LC

I see no difference between the two. Frankly I try to avoid using the term "asset". Marty Whitman goes on-and-on about how investors are misguided by the income statement and forget the balance sheet. Well they're the same damn thing (mostly), at least in my mind. "Assets" are just things which produce "earnings". The only thing that matters is how much earnings and for how long. And your description of "Asset" is also odd. Take canary wharf - incredibly valuable, but how much is it worth in the middle of mississippi or at the bottom of the atlantic? Using labels just promotes lazy work. "Durable" assets like real estate - how "durable" were they during COVID? Meanwhile tech/software did great because those "less durable" assets were actually...more durable? Screw the labels and just try to estimate the earnings streams

Well said.

rb, I was waiting for someone to call that out :D

How are u sizing the position, Greg? It seems somewhat speculative (the monetization aspect, not the underlying science) but you seem to have strong conviction.

When the opposition is reduced to a single, lone, miserable voice, even when they are spouting total nonsense, that is when it is most important that they have a voice and are not silenced.

It was a general point that resources invested in a child go way further than more resources invested in an adult. In other words, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. You can adjust the specific numbers however you’d like.

My kids went to good public schools in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, but If I had to do it over again, I think I would have put them in a Montessori type school in the younger grades. Kindergarten for sure. Forcing young kids into desks for hours on end had got to be the most unnatural thing we do to them. Sex education of any type at 5 years old is insane as well. Let kids be kids. By the time high school comes around any good school private or good public will do. My kids used to come home from school and tell me how their teachers or administrators were trying to brainwash them. Simply being raised right by you should be enough of an immunity to that type of nonsense. agree. Financial wise, I would say if one could save $1m or even half a million, and put that the stock market, earning 5-7% annually, you have an "endowment" for your kid's education. Actually, if you put $100k in TSLA a couple years back, now you would have $1m, and you can put that $1m in BRK earning 7% per year, you are all set. :) Well the problem is that kids learn much more, much quicker at an early age. Yes maybe 100k will turn into 10m in 20 years, but can your kid learn as well at 30 years old or at 10? I’d rather spend the money upfront because you will get much more value teaching a kid vs teaching an adult. And I think a kid is better off being smart and middle class rather than dumb and wealthy.

El Paso, Texas reaches hospitalization capacity.

You can lead a horse to water... I know kids from big east coast schools Dalton, Exeter/Andover, etc...I would estimate the “success” rate on what they’ve done with their lives is similar to kids from less renowned schools.

Another tangent to SD’s post. Those who do not “fit the mold” may be a better choice also because they realize that “the mold” does not matter. It reminds me of stories of Fermi, who while creating the worlds first nuclear reactor, would also help the cleaning crew and janitors empty trash and tidy up at the end of the day, to his colleagues bewilderment and amusement.

Great Video of Feynman. I agree that laymen should be not be prescribing medicine but we should be challenging doctors and other experts when they might be wrong after we have done thinking and research. In the last year my Dad has had a cardiologist give very bad advice and another doc wanted to remove part of his Colon. The Colon removal was highly unethical, bad advice and unnecessary and the doc was ashamed and backed down after my Dad confronted him. (Incentives are powerful). If you are not challenging you doctors at times then you are not optimizing you health. I have seen this too many times where the doctor puts money over the health of the patient. I have also heard stories of Orthopedic surgeons getting drunk at weddings and then laughing at all the unnecessary back surgery they do. Caveat Emptor. Yes I agree. That is why it’s important to distinguish between authority and expertise. A diagnosis isn’t valid just because a doctor delivers it (authority) but on its merits (expertise).

This is one of my most hated biases but I also think it is one misunderstood and it's important to be clear on what the actual bias is. Richard Feynman called it "honors": In his words, it is "rotten" and I agree. But at the same time, people sometimes mistake authority with expertise. To use your eardrop example - yes there was miscommunication, but that does not mean the nurse, nor yourself or WebMD, nor your tax accountant or politician of choice, should be the one examining and prescribing medicine for your ear ache.

I think so. It adds no investment value and has morphed into a useless distraction to bicker amongst ourselves. Also I think Sanjeev has mentioned it will be removed in the next major update to the website but he would have to confirm that

Oh wow, RIP Rick.

