LC

For that, randomized antibody testing studies would be better. I agree. Why isn't it happening?

Not to mention more accurate transmission rates and exposure rates which could potentially justify reopening “the economy”, rather than making less educated estimates.

How do we know where it "matters most"? Masks. Nursing homes where more effort is put in separating infected from not infected. Better ventilation and training at Nursing homes. The only reason we know this is because of the extensive testing which was done and continues to be done. And since you’re so concerned with wasted resources, if we had tested more people much sooner, States would not have been fighting over masks and ventilators for weeks. And existing masks and ventilators would have been allocated more efficiently.

Starter positions in livenation and cloudflare

Why did they sell Berkshire now? Berkshire has owned highly regulated businesses for years. Same with its bank portfolio. It hasn't met those aspects of Akre's criteria for a long time - so why sell now? Perhaps Akre doesn't believe Berkshire fits the remainder of his criteria, perhaps: Enduring, predictable high ROEs* and FCF** Identifiable, sustainable competitive advantages Pricing power in excess of costs, inflation protection

How do we know where it "matters most"?

Other countries have tested more people per capita than S Korea, without the draconian measures. I fail to see how less information is more useful.

It does to me but my opinion isn’t worth hundreds of billions.

Bought some BRK, PM

I don't think so (or let's say, I hope not). China needs strong allies before furthering aggression. Weak oil prices hurt Russia which indirectly hurts China's political sway.

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_34.html

We've turned into a decidedly average country with a wide tailed distribution ;D ;D

ATT bought back about 5.3B in Q1 (aprox 2%)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/us/politics/rick-bright-coronavirus-whistleblower.html We are a well functioning democracy. We are a well functioning democracy. :-X :-X :-X

No, Taleb is being cheeky in an attempt to appear smart on twitter. If you don't assume what is called a Markov process, then you are left in a much worse (and less sensible) place.

Out of respect for Greg and in the name of true journalism, I'll only be posting twitter links now :D Apparently coronavirus was present in France in December: https://www.politico.eu/article/france-looks-into-suspected-coronavirus-case-dating-back-to-december/

Maybe this is what you meant, but I think your statement is only accurate when you NEED the specific real estate for the business. A coffee shop which owns the building is more stable. A software firm that owns an office building is less safe. For lease accounting I generally think, is this necessary for the business? If this lease is cancelled, does it cause serious impairment? I mean, if a retailer gets kicked out of all its leases, that is a huge deal. Revenue is going to zero. But look at the tech companies - they've been functioning without office space for over a month now. But 99% of the time I capitalize leases regardless, essentially when you do any capitalization of earnings you are implicitly capitalizing all the associated expenses.

Yes and just for sizing purposes - it is currently a 7% position - started around 5%, went up to 10% as I bought more, now down to 7% due to market price declines and me allocating a greater % of funds elsewhere. If the price were to run up (or the rest of the portfolio were to drop dramatically in relation) I would certainly trim a fair bit to offset my cost basis, also I think I need to keep it at-or-under a 7.5% position due to the uncertainty around the core business.

I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government. You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism. I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D lc...you're dragging me back in. What does 70 year data have to do with anything? China was allowed free trade by Clinton in 2000. And through most of that time we've had artificially low interest rates and huge deficits to maintain our broken system. If I were wrong, we wouldn't have the current leadership we do now either. ;) I would further suggest some historical review of China. Chinese international economic trends began far before the year 2000. Mao's policy in the 50s-60s spurred a lot of industrialization in China at the expense of individual workers. International impact was thin during this era and you can use it to establish a baseline case for the status of the US without China as a superpower. Post-Mao in the 70s China began a market-based economic model which leveraged and exploited this foundation from Mao. Rapid, de-centralized industrialization at cost (with human and environmental externalities - the price they paid). This was a rapidly expanding era that has essentially continued to-date. If you think a pre-China world is somehow better for the US, you can take a look at the 50s-60s statistics which I have suggested as they apply to the USA, and compare them to the 70s-2020 era. In almost every case, US has progressed incredibly during the time period coinciding with China's rise to power. It is one of the poster-child examples of how the theory of comparative advantage benefits both participants. A lot of this is due to China taking over low-skill work previously done within the US. But, I understand that politically, this fact does not sit well in red states of mind. Coincidentally, when speaking of red states (of mind), you can compare/contrast the USA during this pre- and post-China era and the USA during the pre- and post-Civil war era. During the Civil war, Confederate agriculture simply could not (or actually, would not) adapt to changing times and the rise of industrial manufacturing. This gave the Union a strong economic advantage.

