netnet

Since I'm on the internet and I don't know the answer, I will give a robust answer anyway ;) In scanning through it, i learned who originated the term financial cannibal and that Munger used it. There is an investor I don't know, Kristian Siem. And most intriguing one of the most ardent proponents of mechanical investing Tobias Carlyle is an author. I'm going to buy it. That opinion is worth what you paid for it. (if you are will to send money, it's more valuable.)

Fellow groupies before you go to Omaha, I'm looking for the following: A video of Munger's speech at Harvard-Westlake (LA high school), not sure that it exists. Online transcript of his speech at his 50th Harvard Law Reunion, yeah, yeah, I know it's in Poor Charlie's. That compilation of ~334 pages that was circulating last year( now the link is broken).

+1 on both the books about Keynes and the comments on the man himself. i would also suggest after some of the above books dipping into his Essays in Persuasion.

Here are 2 "Infographics" on cognitive biases, enjoy: http://www.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-that-affect-decisions-2015-8?utm_source=feedly http://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Cognitive-Biases-Infographic.jpg

Not a shareholder in BH or a believer in Biglari, but if in fact he said to read 610-611, that is pretty revealing. Basically, it says we insiders have our own agenda and the rest of you can f@#K off. "Thus on many counts the insiders are likely to look upon corporate policies in ways diametrically opposed to the interests and desires of the typical outside shareholder..." (augustabound, thanks for the search tip, never used it in the years I've been using Amazon and Look Inside.)

+1

These are someone's notes from a class about value investing and Buffet, NOT notes from Buffett himself. I assume that either the prof., McDonald or a speaker was denigrating Schloss. That said it might have been from Buffett himself, or Munger, who did give a talk at the class at least once or more over the years. Also, it was generally acknowledged that Schloss was not the sharpest of the so-called Super Investors of Graham-Doddsville.

There are extensive threads on various parts of the John Malone/Liberty complex (in all senses of the word), but there is no overall discussion about the comparative virtues/value of the empire. I was curious as to what others think are the companies with the best prospects, best value, are the cheapest.

Here is an interesting article, whose argument is that we have had a boom in conglomerates (aka platform companies in some circles). This was posted in the individual stock section, (don't remember who posted it or which stock it was, anyway), but it is deserving of greater discussion. The easy (facile) premise is basically there are booms and busts with conglomerates and these companies are subject to these markets cycles. Ok, fair enough. But it also dumps Berkshire and Teledyne into this basket. And had you bought either at their (various) peaks you would have made out ok. http://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Conglomerate-Boom-2.0-JHL-Capital-Group-10-20-15.pdf Conglomerate-Boom-2.0-JHL-Capital-Group-10-20-15.pdf

Quite so, Peter Drucker always said, you need to look out the window to see what is.

I haven't. I would be interested in learning what you think. Were you browsing? It seems to have a number of negative reviews. Mind over numbers by Barbara Oakley is my current favorite in this field--which is one of my hobbies. http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Numbers-Science-Flunked-Algebra/dp/039916524X/ Check out her course on Cousera, https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn/home/welcome, particularly the optional reading.

Frankly, I don't know him at all. So I have no penetrating insight. I may have seen the website sometime ago, and we are all subject to human frailties. BUT, to say that you have a really big margin of safety and 40 days later have to time a bottom to save your @ss? Really that is no margin of safety in my book. Plus he claims that part of his margin of safety is expertise, yet he says he has no particular expertise in oil and gas, where his concentrated bet is??? WTF? It's a cautionary tale of true margin of safety, circle of competence, and ultimately over confidence and there but for the grace of god go I.

He kind of answered this last year (he was answering my question about Lew Kuan Yew... jeez I really am a groupie ;) Oh well.)

That would be Cialdini's Persuasion

Two questions: I know that he has done rolling averages for statistically cheap stocks, but has he isolated how the returns compare in times of market distress to see if say looking for quality when really cheap, with quality defined by whatever measure (ROA or ROE)increases returns. (He is going to say it doesn't but the question is still worth asking.) When is his next book coming.

Thanks for the responses. He's semi-retired and comfortable(at least as far as I know.) This is the part that 'concerns' me. The alternative is really alternative (we are in a couple of private RE deals together.) all private some self done, some 'sponsored'. (We both belong to a group that has a ton of real estate deals coming through, small 10-25 million dollar deals with 20 to 100k chunks.) The investors in the group have averaged about 15 to 18% a year in these deals, including the great recession. He is about as phlegmatic and emotionally detached from money as you can get. He has been studying this portfolio change for a year and a half. He has no urge to activity.

