netnet

Thanks a lot for your recommendations. Yes, I am looking to do PE deals indeed. As part of my job, I will be looking into South East Asian markets where private equity is typically the most practical way to invest. My background and experience is purely public equity in developed markets so this is quite an exciting challenge for me. Since, you are doing SE Asia, you might also look at what Li Liu has done at Himalayan Capital, and more importantly how he has done it. He has done spectacularly well and has Munger's seal of approve too! I believe his biggest hits were private PE deals, which were more venture like though. There is some public literature on his approach and he has hosted some lunches, but my impression is that he (and his employees) are pretty tight lipped, as you would expect, but try anyway! (I think one or two his employees frequent this board as well.)

First of all I am assuming that you mean buyouts and not Venture Capital, as technically VC is a type of PE. Zeisberger at INSEAD has a new book out, her most recent one, that is on my pile of books to read Mastering Private Equity. This seems to cover everything. Are you interested in doing small PE deals as opposed to joining a PE shop? If you are into the small deals, then I would recommend the HBR Guide to Buying a Small Business, by two Harvard Business School prof's who teach a class on going out and buying businesses (Entrepreneurship through Acquisition) These small PE deals have a bunch of practitioners in it who are pretty open, with various conferences. Again for small deals, checkout the podcasts from Booth School and for both large and small deals look at case studies from the business schools and the Harvard Business Review.

With bubbles there are always methodological questions, as in exactly what defines a bubble, and how do you define it concurrently! One leading historian makes the case that even the tulip bulb 'craze' was not a bubble! https://theconversation.com/tulip-mania-the-classic-story-of-a-dutch-financial-bubble-is-mostly-wrong-91413 I spilled my coffee reading that one.

Yeah, I chose not to go to Omaha (having never been to the AM), because it's being streamed. I'm seriously regretting this choice. The grim reaper is gaining on them (actually all of us).

And that is not even the worst case! You have no collateral, you are depending on contract enforcability, the tenant not leaving, the fee holder working for you and no inflation. Worst case you are litigating against the landlord in year 2. Landlord is uninterested in the upkeep. Tenant gets pissed leaves in year 3 (maybe sues both of you) and the landlord has 0 incentive to get a new tenant. And there is a Euro crisis. (My assumption here, from your description, is that you only have a right to payments, you are in fact not a lease holder.) This is priced for perfection, i.e. no margin of safety. At 300K it is interesting; at 1.2 million not so much.

Dazel, Back of the envelope, but it seems you are saying that Fairfax is selling below book adjusted for sub intraparty price(not to mention fair market value). Yes?

Nope, general intelligence is extremely easy to quantify. And furthermore, something doesn't have to be quantifiable to be determinable. Your follow-up questions are also easy to determine through empirical testing (it might not be easy for you to get that specific testing done though). That being said, I agree with the suggestion that there are probably more productive things to ponder. Your last statement is true, so were I more intelligent, I would not make this post ;) Presumably, everyone or almost every one reading this has an above average IQ. So, to a certain degree we have, shall I say, a dog in this fight. So after those two caveats, let's go on to your statement about general intelligence. Yes, you can give intelligence tests, and these tend to be the most robust of psychometric testing, but a) there are different cognitive abilities, b) the science is not really settled and c) more controversially I would argue that the .96 correlation between tests for the same individual over relatively short time frames begs the question. This does not even address the various aspects of cognitive abilities. Can either Buffett or Munger envision and rotate a particular hydrocarbon molecule in their heads? Who knows and it doesn't matter. (One of my college roommates could do this, to the considerable envy of the rest of us trying to keep up in organic chemistry.) I think you are wrong on the athleticism question as well. (Although, the comparison of IQ with athleticism is somewhat apt.) Jose Altuve and Lebron James are both tremendous athletes, (that would test out well) but they have more. Not to be woo-woo, but they both have the intangible psychological make up, which may be analogous to the rationality and temperament factors. Furthermore, you have to match the athlete's gifts to the right sport. (see Michael Jordan and baseball.) I would hazard a guess that Lebron would never be a top collegiate swimmer. If the testing were so easily accomplished (non-injury) draft bust would not happen! By all accounts, Walter Schloss was a dim bulb, yet was a successful investor. And I doubt, that even in Warren and Charlie's circle a 120 IQ would be a dim bulb!

Thinking in Bets is excellent. I am quite familiar with the literature and still I found the book very worthwhile. If you don't know behavioral psych and econ, then this is a good applied introduction. For many the behavioral literature is too theoretical and many find it difficult to apply. She certainly has the theory down, as she was a PHD student (in decision sciences or related field). Even if you know the literature, the practical tips in the book are valuable. This will undoubtedly be one of my favorite books 2018. Buy the book, he said as he pounded the table!! 8) (I can't speak to the controversy alluded to above, but even if she were sitting in a jail cell next to Bernie Madoff, I would still recommend the book.)

Any good nuggets from the interview?

Close FFH watchers correct me if I'm wrong, (not a close watcher myself) but it seems to me the trade for FFH has been buy at 1.1 or less and sell at 1.4. This has been a regular trade over the last 6 years or so.

So which of the mentioned above the 420 parallel companies are midcap or smaller and have outsider type owner operators?

