wknecht

" When the price/value equation is right, this path is the easiest and most certain way for us to increase your wealth." WEB in this report. What is unclear about that which you disagree with.

Think it adds to BVPS simply because shares are being issued at a premium to book. Doesn't mean it's accretion to value.

CACC seems like a decent example. They skip the whole prepared remarks part of calls, repeat the same things over and over, and sometimes buttons heads with analysts. They strike me as data driven, so they don't go out on limbs on the calls making claims they can't back up. Generally shareholder friendly though. Good shareholder letters (a bit repetitive, but a lot of big picture things that shouldn't change much year to year), good shareholder Q&A on webaite, great performance.

Yes, very much so. Especially at the low end. I enjoy browsing Craigslist for cars and trucks, just browsing keeping pace with prices. The prices that people are asking for low end junkers is crazy. 17 year old Tacoma with 175k miles, $7k: http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/5730759423.html 16 year old Buick Le Sabre $3900: http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/ctd/5733247620.html (this should be an $1800 car max) 14 year old Camry: 3500 note the hood won't close, obvious accident damage: http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/5730482118.html Prices for used cars at subprime lots are in the $7-10k range now. In the past they were typically in the $3-6k range. I should have just posted this and let it linger. 1998 Dodge Neon for $800, has a brand new motor (what else is bad..??) has 144k miles cracked dashboard covered with tape. Guarantee this thing shifts like a rock around 2nd or 3rd gear: http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/5714356377.html That's a crazy price. I remember looking at cars similar to this back before the crisis and they were in the $350 range. Cars are depreciating assets. The system isn't built around the assumption that their value will always rise, which facilitated the credit card treatment of houses and exacerbated the problem when that assumption proved wrong.

Is this thread about the presidential election? Are folks decisions really being driven by differing tax policies? To me, that seems like an irrelevant detail in the context of this election.

If I'm understanding your hypothetical scenario, it sounds like a situation you could pay well in excess of 15mm and very safely earn far higher than 10%. yeah you're right. I didn't verify the math. I guess I could pay at most $48M to earn 10% or greater, as long as I could re-invest my coupons at 10%. Do some research on arbitrage (not saying that in a sarcastic way at all). You could pay a way higher price and still achieve 10%. Ignoring double taxation as your hypothetical was for conceptual illustration not details. Arbitrage isn't really the point though, the point is market prices and different amounts of risk in the underlying investments matter. And risks can often be hedged (if desired).

If I'm understanding your hypothetical scenario, it sounds like a situation you could pay well in excess of 15mm and very safely earn far higher than 10%.

Wells Fargo's online banking platform is the worst of all major banks that I know (far inferior to BofA) and even my small CU is better than what these guys came up with. They have not really changed anything in their banking interface for about 10 years as far as I can tell. And don't get me started in Wells Fargo Brokerage, although the latter has been recently updated. It is simply amazing that a major bank has such an antiquated inline Interface. Their IT budget must be really really small... The point was more thematic, but understood.

VaR (value at risk) was near perfect super computed mathematical model of risk right? How'd that work out in 2008....? If there is garbage data in the system (and any system with humans contains it because we're not rational and do weird things that don't make sense) then you can't predict anything with perfect accuracy. Yes, and not to mention the massive government intervention in all the data all of these models are calibrated to and likely will be in the future.

Sorry it was this one at around the 48 minute mark https://youtu.be/R2MV6CpGCwU

Dick Kovacavich talks about this branch question from a big banks perspective here if I recall: His basic point is it doesn't matter for big banks. Branches are just a different distribution channel that isn't smart to ignore. As long as it's justified from an economic standpoint they'll build branches of one type or another. And they're also a great online bank, so they'll adapt their distribution as tastes change. A good video in general.

Will be interesting to see what happens to the stock today. Might be an opportunity to add. 10 year UST approaching 1.5. If sustained, would be a boost to their bonds, particularly given they have been weary of credit.

How was his compensation similar? My understanding is that it wasn't very similar. They charge on AUM/committed capital, Buffett didn't. Buffett had a true return hurdle (vast majority of PE doesn't, they get catchup or no hurdle; not sure about HF). I thought Buffett's issue with most structures is the pay for non-performance. He only got paid after his LPs made money.

1.4% for the year in USD. Not too pleased with the result. I have ~25% in BRK, so it could have been worse. Averaged 26% in cash.

Thanks. I totally agree and of course feel bad for folks that are starving or struggling greatly. Regardless of whether it was due to bad decisions or something they couldn't control (lost job, health situation etc.). Except for my last sarcastic comment, which I can see the other side of, I was thinking of the retiring generation in general - which is usually the context I hear people discuss this issue. The Fed's trying to get the economy going with low interest rates. That is fine from my perspective because this benefits the most number of people. But is not a big picture result that a gap is being filled by savers (full disclosure: I am one), not the retirees (who are dissavers)? People seem to think that it's the retirees (in general) that are filling the gap via low rates. Wah, wah, life's not fair for savers, I get it. I just think the cause and effect should be understood.