I was having coffee with a friend who has been (index) investing for a number of years, has read extensively and (perhaps) most importantly did not panic in the great recession.(High paying Silicon Valley jobs, a strong stomach and optimism are wonderful things!) Anyway he wants to move out indexing and asked me for advice on building his portfolio. He is thinking about dividing his portfolio in the following four equal parts (.25 each) mechanically invested value, like Tobias's Acquirers Multiple Alternative mostly real estate with perhaps an Angel investing flyer Cash for really good opportunities in public or private markets (or the next crash) 20% of this (5% of portfolio) could go into merger arb type investments Stocks he would pick himself (I think he can probably do a decent enough job) I thought that this was a pretty good allocation and suited his goals, temperament and knowledge. (Longterm capital appreciation, tolerant of risks, but need to sleep at nights.) Although he probably should have some international diversification, that is another discussion.

These are notes from an Investment Management course taught by Jack McDonald at Stanford business school. These notes are from 1978, and McDonald is still teaching the class. i have not been able to find any notes of a more recent vintage. I clipped the first few paragraphs and have attached the whole (4 page) document. Fellow groupies, enjoy. The game of making money in the stock market is deceptively simple. It is one of the few businesses where one makes offensive decisions and is not forced into making defensive ones. You play the game only when and where you wish to. You need only swing at the fat pitches which are over the plate and belly-button height. The stock market is manic-depressant which is ideal. Stocks become severely over and under priced based on non-economic factors. With large institutions handling greater percentages of the money in the market, the market has more of a tendency to over-react on the upside. Always when the stocks dropped the little stockholder would be driven to sell out of fear of losing everything. Now, in addition, when the market moves up the institutions jump in in large numbers because they fear what their clients will say if they miss a major move.(i.e., the fear of losing accounts is the driving force behind institutions). Institutions are basically marketing organizations. They have learned how to evaluate their clients desires and manage the $ the way the client would like to see it managed. The biggest enemy of money managers is too much money under management. There is absolutely no correlation between hours worked or intelligence and money management success, although there may be an inverse correlation (i.e., 80 hours/work + 200 IQ = 0). There is a tremendous correlation between approach and temperament, and investment success. The record is clear that money can be made if: 1. One resists the temptation to be in every game all the time. 2. One maintains an even temperament 3. One has a reasonable knowledge of the subject and interest in it. 4. One is disciplined 5. One keeps a distance between himself and the market (i.e., Buffett believes he benefits tremendously by being in Omaha than in Wall Street.). ... the rest is here http://csinvesting.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/329_Buffett_Seminar_1978.pdf or in the attachment from John Chew, csinvesting.org 329_Buffett_Seminar_19781.pdf

Well in 1996 he already had a 30 year record and he listed his holding in his letter. And he was 'esteemed' enough to write the foreword to Intelligent Investor, so you knew that he was good, what he had done, what he was doing, and what he had bought. Absolutely, positively, no doubt about it!

The quote about simple but not easy, is from Buffett, who advises most to just index. And as Faber points out just buying Buffett's picks would have worked out quite well. sooo... No more from me.

To paraphrase Buffett, it is simple to make money (i.e. outperform) but it is not easy. Some out-performers: Donville Kent Buying Buffett's largest stock positions, see Meb Faber's analysis Use Horizon Kinetics Owner Operator Index Equal weighted index* *I won't get into the philosphical aspects of market weighting, I like my fellow board members too much to weigh in on this obviously heated topic. All of the above have out performed over the long haul. I believe the Tobias Carlyle's mechanical method has also done very well, I personally don't like to rebalance my portfolio every year. (A defect I'm sure.)

Here is an interview with Munger's law partner at Munger, Tolles and Olson. Ronald Olson is a name partner at the law firm, has know Charlie at least 47 years and is on the BRK board of directors. It's a nice perspective on WEB and Charlie http://www.outlookbusiness.com/special-edition/50-master-moves-that-shaped-berkshire-hathaway/there-are-fundamental-differences-in-the-way-that-warren-and-charlie-do-things-902

I was think along those lines myself. hmmmmm.

You can join the forecasting contest here: https://www.gjopen.com/

The skills he promulgates can lead to better investing prowess; see his book or master class on Edge.org