LC

Seems silly to me...removing the most popular part of the product? True genius. Next thing the email feature of Gmail will be replaced with an interactive game of telephone.

Which is why you would use Kelly's. 8) I hate that damn formula! :D Just because it is precise, does not mean it is accurate. It fools people in that way. In reality, we are all probably not-so-great at determining exact probabilities and expected outcomes. Take the common-sense lesson from the kelly formula: safer stocks with higher potential outcomes deserve more of your investment dollar than risky stocks with lower potential outcomes. But most people don't need a formula to tell them that...

Could you elaborate? Yeah, so usually the idea is saying, well OK I think the value of this company is $100 (EV = 100), but I can buy it at P=75 and sell somewhere around $100. In this case the ceiling is 100, and you buy below that. But take the same example. What's the worst case scenario, tail risk, etc.? Your $100 EV is just the average of a bunch of probabilities. How does that distribution look? In other words, the EV = 100 but P1=0 and P2=200 is much different investment than EV=100, P1=95, P2=105. For the second, your floor is essentially 95. For the first, your floor is bankruptcy. But same EV.

On second thought I'd go with the first option. It's all about expected value, but I think your example is a bit extreme to illustrate it. 1) and 3) look like the same thing to me. I'd also think about expected loss as a floor vs. expected value used as a ceiling. The second option is how you run into value traps.

I would say the second. 1 and 3 require repeated tries to reach expected value. You might hit zero in your first four tries and now are bankrupt and can't continue.

I voted Sanjeev. Bezos would be my other choice but I have never interacted with him. Honesty and integrity are characteristics at the top of the list of what i would be looking for...I just don't have the ability to pick the next maniac-level uber-investor like Buffett.

Heh...this topic came up recently over beers. An ex-analyst said a popular NYC manager almost never read the Ks (but of course all the analysts did)

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)?