LC

I believe all of the above (with the exception of possible extinction) were widely believed before both of the major world wars in the last century. Agreed. Don't overestimate the decisions of humans in large groups.

I'm not sure if an MBA will turn into the textile industry...but as a student studying for an MBA, I am finding that the networking opportunities are more valuable than the classroom experience. But maybe that's because I've read so much Buffett & Munger, for some other students the coursework is all new to them so they get more value from it.

Oh boy! Thanks for the link, Liberty...for what it's worth, my fiancee agrees with my results :D

I use PM :P

A good free presentation tool is prezi (prezi.com)

I agree with wellmont... if it was a corporation, would they not write down the value of the options to zero and claim a loss? Then if it was sold in the following year for a nominal amount, that amount would be some type of recovered gain. Would the same thing work for an individual?

Wow, what a gesture. Thanks for being a great person :)

Many thanks for the explanation!

Correct, 'Asperger's' is now recognized as being on the Autism spectrum of disorders. Does anyone have a link or copy of Schroeder's PaineWebber report of BRK? I'd love to see her methodology in-depth. Being...11 years old at the time I didn't quite jump over the other kids in the class to get a copy from my local broker :D

Some of these (and I am no doctor) sound like symptoms of asperger's, which Burry has been diagnosed with.

Thanks...that is exactly how I would expect Buffett to talk about this situation.

I think that quote needs to be put in context. Is he simply trying to teach an economic fact of the decreasing utility of money, or if it is some type of justification for his choice? I've always felt that argument comes takes an "uncharitable" point of view by focusing on the utility of the person with the funds and not the recipient of the funds.

Curious if anyone has knowledge of this this: Those equity index puts that created issues with the rating agencies. I think the reason he had difficulty with those is that he knew immediately how to price them and that the odds were very high that they would make money for Berkshire, if looked at on their own as contracts. The other elements that were subjective — the way they would create short-term volatility in the balance sheet; the way hedgers might respond; the regulating agencies — these didn’t come into the equation because the trained, automatic part of his mind fastened on how much money could be made and the probability. If you think about it carefully you realize how costly the equity index puts were in the financial crisis. Berkshire got the float from them to invest, but its negotiations with the rating agencies meant that, at a time when markets were in turmoil, during the very crisis that Warren had been waiting for all those years to put the tens of billions of dollars to cash to work, he couldn’t do it. He was able to participate in the market crash only in a tepid way. That opportunity cost has to be offset against the expected profit from those equity index puts. They weren’t worth it. Can anyone fill in more detail, especially regarding how Buffett was unable to pounce in 2008 due to negotiations? Was he unable to invest cash because of these puts on the B/S which would somehow affect BRK's credit/collateral reqs?

I raised the point, Buffett did in fact say it (there is a Youtube video), and it is obviously an extreme example being used to illustrate the fact that money can sway people from more productive purposes to less productive ones. My point was that there is a line when that level of "swaying" becomes harmful to society...feel free to disagree but let's not turn this into the Apple thread. Edit: To prove my impartiality, I just posted an interview with Alice Schroeder which is quite critical of Buffett. Just saying :D

http://seekingalpha.com/article/235292-behind-the-scenes-with-buffett-s-biographer-alice-schroeder I encourage this read. It may seem long but well worth it. Alice makes it quite clear how ruthless Warren can be and how well-versed he is in manipulation, if you want to call it that. *From 2010 as Liberty pointed out. Thanks :)

Now if he said that, I think it's a silly comment. He knows that artists are artists, and scientists are scientists. An extreme example yes, but take this case: How many talented and potentially great scientists, computer programmers, and IT professionals are/were attracted by lofty salaries to high-frequency trading outfits at JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc. over the last decade?

True, but as with everything I think there's a line. Buffett said something to the effect of how he could pay thousands of people to sit and paint portraits of him all day for years on end, but it would take away from productive uses in society: those people could be researching diseases, etc. and so he's not going to do that. Now, do I think a portrait for your family is somehow a bad thing? Of course not, I'm just saying that this type of consumption for consumption's sake type of economic activity goes very quickly from being useful to being harmful to society at large.

Stock price influences compensation agreements, M&A activity, etc. Lets say the world just sold every stock tomorrow. Heck, I could go around buying ownership stakes in companies and run them into the ground if I wanted. No more fertilizer, energy production, etc.

Also...let's define investing as allocating capital. Moving resources from wasteful aspects of society to productive ones. That eventually makes everyone better off.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone :)

Does the US intelligence even know if the US has nukes? Cheap shot NSA, sorry! :)

Hey, congrats to you both! It is pretty astounding how many accomplished individuals are members of this forum...thank you both for all the insights in your posts.

That's awesome! Congrats on finally being offered a great price to buy something worth following for 20 years.

Boy, Bruce really should think about a career in politics.

Sounds like a way to shift old assets into the gov'ts hands while privatizing the ability to write new mortgage insurance...probably to AIG as has been mentioned as they're one of the few companies with the scale to do so. IMHO not a serious proposal: if the gov't takes them up on this I will be pretty upset as a taxpayer over such a fleecing.