I'd suggest reviewing 70 year data on resident population growth, immigration growth, unemployment rates, real GDP per capita, infant mortality rates, and average life expectancy. Maybe overlay that with qualitative factors such as access to education, access to healthcare, voter's rights, and representation by demographic group in government. You're ignoring literal mountains of evidence in favor of sentimentalism. I'd want to change the subject too, if I were arguing your position :D

Sorry but eventually, Adam Smith always wins. You don't get to blame the Democrats or Republicans for a lesson as old as time itself: you can't beat change (or comparative advantage). For decades China was (and is) able to supply low cost inputs for global consumption. The entire world - including the mean (and median) US citizen and corporation - is better off as a result. Even the ones laid off when "they took our jobs".

I thought that was the Deep State. I must be getting my nameless, hidden-in-plain-sight, pseudo-government entities of Democrat carpetbaggers pulling the strings of Democracy from the confines of leather armchairs, fireplaces and Great Danes at the Bilderberg estate...confused. If you think "the Establishment" put a country of 1 billion people with a rich history of productivity, who performed incredibly cheap labor at high cost to themselves for decades, to the benefit of the western nations "in power" and their citizens - then I would argue you are ignoring factors which represent 95% of China's rise to geopolitical power, in favor of <5% of the factors which you are fitting into your narrative.

Referring to IRM? I think so because the other companies I mentioned are well covered here. Long term you are right - but I think this business and its customers are stickier than imagined. Record keeping for banks, lawyers, doctors, real estate, insurance....all the old professions... it's important and usually it's easier to keep paying the storage bill vs. finding alternatives. Some of the ancillary uses of their space (fine art storage) are interesting - and it shows me management is not sitting around doing totally nothing. They are leveraging existing customers and migrating them to digital recording and storage. There's only going to be more and more data. And a lot of these customers have been customers for years or decades. It's easier to keep paying IRM a modest fee (even as the client transitions from paper to digital) vs. an unproven incumbent. I mean, let's say Google or Amazon comes in and sells their datacenter space as a competitor. A couple of things IMHO would discourage this scenario: (1) it's simply not a sexy business, investors may see it as a sign of weakness that Google can't find any opportunities other than competing with hard drive space; (2) these tech companies are innovative but that is exactly the opposite of what a client wants. They want to make sure their records aren't the next ones to be hacked; (3) the tech co's are a bit opaque how they leverage customer data. amazon competing with 3rd party sellers, google leveraging cookie data - again, these clients do not want their data anonymized and analyzed for Bezos's or Zuck's benefit ; (4) history matters here - google may give a great deal now, but what happens in 5 years when they need to continue to show high % revenue growth and the client's annual fees are in goog's crosshair? do you pay the fee or switch to another provider? if you switch, now you have to manage millions of records being transferred, deleted, make sure nothing is corrupted, etc. etc. So ultimately as to the moat - it's a business that is large enough where scale plays a role but small and boring enough to discourage large competitors. I think the overall dynamics of the business are neutral or trending down (data is ultimately cheaper than paper), but I think it's a bit like cigarettes in that it won't ever go away. So I could be totally wrong, I think in the IRM thread I've said as much. I try not to reinvest too much here (but it looks so damn cheap - maybe I'm a sucker), but every quarter it sticks around, my cost goes down. It's a heads I win, tails I don't lose too much - at least IMHO.

bought some IRM, PM, WFC, T, and a tiny tiny position in SSD the last few trading days. At about 10% cash.

You could give the money away to a worthy charity. One such worthwhile charity is the Democratic Party :D