? Answer: it is quite likely because they all evolved from common ancestors. Maybe the same thing holds for religions? Nobody here ever denied that Jesus existed. The logical error you make here is: Jesus existed & people say he is a deity -> Jesus was a deity. I exist as well. If I say I'm god, does that make me supernatural? Answer: unfortunately not. @Liberty: I have a few explanations for you. First one: obviously these were all manifestations of the same 'deity' that happens to be the Christian god, misinterpreted by primitive humans. Or: these were fake gods created by the real god to test our belief in him. Or: the earth is only 2000 years old, the Greeks and Germanics never existed and all these stories were made up by infidels who will burn in hell for eternity. Or: our god is the only real one because the bible says so and the bible was written by my god. Or: I feel that my god is the real one. I'll let Stahley pick the right explanation. Another classic way to convince people. "Really, I wish you were right but I know much more about this stuff than you and you're WRONG!". Argumentum ad factum.

Awesome reasoning. God's morals are better because he is bigger. I guess I should listen to Michael Jordan from now. You also still haven't explained adequately how, even if God's morals are right, you know what morals are right. If Writser's character is good morals, they aren't arbitrary. They are his being. So. Cool. I believe I have now proven that my set of morals aren't arbitrary, by your reasoning. Obey me! Really, I have no clue what you mean here. Morals are 'his being'? Is that even English? All vagueries and generic statements that can be twisted and interpreted in any way as you see fit to make your point.

Nah, the point isn't necessarily about Dawkins, more about a person's motives. "People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." ;) Yet YOU don't know what is happening in somebodies heart but you are first in line to judge that Richard Dawkins' heart is less admirable than that of a mother you've never met. If the point is not about Dawkins you shouldn't bring him up in the discussion .. You're just throwing mud at people you don't agree with. Unfortunately we're drifting even more off-topic (as far as that's possible :) ). I'm interested to know what you think of the 'turtle' problem as brought up by Richard Gibbons. Why are God's morals less arbitrary than ours? What's the difference between your morals and those of the guys in Iraq killing children?

I like how you manage to turn this thread into a discussion about the motives and sincerity of Richard Dawkins. Is that relevant for the discussion? I'd say it is a case of "shoot the messenger". I don't think God would approve of these ad hominem attacks. "Turn the other cheek", remember? May I also point out that you are the one 'casting the first stone' with regards to personal attacks? A new low has been reached. One that you quickly dismiss with a wink, I see below. If there is one reason I respect Dawkins it's that he continues to battle religion in public despite all the death-threats, personal attacks and mud-slinging by people like you who never met the guy. He sure has a holy conviction.