LC

I made it clear I didn't like Buffett's answer, and I've pointed his hypocritical views on this forum in the past - so no hero worship here. The difference between cigarettes and soda is that it's nearly impossible to enjoy smoking in moderation without getting addicted. Also, even moderate consumption of tobacco is bad for you whereas the same isn't necessarily true of coke. Note that I have nothing against investing in tobacco but just saying the risk:benefit ratio is different and this is why Buffett may be against it. Almost ANY food and drink is bad for you in excess, including fruits and vegetables. Some more so than others and some should be consumed more moderately than others. If you think it's wrong to invest in "pleasure" than why stop with KO? To continue with the air travel argument - you say business and efficiency benefits. Ok, but not all forms of air travel are for business or productivity. How about flying for pleasure (vacation)? Nearly all food investments should be off the radar for Berkshire if you want to apply his tobacco logic to everything. And why stop there? How about the bottlers, shippers, and aluminum producers who all facilitate in consumption? All soda consumption cannot be painted with the same brush. A healthy athlete having a can every now and then is different than a 250 lb. obese man with type 2 diabetes having 3 cans a day. Or to use the airline example - someone with a history of deep vein thrombosis should be more careful flying than the average person. I mean, let's be real. Smoking 5 cigs daily, cancer is coming your way. Drinking 5 cans of coke daily, leaves u obese with diabetes. Eating 5 tomatoes daily is gonna make most people healthier. So I get what ur sayin that cigs are worse than soda, but soda is waaaay worse than fruits and veggies. Buffett ain't shilling kale and quinoa here.

Very cool post. Thanks for sharing your strategy...

They would never answer a question like this in a revealing way but I wish someone would ask what the least ethical (investment/business related) thing they ever did was, and what their thinking was at the time, and how they view it looking back. I mean, nobody is perfect but I'm certainly curious what skeletons are hidden in their closets.

Here's why I would suggest a detailed question... Canned Buffett response: "Absolutely, no other country in the world can bring out the best of the human spirit the way capitalism in America can. Even if GDP per capita drops, which, let me be clear, I don't think will happen, your and your children's standard of living will still be greater than even mine is today." "You know, what I look for in a business hasn't changed over the last 50, 60 years. We're still looking for the same thing: a business with a strong moat. That is the #1 thing we look for. But looking forward is difficult, I am glad that I don't have to do it! We think we have the best people available to do that job, they wouldn't be here if they didn't want to. So they have the right incentives, they're very smart, we think they're the best people for the job. Berkshire is in excellent hands." "Haha! Well you know, I always focused myself on the integrity and energy part of the equation. And I was lucky enough, fifty years or so ago to be introduced to my partner, Charlie Munger, who has all three in spades. So that would be my advice: seek out someone with all three, and it's amazing what you can do with time and energy. Charlie, what do you think? Charlie: I have nothing more to add." A bit tongue in cheek but yeah :)

I agree w Picasso. I think if you want to get the most out of your question you need to ask something with a 15-20 year time horizon (something really long term to get his wheels spinning) but also make it detailed (so he doesn't give you a canned, generic answer).

I'm sure we're all glad you're asking Buffett and not me! How will we ever know how seasonal businesses manage working capital!? ;D

Ok so if that's ur question, what do you think his response will be? My guess is something to the effect of "its not less risky if you are certain you will sell in those 2 months" I'm more interested in what his plans for the railroads are if/when solar power becomes wide-scale. Or will they have paid for themselves at that point and he can sell the land to developers? Or something about the insurance business.

I'd just like to pick his brain a bit on some of the nuances of working capital. ask then otherwise u will get a canned answer.be detailed and specific

the higher rate you can compound money, the more you can afford to spend.

Edgar? The company's IR website?

Not a bad idea IMHO. Are you following through on this?

Just get rid of the rating agencies. Force people to be held accountable for the investing decisions they make.

I think my portfolio is quite GARPy but others may disagree

Yeah I'm going to disagree with just about everyone here. Get him an office gig, it gives him a pedigree which makes it easy to get the next one, etc. etc. etc. It's real easy to be a plumber, film maker, or whatever other barely-profitable passion project you have when you're 35 years old and have enough cash in the bank and a house paid off.

They tend to gravitate towards stable organizations because they understand the fragility of life and circumstance.