He is a smart kid (like really, really smart, summa at Harvard, with his thesis published as a book), but he is talking his own "book" here. He has a fund that seeks to replicate PE funds by buying levered, but cheap, small caps. Further, rhetorically he posits institutional investors as experts. Sorry, but the treasurer of Idaho ain't no expert. That said one insight, however obvious, found young, can lead to great success in life--his is: with PE deals returns are tightly correlated to low purchase price, the rest is hooey.

I always said it with a rhyme: "happy wife equals happy life!" It's a big investment and a huge time sink, we'd have to get a rental house for 1.5 years, that's why I'm not too keen on it -- though i think she'll get her way in the end :) I would not make a financial argument if your really don't want the remodel. How much does she want to living with plaster, dust, having to move and how much does she want to be a general contractor (or is that your 'job') That same money could be a trip around the world or a stock market investment. Have her talk to someone in the midst of a remodel. And after all that, the required response is whatever you want honey.

I always said it with a rhyme: "happy wife equals happy life!"

#4 and 5 have been asked regularly. On 4, he always suggests, gaining fluency and using a checklist. A refined question might be does he use a written checklist before major decisions? Unfortunately that would only elicit a yes or no response. On 5, he always says with a chuckle, I have barely done a decent job with my own kids.

You never know when you'll have the opportunity to ask a 94-year-old legend another question again; in my opinion, your thinking is spot-on to get life's biggest questions out of the way first. This sort of inquiry will doubtlessly lead to a mental model that can carry 80% of life's freight by itself. I'm not sure everybody is going to get ScottHall's irony here. Translation of what ScottHall was saying: Ask a big and interesting question where Munger can add value. [My commentary: why would you waste your (and everybody's) time asking a guy who was born before women could vote questions about women's roles in 2018? He is a wise man, but geez...]

I'm curious what your thought process was originally, i.e. getting into the cryptos. I found it technically interesting and noted the all in of the Vinkelvoss twins (no need to snigger here, just because they lost to Zuck, remember they were absolutely right and early on social media.) But I could not pull the trigger in that I would only be buying on an estimate on what others would find attractive--see Keynes on judging the judges of a beauty contest. I came into cryptos via block chain and the smart contract. I was looking for a thesis topic, found this technology incredibly practical and appealing, and used the opportunity to do a deep dive into what it is. Combined with 20 years+ of business experience in both FI's and supply chain; the result was a 'how to' thesis in the strategic implementation of this technology in 'day-to-day' business - from 'blank paper' through to 'finished working product'. Obviously, its a valuable skill today - and available to all for a very modest hourly fee ;) Along the way I had to research crypto, their relative merits, and their limitations. It was quite obvious that Bitcoin was truly unique; once the 'videos' and 'textbooks' started explaining it 'en masse' - the odds on it ultimately becoming 'mainstream' were also pretty good. Our own view was that Bitcoin would not take off until it became both investable (futures, options), and respectable for institutions to hold. It happened sooner than we thought, and we sold as Chicago started offering derivatives. Ultimately we bought a few Bitcoin just to get the 'feel and experience', and traded the volatility; executing through various exchanges largely as a science experiment. Continuous reinvestment grew the number of coin, & ultimately we dumped at high prices & took the $ off the table. Today we hold T-Bills, and a whack of WCP, instead. To a large extent we've been very lucky; right time, right experience, and increasingly - right place. Maturity, expertise in value investment, backgrounds in petroleum engineering and finance, and experience with some of the worlds nastier 'hot spots' has been extremely helpful. We totally get both the anarchist and CB viewpoints, because we've seen both. The technology is incredible, but the weakness is people. Transformative managers with strong people and social responsibility skills are going to rule the world. SD Excellent. Thanks.

I'm curious what your thought process was originally, i.e. getting into the cryptos. I found it technically interesting and noted the all in of the Vinkelvoss twins (no need to snigger here, just because they lost to Zuck, remember they were absolutely right and early on social media.) But I could not pull the trigger in that I would only be buying on an estimate on what others would find attractive--see Keynes on judging the judges of a beauty contest.

What screens do you use? And\or sources? I've been thinking about using netnet hunter.

What book value are you using to say that it is as cheap as ever? A too quick and dirty off of the third quarter results is north if 1.5. Obviously there are adjustments for the sales etc., but half of Markel?

Well played! The name, shoe button, is way out of date, but the behaviour is ever with us.

I bought it and skimmed it. It doesn't look like he actually went into the annual reports from the year Buffett invested and researched what Buffett might have been thinking at the decision point. The book's very high-level. Oh sh@t, that's annoying. I was hoping for a really in depth treatment.

I just bought (it has not arrived yet), a book by Glen Arnold called, The Deals of Warren Buffett: Volume 1, The First $100m; it looks like it takes 10 or so deals from City Services through Berkshire, so it does not really get into all of his positions, but it may be representative and does have the cocoa beans, Dempster Mill and Sanborn. I will post a review in the book section, when I have read it.

In no particular order: Poor Charlie's Almanack every year Buffett's letters--Partnership and BRK Cialdini, Persuasion 5 Elements of Effective Thinking Bevelin, Seeking Wisdom Peter Drucker's big three--Innovation, Managing for Results, and the Effective Executive I try to see a live Shakespeare play at least once per year, but read it beforehand.

I am not close observer of Fairfax, but from a quick look it seems as if we are in the historically low range of price to book.