LC

Politicians are politicians are politicians. We have absolutely no idea about these people's true personalities, and it's useless trying to draw conclusions based on the illusion presented on stages and interviews. Also I love the armchair psychology from you guys.

Another way to look at, from an investment opportunity, is find the "old TV" brands that are being lumped in with the dying ones, but which won't hurt as much from industry shift.

How are they value traps? If the business is performing well and they are priced cheaply, isn't that kind of the opposite?

That makes sense to me. Sorry for the confusion. I should have been more specific :)

My points about pricing power and switch costs were in relation to the dollar shave club, not Google/FB.

The article makes me think about our industry (investing). It is much harder these days to find lasting businesses. There are a few other examples of these disruptors. Casper in mattresses Blue Nile in diamond rings Warby Parker in glasses I'd argue that network type of business are actually lasting business that will go on for a long time. It seems that the network effect has given them a competitive advantage that allows them to have margins way above normal businesses. I don't invest in anything above a PE of 20 but I do think the Googles and Facebooks of this world are much more lasting than low PE investors like me are ready to admit. Regards BeerBaron Do they have pricing power? IMHO relatively little Are there high switching costs? IMHO relatively little

counterpoints for the first two: -possibly inflated book value (what are the earnings?) -possibly unsustainable/unreliable earnings (what has reliably flowed to shareholders over the past 5 years?) sometimes cheap is cheap for a good reason, sometimes it's not. I am not here to push my stocks on you, I understand you have a legit reason for aversion to them. I am simply arguing with the OP who said that there the market is overvalued. I believe a 25yr old WEB can make 50% in this market. Yeah, nobody pushes stocks on me anymore. Learned that the hard way. Value investing, in my mind, means there is value in the asset greater than its market value. The first two assets you listed, I presented my reasons why the asset value may not be greater than the market value. Saying the market is overvalued is a useless statement unless you are shorting the market. The 'market' is simply a collection of assets. You have not presented a case why the assets you mentioned are trading for less than intrinsic value. Book value =/= intrinsic value Last years earnings =/= intrinsic value I believe a 25yr old WEB can make 50% in this market. Based on what evidence?

Realize DSC also has tons of user data and other ancillary benefits to unilever

The Kelly Criterion has assumptions that fail to be met when applied to investing. As a result, we should use another methodology. I would guess that methodology would be outstandingly complex and nearly impossible to use. I bet Jurgis purposefully picked a very interesting example. Jurgis didn't pick the example, prunes did (see May 4 above) Kelly criterion works best when odds can be calculated with very high accuracy, and the game continues such that there is always another round to play. Investing doesn't really meet those criteria.

counterpoints for the first two: -possibly inflated book value (what are the earnings?) -possibly unsustainable/unreliable earnings (what has reliably flowed to shareholders over the past 5 years?) sometimes cheap is cheap for a good reason, sometimes it's not.

Fair enough, I'm sure u know there's more "hair" on those types of companies. I'm talking my own book here but I think there's value in the higher end of the quality curve as well. Easier to stomach for me personally.

For one there are profitable companies selling for less than tangible book value. Strictly speaking, TBV can be vastly overstated. That has nothing to do with profitability. Take insurers for instance, with massive long-term asset. Is book value the true value of these assets? I'm not sure.

Well, to be fair, she asked terrible questions. She repeated herself ad nauseum. And generally I thought she had zero ability to conduct an interview and was instead fishing for soundbites.

I'm no trump supporter but that interviewer was also terrible. Shrill and clueless. Trump was a doofus as always. And Mike Pence doesn't seem like an idiot so I guess he's just shilling out for whatever will increase his political stock.

A practical example of this i think it's weed in Amsterdam. The prices at the "coffee shops" are significantly higher than what one would pay at a dealer. I disagree. Amsterdam is not a truly representative sample to select. Amsterdam has, for decades, been an oasis for "legal" drug usage within Europe and the Western world. This has skewed the underlying economics, as it is has become less about the actual drug use and more about the tourism component. For a better example, take a look at Colorado to see the effect marijuana legalization has had. Surplus state government budget (they tax weed sales). Reduced crime. Controlled usage. Price and product transparency throughout the industry. I am moving from NYC to DEN...it is night and day. Here in NYC I would need to "know somebody" to buy marijuana. Which usually involves either buying it from friends if I'm lucky, or having some random dude show up to my apartment. And I have no idea what I'm really buying. In Denver, I go to a dispensary. It's clean, controlled, and well-serviced. They check my ID before they let me inside. Cameras monitor the entire store. They employee good people, pay taxes, and run a legitimate business. They list the product details, THC % levels, etc. In Denver there are no more street dealers for weed. None. There is zero demand for their services. I say, fuck it, legalize it nationwide and start legalizing other drugs too. Anyone who thinks people aren't doing drugs because they're illegal is an idiot and knows nothing about human nature. That's half the reason doing drugs is "cool"!

financials, autos (?), auto dealerships (?), retailers (?), perhaps some energy cos (?) that are cheap All industries experiencing a bit of upheaval, no? Cheap for a reason?

My uncle sent me a link to this website, to "listen and read up with an open mind" (this is the same guy who pitched the Iraqi dinar a few years back, for context) http://www.simtradepro.com/ I was immediately skeptical (well just at the name of the website) and then when I found this video linked on there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qp_GW2nGQg For a joke, start watching at the 4:20 minute mark in that video. I couldn't roll my eyes hard enough. "we just sit back and let the software do what it does....give me the money!"

Or cVaR/expected shortfall

I agree. I think the common theme is "If it sounds too good to be true..."

convert it to a word doc, highlight all, choose whatever font u want. might screw up the tables, though

Happy birthday America and Sanjeev!

Nah, just buy IFF. they probably supply the orange juice flavor.

Well, all those people wanting to cut back on the 2nd Amendment rights & gun control probably have not had the experience of a home invasion, thefts of vehicles, etc. They probably also have not had to deal with AGGRESSIVELY incompetent police too! I wonder what the response of gun control people would be if they knew the police won't do anything? When they learn they aren't even INTERESTED in doing anything! I guess in their fantasy "la-la land" people don't have the right to protect themselves & their property when society & police start falling apart. I just hope things don't get worse. I & my father lived in Detroit in the 70's & 80's. I've seen REALLY bad times, I hope they don't come back... The USA is a diverse place. Here is NYC...it is as safe and well policed as I've seen it in the last 30 years. Pretty incredible how far it's come from the 70s. In my opinion guns would cause more harm than good here. In Spokane Washington? I have the total opposite view.

Freaking eh!

Remember, friends always share 8)