I put my portfolio in my signature to make it blatantly obvious that despite my ramblings in Amazon, Valeant, etc. threads, I don't have a dog in those fights.

I've been at this for 4 years. On an overall basis I've outperformed over those four years. Do I think I'm a "winner"? Heck no. I'm convinced I will probably under-perform over my lifetime. I am OK with that. Let me repeat that: I am OK with underperforming. It is still possible to get rich despite underperforming. I don't have a huge capital base where a 2% difference translates to millions of dollars. I concentrate on being good at my job and increasing my salary and title. If my stock picks (in my signature) underperform a bit, I am OK with that. I think they have more sustainable earnings than the S&P as a whole, but I am going into the "deal" assuming I could very well be wrong. I am OK with that. In fact, I think most of my "errors" have been due to reaching too hard trying desperately to outperform. Now I just try to find stable cash flows at a reasonable price (i.e. market multiple) and "get rich slowly".

I'm not "good" at all, look at my portfolio I am pretty much stupid and lazy. I probably bring down the average here, I am not a professional or brilliant amateur. I am just glad you all tolerate me. Accrual and cash....timing differences when accounting statements recognize revenues and associated expenses. cash based means when cash comes in u get revenue, cash goes out u have expense. accrual is based on when the revenue/expense is 'earned'. i.e. if i have a contract which pays me 10k up front but i earn the revenue over 5 years, i have to defer it and recognize it as a i earn it.

I don't care about the semantics so I'll use your terms. -Where will the resources which provide for these systems of justice and protection come from, if not from taxes (or theft as you put it)? -Do you disagree with universal healthcare as a concept, or is your disagreement with how it's funded? Or both?

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/18/18f980390694235cc2b07901b7b32729772c80ea59afd1ece7a8b1fcc535b9b4.jpg

So in your view: Humans have always had a "concept" of government or "the state" (although there really is no such thing as these things) This concept of "government" has waxed/waned in strength over the course of human civilization (presumably depending on humanity's "need" for it) But this "concept" is totally useless and will eventually be seen to be unnecessary. I don't quite see how A&B lead to C. Here's another interpretation Perhaps this concept of government is a part of the human condition and part of the nature of human society, and will always exist in one form or another. Perhaps it is both useful in some cases (like making sure our food doesn't have lead chips in it and our old sick citizens can afford rent), and useless in other cases (like wasting resources on corrupt defense contractors or bailing out corrupt politician's bankers). It's like an old grandmother. She makes sure all the kids are fed, bandaged up when they fall, and generally don't break themselves. But she still gives everyone $100 on some holidays depsite the fact that her one grandkid is kind of a dick and probably doesn't deserve it. Perhaps instead of blowing up something to which all evidence points to as being entwined with human society and will never disappear, a more mature solution would be to try and limit the useless aspects and enhance the useful aspects. Don't blow up grandma.

Social security and medicare have directly helped millions of the most vulnerable citizens stay clothed, fed, under a roof, and in good health. There are plenty of countries in the world severely lacking government intervention. They also lack things like running water and indoor plumbing but I guess that's a completely different matter.

Pretty intellectually easy argument to make. So the US has been "all downhill" since the 1900s? I'm not sure follow that. The 20th century was essentially defined by the US. In terms of "socialism" I think we are talking past each other. I'm arguing for progressive taxation to fund general social programs (social security and universal healthcare as the two largest and probably most important). You're arguing against economic bailouts and macroeconomic intervention. The two are fundamentally different. I also don't buy the argument that equality stifles incentive. Plenty of brilliant Russian scientists were born, educated, and accomplished brilliant things in Communist Russia.

O god I love that. Really wish more companies would do that. They probably realize expense management is more "in their control" than revenue, so they try to cloud those lines as much as possible.

Perhaps in a truly anarchist society like the one you propose, slavery would arise as the naturally strong prey on the weak. Perhaps only through the collective agreement of humans (aka politics) would the unsavory aspects of human nature be limited. And the removal of a state is going to solve this? "rights" don't exist in an anarchistic state. it only takes 1 person to think it's OK for them to do it. My question was relatively loaded because before "states" and "governments" existed, a "stateless" society existed. We lived in caves and hunted and gathered. But even in those days social structure existed. Maybe it wasn't an "official state" but there was a political process and agreed upon rules. And forms of "taxation". No, the IRS didn't come after you but you sure as hell better save some of your seeds with the village otherwise you will be ostracized.