LC

Jamie Lannister's thoughts on bitcoin: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/12/jpmorgan-ceo-jamie-dimon-raises-flag-on-trading-revenue-sees-20-percent-fall-for-the-third-quarter.html

You could use two screens: one which measures overall share count reduction over ten years (or whatever timeframe). then a second screen like the one provided, which screens for regular buybacks (X% per year). simply remove screen 2 results from screen 1 results and you're left with the "bulk" repurchasers.

Wow. Mental note: never incorporate in Alabama (or if I want to slush money out of a company I solely own, incorporate in Alabama)

Any idea about the average Fico for ADS customers? My concern is outsized exposure to the low end of consumer credit.

Paging Nate...

Best investment in 2017 was 3M (+40%) and PM (+30%). Those are like 1.5 year returns, not 2017 YTD. Going forward I don't see much. Took a small position in DVA. Larger positions in CMP and C.

No problems here. Do you use an ad blocker? Try clearing your browser cache?

I think the research paper that racemize performed suggested that you should remain invested as long as you still can find undervalued positions. My take is that, even if the market is going loco, if there are still a few pockets of value, then it pays to stay invested in those.

Ehh...I use it as kind of a gut check. Doing a completely private valuation is essentially saying you know everything better than the market does. And maybe you do, but it's helpful to see what the general consensus is around companies in the same industry. It's a triangulation tool. So yea, maybe you think P&G is a bit better than Unilever and deserves a slightly higher earnings multiple, but if all the CPGs are trading around 20x earnings and your valuation comes in at 35x, it gives you a second to pause and re-evaluate.

debt coverage, interest coverage are the two most important to me. i don't usually look in the bargain bin of stocks, so take that for what it is.

Response: "Anyone caught with western items will be shot on sight"

Took a starter position in DVA.

About time. Talk about a wart on humanity's backside.

why don't you think that residential solar is all that smart? is it a price point thing or a economies of scale thing or something else? I had a discussion with another user about it over on this thread: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/america-1st/msg302262/#msg302262 Essentially it comes down to this: The large gap in per-MWh costs between utility- and residential-scale systems results principally from: (a) lower total plant costs per installed kilowatt for larger facilities; and (b) greater solar electric output from the same PV capacity (300 MW-DC) due to optimized panel placement, tracking and other economies of scale and efficiencies associated with utility-scale installations.

I think the real winners will be the utility companies that can build economically-feasible solar plants. I don't think any of the hardware sellers will do particularly well. The other parties I think may do well are the contractors building/servicing these sites, and perhaps residential solar financing groups (I don't think residential solar is all that smart, but people still do it and usually get financing).

I was just going to post, asking about how to import a company's most recent dividend into google sheets. Anyone have a snippet I can copy? Cheers 8)

I think the death of the traditional CPG is a bit overblown. Distribution of both marketing material and the actual product has definitely changed. Tide ads are on certain websites I or my wife visit. And I get my laundry and dishwasher pods (or whatever they're called) via Amazon usually. But tide pods are still the best of the brands in my mind, and priced a buck or two higher than the competition. The biggest reason the big CPGs will survive is there really are economies of scale. In terms of hundreds of millions of people cleaning their clothes and dishes, it's a helluva lot more economical to produce billions of tide pods in centralized locations vs. some lady in her kitchen making homemade soap.

is it because 291,000 = 291.00 (comma used as decimal)?

I don't agree with this part. Why are those your only two options? Why bother paying that 1% in the first place to Merrill for S&P performance? Just buy the SP500 index. From a client's perspective, the best situation is to invest with a manager whose net worth is tied to the fund (downside protection), and who is paid on a performance basis above the risk-less alternative (incentivize upside). If I had a few million to my name and I wanted to start a fund, I would charge a 20% performance fee above the 10-year treasury rate hurdle.

Also bought MO (and sold out of PM to offset) - thanks for the tip, Lance. The reason MO fell today was this byline from the FDA's announcement: Agency to pursue lowering nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels and create more predictability in tobacco regulation Only by reading the entire FDA press release would one would have seen the following: Importantly, the anticipated new enforcement policy will not affect any current requirements for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, only the newly-regulated tobacco products such as cigars and e-cigarettes.

I think he was joking :o ;D

Sold the balance of my position in MMM. Nice gain over the last 1.5 years but the reason I bought (attractive 4+% dividend, below SP500 earnings yield) no longer holds (2.3% dividend, earnings yield about equal to SP500). The two most attractive investments to me are Citi and Compass Minerals, but I am wary of being too overweight. Would like to redeploy into Berkshire, Philip Morris, RELX, but not sure I can justify buying at these prices.

I have nothing valuable to add here, but holy shit, this thread spans hundreds of pages, over 6 years, for a stock that has barely moved.

I wouldn't call it a huge bubble. Here's the historical SP500 P/E back to 1928: http://www.macrotrends.net/2577/sp-500-pe-ratio-price-to-earnings-chart Frothy? Yes.

I've argued this on other points, but I'm not sure I agree. A lot of society is pretty developed. We've built the highways, the dams, the housing, the utilities, the railroads, the oil rigs/drills, etc. From here on, it's mostly maintenance. And what we are building, we're building cheaper. Of course there's still other areas of the world which are under-developed, but it's shrinking every day. And now we're building robots to do all the manual work, so even the human capital element is decreasing. I think over the next 50 years, we're going to be less of a capital-intensive society. That's what I hope for at least. And that is one of the big reasons I think returns on capital (interest rates) are low.