LC

The MSFT CEO was 100% responsible for making the decision to buy Nokia which turned out to be a $10B writeoff. Here the CEO's decision cost the company $10B Warren Buffett is 100% responsible for the decision to buy companies. Is the future success (or failure) of those companies 100% attributable to Warren Buffett?

I think the people over-value the contribution of CEOs. If you hire a new CEO and pay him $30mm more than the last CEO, and the new CEO implements a strategy at the $45B EV company that expands the EV by 1%, then the CEO AND the company have made more money. It's not zero sum. Right, because the success of this strategy is 100% dependent on the CEO. Dude probably just outsourced some labor.

Yeah also...look at it in absolute terms. A $300 car selling for $750. A $3K car selling for $6K. A $15K car selling for $22k. These are not massive numbers. I'd also argue low oil and low interest rates are contributing factors.

The difference is asset prices. Home prices were inflated. Are car prices?

Otherwise, use this as a sounding board. Do some research, post the results, see what the responses are. Also re-read the BAC warrants thread and Eric's thread in the "ask a member" forum. Great way to think about options.

I can't get over the privatized water thing with nestle, but otherwise yea I agree

Everyone says starbucks coffee sucks but they still go there. It reminds me of microsoft: such a good business that even though every single person alive has complained about their operating system at some point, they still buy windows. That's a good business.

Is it weird that Hillary has been very quiet on the media front? Trump has interviews, active on social media, etc. I haven't heard much out of Hillary's camp. Is this normal or am I just looking in the wrong places?

kind of hilarious that it's been 6 months now. does it usually take this long for investment managers to respond to interview questions?

Yea I pretty much despise her. Just a really dirty politician. I'm close to going full anarchist and voting Trump just to watch it all burn (something something forest fire, regrowth, something something)

Politicians are politicians are politicians. We have absolutely no idea about these people's true personalities, and it's useless trying to draw conclusions based on the illusion presented on stages and interviews. Also I love the armchair psychology from you guys.

Another way to look at, from an investment opportunity, is find the "old TV" brands that are being lumped in with the dying ones, but which won't hurt as much from industry shift.

How are they value traps? If the business is performing well and they are priced cheaply, isn't that kind of the opposite?

That makes sense to me. Sorry for the confusion. I should have been more specific :)

My points about pricing power and switch costs were in relation to the dollar shave club, not Google/FB.

The article makes me think about our industry (investing). It is much harder these days to find lasting businesses. There are a few other examples of these disruptors. Casper in mattresses Blue Nile in diamond rings Warby Parker in glasses I'd argue that network type of business are actually lasting business that will go on for a long time. It seems that the network effect has given them a competitive advantage that allows them to have margins way above normal businesses. I don't invest in anything above a PE of 20 but I do think the Googles and Facebooks of this world are much more lasting than low PE investors like me are ready to admit. Regards BeerBaron Do they have pricing power? IMHO relatively little Are there high switching costs? IMHO relatively little

counterpoints for the first two: -possibly inflated book value (what are the earnings?) -possibly unsustainable/unreliable earnings (what has reliably flowed to shareholders over the past 5 years?) sometimes cheap is cheap for a good reason, sometimes it's not. I am not here to push my stocks on you, I understand you have a legit reason for aversion to them. I am simply arguing with the OP who said that there the market is overvalued. I believe a 25yr old WEB can make 50% in this market. Yeah, nobody pushes stocks on me anymore. Learned that the hard way. Value investing, in my mind, means there is value in the asset greater than its market value. The first two assets you listed, I presented my reasons why the asset value may not be greater than the market value. Saying the market is overvalued is a useless statement unless you are shorting the market. The 'market' is simply a collection of assets. You have not presented a case why the assets you mentioned are trading for less than intrinsic value. Book value =/= intrinsic value Last years earnings =/= intrinsic value I believe a 25yr old WEB can make 50% in this market. Based on what evidence?

Realize DSC also has tons of user data and other ancillary benefits to unilever

The Kelly Criterion has assumptions that fail to be met when applied to investing. As a result, we should use another methodology. I would guess that methodology would be outstandingly complex and nearly impossible to use. I bet Jurgis purposefully picked a very interesting example. Jurgis didn't pick the example, prunes did (see May 4 above) Kelly criterion works best when odds can be calculated with very high accuracy, and the game continues such that there is always another round to play. Investing doesn't really meet those criteria.

counterpoints for the first two: -possibly inflated book value (what are the earnings?) -possibly unsustainable/unreliable earnings (what has reliably flowed to shareholders over the past 5 years?) sometimes cheap is cheap for a good reason, sometimes it's not.

Fair enough, I'm sure u know there's more "hair" on those types of companies. I'm talking my own book here but I think there's value in the higher end of the quality curve as well. Easier to stomach for me personally.

For one there are profitable companies selling for less than tangible book value. Strictly speaking, TBV can be vastly overstated. That has nothing to do with profitability. Take insurers for instance, with massive long-term asset. Is book value the true value of these assets? I'm not sure.

Well, to be fair, she asked terrible questions. She repeated herself ad nauseum. And generally I thought she had zero ability to conduct an interview and was instead fishing for soundbites.

I'm no trump supporter but that interviewer was also terrible. Shrill and clueless. Trump was a doofus as always. And Mike Pence doesn't seem like an idiot so I guess he's just shilling out for whatever will increase his political stock.

A practical example of this i think it's weed in Amsterdam. The prices at the "coffee shops" are significantly higher than what one would pay at a dealer. I disagree. Amsterdam is not a truly representative sample to select. Amsterdam has, for decades, been an oasis for "legal" drug usage within Europe and the Western world. This has skewed the underlying economics, as it is has become less about the actual drug use and more about the tourism component. For a better example, take a look at Colorado to see the effect marijuana legalization has had. Surplus state government budget (they tax weed sales). Reduced crime. Controlled usage. Price and product transparency throughout the industry. I am moving from NYC to DEN...it is night and day. Here in NYC I would need to "know somebody" to buy marijuana. Which usually involves either buying it from friends if I'm lucky, or having some random dude show up to my apartment. And I have no idea what I'm really buying. In Denver, I go to a dispensary. It's clean, controlled, and well-serviced. They check my ID before they let me inside. Cameras monitor the entire store. They employee good people, pay taxes, and run a legitimate business. They list the product details, THC % levels, etc. In Denver there are no more street dealers for weed. None. There is zero demand for their services. I say, fuck it, legalize it nationwide and start legalizing other drugs too. Anyone who thinks people aren't doing drugs because they're illegal is an idiot and knows nothing about human nature. That's half the reason doing drugs is "cool"!