This is counterintuitive, but if you actually allow more real estate developers, fewer zoning restrictions and let them build lot more, that would increase the supply so that price can come down to construction cost of buildings. Anyway, Covid should help now by effectively increasing supply by decreasing demand for needing to take the train to downtown everyday, so that folks can move further out or to other towns. This is true in theory but not necessarily in practice, particularly in cities. Many of the building costs are one-time fixed costs, for example laying foundation, walkways, utility hookups, HVAC units, permitting, etc. Why this matters is that it encourages over-building, as the incremental cost to laying a new floor is minimal.

A question to orthopa (really anyone willing to take a crack at it): If the vast majority of excess deaths would have occurred over the next coming months ("life expectance is months"), then why has there been no observed trend of "under-mortality" to the tune of 100k+ in the 6-7 months past the initial spike? Or to borrow Cigarbutt's wording of the same sentiment: Taking the NYC excess mortality data for example, even forgetting the cause (direct, indirect, marginal or even lockdown related) of deaths for analytic purposes (life expectancy lost because of whatever happened during the excess mortality period), if the life expectancy of all those who died was a few days, weeks or months, how is it mathematically or logically possible that excess mortality has not reversed in the negative direction now that reported Covid deaths have gone down to very low levels (close to zero) for months?

There are a few posts from back in March: https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/coronavirus/msg401471/#msg401471 https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/coronavirus/msg401476/#msg401476 That illustrate the desire for widespread, early testing was not just to find more positives and feed the flame. I'll quote myself from 8 months ago: For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

Quite ironic considering in Feb/Mar/Apr many folks were pleading for increased testing to determine accurate infection and spread statistics, but were met with resistance (what good will testing do!?).

Yea but Greg there is some inconsistency, because here is what seems to be the "right-wing" interpretation of these events (feel free to correct me here, though): Virus released from Wuhan lab: No evidence, but let's believe it and take commensurate actions regardless. Mail in voter fraud: No evidence, but let's believe it and take commensurate actions regardless. Third wave of coronavirus: No evidence, b-Don't you dare suggest lockdowns without evidence! I am all for prudency, and I have no problem (in fact I would encourage) states to strengthen their processes around mail-in voting. And I think the US government and international health groups should investigate the Wuhan lab for their controls around these viruses. Of course this would be a lot easier if USA was still a leading, influential member of the WHO...

Go for a fishing trip! Heck, you might land this sweet catch:

Frank, this is becoming too reasonable for such a contentious topic. I think the reason is because this is difficult to implement. First, what is the cutoff? 30 years old let's say? Sounds reasonable, maybe +/- 5 or so years. Now even with a threshold, not many aspects of society are so cleanly segmented by age. Schools would be the most obvious one, but even those are filled with teachers and administrators. In theory it makes sense but I think implementation is the challenge.

Though I disagree with the policy prescription, I think that's fair. See and that's also my own bias. I live a comfortable life and I am young in the context of COVID. I can afford social distancing. There's an old line from that Dirty Jobs show, where the host (Mike Rowe) questions the whole, "safety first" attitude. Sometimes, he argues, it's "safety second, or third". And that was in the context of the working class / paycheck-to-paycheck individuals. To say nothing of age ranges for which this virus has disparate impacts. So how do we both protect people and allow people to work and live? Well first, what do we know? There was a violent initial spike, a somewhat extended but less-deadly second wave, and now we are entering flu season. OK - so then what is the optimal response here? I think it is reasonable to plan for something closer to the "second wave". This is a compromise between both extremes: the initial violent spike on one end, and a situation where COVID has essentially run its course on the other end. So then I would argue the optimal response would be continued mask wearing, some social distancing in high-exposure cities and events, and statewide-tailored responses with federal support for things like medical resources, unemployment resources, if needed.

It is when you hunt it with your M-16!!!

And I've made my approach to assessing COVID severity very clear: I assume all excess deaths in 2020 are COVID-caused. I believe nobody can forecast with certainty whether a third wave will occur or not. Therefore, I believe prudency is necessary. If positive cases are increasing, social policies should be increased commensurately - in case those positive cases turn into excess deaths.

This is you having it both ways: