LC

I agree, The real test will be if the people selling out for millions will be buying back in.

Here is a good news website for insurance related items: http://www.artemis.bm/

Hey all, Thought of a good idea for a topic: perhaps we as a board can create a compilation of good quality industry/trade resources (preferably free). Here is one to start if off: https://www.dslreports.com/ This is a great website for anything cable/telco related. I have been a member for probably 15 years now, back when I was a computer nerd in high school. The members there are current of ex- industry workers and intelligent customers and enthusiasts. It is frequented by people working 'in the trenches' (e.g. service repairmen, engineers, etc.) so you get some great commentary. They do an excellent job (mostly) of distilling information from a non-investment perspective, which provides a great counterbalance from an investment-focused perspective.

Why am I not surprised you're a pats fan? ;D ;D ;D

Mentally I focus on the whole entity. Because it starts from revenues and sales are agnostic.

Maybe this topic will 'trickle down' to the politics section. ;D ;D

Teamwork makes the dream work!

Which is essentially paying $18,800/year for 5 years (or about 100k) for your Canadian citizenship. For US healthcare, it's crazy expensive if you're not on an employer-sponsored plan. It's absolutely ridiculous. If I was retired or whatnot, and not wealthy, I would not be living here. I always ask, who is getting rich from all this? Is it the doctors? I don't think so. The government? Doubtful. Insurance/Pharma? Now we're getting warm... Or you could apply to come up here as a regular person under the regular immigration program. That'll only cost you a few grand for processing background checks, etc. The difference is that you wait in line for a couple of years. But once you're here you still get the healthcare. We're nice like that. :) Btw, why wouldn't you live in the US if you were retired? As fat as I know once you hit 65 you go on Medicare and you're on easy street healthcare wise. Well, my personal situation is unique...I had the (pre-birth, haha) foresight of instructing my grandparents to emigrate to Canada from Italy and have my grandmother give birth to my mother during their 10 year 'layover' in Quebec before moving to New York. Come the great age of 17 I applied for and was granted Canadian citizenship based on my mother's citizenship. It was much more palatable for a 17 year old with no money and no idea wtf to do with his life, to pay $4k/yr for tuition vs. the prevailing rate of $30k/year in the US. Citizenship is a valuable option. You can take your skills to whichever country provides the most compensation for those skills, and whichever country provides social services when you need them.

Which is essentially paying $18,800/year for 5 years (or about 100k) for your Canadian citizenship. For US healthcare, it's crazy expensive if you're not on an employer-sponsored plan. It's absolutely ridiculous. If I was retired or whatnot, and not wealthy, I would not be living here. I always ask, who is getting rich from all this? Is it the doctors? I don't think so. The government? Doubtful. Insurance/Pharma? Now we're getting warm...

Interesting to note how WB assessed risk.

The other difficulty is that WB/CM have been evolving with the company. They have been making allocation decisions as the war chest has grown and as the annual CFs have grown.

I don't think that person exists. I think it exists for certain vacuums (insurance, op biz, stock investments). If it were me (ha!), I would institute a dividend or repurchase program. Then, priority of capital goes Jain>Abel>T&T.

The scientific method works! ;D

Probably more profitable to be a perma-bull unless proven otherwise.

Look at this another way: examine what banks were doing in 2005-2007. Were they returning capital or growing their loans?

Hey I think I found it! https://www.dropbox.com/s/haqe3psl29u1scx/October_Quest_2013.pdf?dl=0 I got the name (PG) wrong (well kind of, he does an analysis of PG India vs. PG) but the general point is there. It's essentially about the undervaluation of quality businesses. We think 25x earnings is not undervalued but in many cases that turns out to be exactly the case. I.e. 'good business at fair price'.

Cigarbutt, I have been trying to find the study for years now. I read it about 5 years or so ago. I think it was published by Sanjay Bankshay (spelling?) For your questions 1) If it underperformed the S&P over that timeframe (incl dividends etc etc) then definitely not...so that I guess it the hole in the armor 2) I really don't know for the second question...perhaps? My perspective is skewed because I wasnt alive for that market, so I don't know if investors were more blue-chip hold-forever inspired? I really just don't know. 3) I don't think so ;D ;D

The problem with this is that it keeps people out of the game in "reasonable" times. Jan 2017, people thought the market was reasonably valued. A lot of people kept cash on the sidelines. That hurt as 2017 ended. IMHO, investors need to keep in mind two things: (1) financial gravity aka interest rates, and (2) long-term value. Long-term value may mean buying something at 20x earnings because firstly, nothing else is cheap, and secondly, it will continue growing value because it is a good business. I am continuously reminded of a study where someone analyzed blue-chips in the 50s/60s/70s, and calculated their earnings yield at the time, vs. using a DCF over the next 20 years and calculating what their earnings yield "should have" been. PG for example was trading at something like 25-30x earnings (aka traditionally "expensive") but really should have been trading at like 55-60x earnings because it was a good business that kept growing.

FWIW I agree on valuation. I sold my 3M shares over the summer (of course it then ran up another $20/sh so take anything I say with big ole grain of salt)

US bancorp

In terms of earnings calls (aka mgmt commentary) - I only found these useful once I already had my own opinion about the business. When you don't really know anything, it is tempting to read mgmt's comments and simply adopt their view. It is more useful to first establish your own opinion and then compare/contrast your perspective with mgmt's perspective. One thing I would note is the question, "what does management think is important, and why? does it agree with what I think is important? why or why not?"

Hard question to answer. If I had to guess, it would be I realized more and more what DROVE the valuation. What factors to focus on/are most important. One of the best exercises I did was the following: I would first read the annual report, look thru 10 years or so of financials, do whatever qualitative research, and then after all that, I would essentially have a mock negotiation. I would try and imagine two warren buffett's, one who owned the company and the other who was trying to buy the company. So two parties who were equally shrewd, already super duper rich, and each knowing as much information as the other. What would the transaction price be between those two? And I would pretty much write out a conversation where it started by the buyer offering $1 and the seller offering $1 trillion (or something equally absurd). And just triangulate some value from there. So like, the buyer would say 'well you've got 20B of debt therefore..." and the seller would go "well it just made 100M of FCF so..." Maybe it sounds silly but I'll tell you it worked really well.

I would add in some qualitative research. My best education was reading 10ks and doing some light qualitative research, then writing my price on the 10k cover, then compare to the market cap. Do that 20 times and you will learn.

Bullshit. "There is this undercurrent of a feeling like you’re prostituting yourself in order to get ahead because, let’s be real, if you’re dating someone powerful, it can open doors for you. And that’s what women who make the calculation to play the game want, but they don’t know all the risks associated with it,” she said. “If you do participate in these sex parties, don’t ever think about starting a company or having someone invest in you. Those doors get shut. But if you don’t participate, you’re shut out. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” This is incorrect:. Damned if you do? Some of these women do parlay what they're doing into funding and careers they would never have had. I know some of them firsthand. Damned if you don't? There are handfuls of people who think they "deserve" funding or a promotion or whatever. Men and women. Hell, if I was born with a silver spoon and a fat trust fund, I wouldn't be working a 9-5. Color me unsympathetic.