LC

I'd say put the majority in an index fund as you're doing and take 5% or so to invest yourself. Read all those value investing books, value a bunch of companies "blindly" i.e. without looking at the market price, lose some money and understand the emotional highs and lows of changing portfolio market prices...over time you'll get smarter and more experienced...you'll know when you feel comfortable shifting more out of index funds and into personal stock selections.

As usual, we do not deserve Sanjeev ;D ;D

Bought DIS.

Rest in peace.

I'm single & was paying for drinks at the FloraBama last night. I feel a lot more sane today. That is all. ;D water and advil, my friend ;D ;D

The amount of brain damage that single payer system would save US citizens alone makes it worth it. ;D

Bought some berkshire

Thanks for your elucidating correction.

How is this topic still going? The lessons here seem pretty obvious: -Be really good at your job. This dude was raking in cash from his dental clinics. -Buy and hold works if you buy right. Put the two together and you have a chance at something really special.

One of the best ways imho is to ignore all the IR and go right to the products page and just be a customer. Do they offer a better value than competitors? A good product offering/revenue line is #1. From there you can do the traditional assessment.

Let go of your earthly tether Enter the void Become wind https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/975/870/ebc.gif

Any idea on the breakdown between new builds vs. existing home upgrades? I would imagine smart home products are highly correlated with new builds.

Thanks Keith. Some additional information on intangible asset valuation for those interested: https://www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing/47426115.pdf

As John mentioned there are accounting rules which require the evaluation of assets on a quarterly basis to determine whether the asset is impaired: At the end of each reporting period, an entity is required to assess whether there is any indication that an asset may be impaired (i.e. its carrying amount may be higher than its recoverable amount). IAS 36 has a list of external and internal indicators of impairment. If there is an indication that an asset may be impaired, then the asset's recoverable amount must be calculated That is all good and well: but let's be real. Did Kraft/Oscar Meyer lose all this value between Q4 2018 and Q1 2019? Of course not - value deteriorates over time. What really happens is that, over time, value drops. But there are some conflicting forces at play: management obviously doesn't want to write down those assets slowly every quarter, and it is hard for external auditors to prove permanent impairment. So what happens (at least in my experience) is that over time the value drops...drops....drops...until management cannot deny or justify to the auditors the current carrying value. Then they take a big hit, like what happened with KHC. Just my 2 cents.

Oh and think about it this way: it’s easier to eat out less and save cash than get a raise at work.

Exactly. Essentially, you can exert some control over costs. Pricing is much more dependent on your market of customers.

I have a watchlist of about 40 stocks on yahoo finance. Used to use google finance but they decided to kill that. I also use feedly for SEC filings and various blogs which I used to follow. I rarely check this anymore (blogs are boring and the odd lot filings have fallen off). I probably should keep more invested in the spinoff filings. I use finvix for basic screening. As with anything you want this to be relatively general. Check this maybe once or twice per quarter. I get summary financials from rocketfinancial.com and then of course the investor IR website for presentations, primary source for filings, etc.

Low rates have previously made it difficult to find "true value" - asset price expansion has obscured traditional earnings multiples. This may be changing as rates are creeping up...the tide is going out. I also prescribe to Spekulatius' final bullet point. Value never went away over the past five years: however it was seen in a few different places. 1) The regulated banks and other crushed companies (FCAU comes to mind) rebounding from the crisis. 2) "Growth" "FAANG" whatever you call them - they mostly lived up to the hype. Apple, Google, Amazon all have done well and provided tremendous value to customers/society/investors. I think it is important to remain flexible and not religiously adhere to a certain view of the future. The windshield is foggy but we must make out best guess.

And that sounds like a decent compromise. The plans were poorly thought out and created in a time of extra-ordinary middle class growth, with no adjustment mechanisms. They are simply no longer sustainable, as Buffett pointed out in his letter to K Graham. But the unions also need to respect the hand that feeds - and the temporary suffering of the entire community (ch9) is the price to let the inmates know they are not running the asylum.

WM...one man's garbage is another man's....

Why are the implications if the city declares bankruptcy? These poorly constructed pension plans are generally legacy problems from the days of old, but they are a real PIA. Look what happened to Chrysler. If it were me, and the unions refused to logically negotiate and make concessions, declare bankruptcy and f*(@ em.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Have you heard of MGP Ingredients: https://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/high-spirits-blog/mgp-ingredients-lawrenceburg/ They are contract producers for small label US whiskeys. You want to make Castanza whiskey? Call em up and they can make it happen.

Starter (small) position in RELX. Used to own it and had liquidated it last year as a home down payment like the business, was looking for sub-20s re-entry but for a starter position this (~21.30) is OK to get comfortable again with the business.

We need more stuff like this (sarcasm): https://www.france24.com/en/20190226-black-snow-falls-siberia-blamed-killer-coal-industry So I agree there is a chance that we NEED to cause global warming because there is an impending and unpredictable ice age on the way. But I don't buy the "symmetry" argument. The man on the street asks for my wallet. Maybe he wants to mug me, or maybe he wants to add $500 in cash and hand it back to me. :-X Even if I did buy this argument about symmetry - since we don't know which way the temperature pendulum will swing, and if you believe we are bad at predicting probabilities, shouldn't we opt for the most "nature-neutral" version of harvesting energy? The point on conservatism is that traditional fossil fuels should cost more than renewables if you actually account for the externalities like the one I linked above. Therefore, if you have a reasonable choice between the two, then you should go with the one which is more neutral. That said, I understand that some areas simply do not have a reasonable opportunity to choose renewables - therefore it is even more important to encourage it where applicable.

When wind and solar are price competitive with fossil fuel, but have the added benefit of (1) being less pollutive, and (2) have a longer future runway of efficiency improvements, why are we continuing to push for fossil fuel investment?