hyten1

reliability is a factor, fleet sales which affect supply and demand is also a factor i think the fact 80's, 90's and early 2000 american cars are not so great is pretty well known (nothing new here), the question is how is it now and in the future. at least from recent jd power some american cars are just as reliable if not more so than japaneses cars, obviously this depends on make and model. yes jd power is not testing for long term reliability, but i think we have to look at all the facts and if facts change we need to change our thinking as well. here is a 2017-2013 version: http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2017/02/2017-jd-power-vds-chart-1.jpg http://d1arsn5g9mfrlq.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/2016_vds_rank_1.jpg http://d1arsn5g9mfrlq.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/2015%20VDS%20Slide1_0.jpg http://d1arsn5g9mfrlq.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/resize/remote/0400f6f33bf4cb6c2a889772d4418934-720x960.jpg http://autoguide.com.vsassets.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/jd-power-graph.jpeg EDIT: I believe honda does not sell to fleet, i think that is a important factor to their resale value EDIT 2: I find it a little amusing, people here on this board are "value" investors, if we apply the same principles and way of thinking to cars, maybe there are cars that is undervalued (more reliable than perception) or overvalued (less reliable than perception) or do people think car values are pretty much right on the money? obviously there are other factor like brand, looks etc.

http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Bulletin/20170222Release.pdf

in regards to impeachment, one question i have, how would mike pence behave? does he have similar views as the trump on the gse? would he change the players if he becomes president?

jmp8822, i hear ya you are probably right. but i secretly believe a fews year back web would like to buy MSFT, but he can't due to his relationship with gates, that is my belief "I think Microsoft is attractive but that—but we will never buy Microsoft. " from the cnbc interview in above post link I would agree this is a joke - I've heard him tell the same joke using Microsoft instead of GM about 7 years ago. I am about 99-percent sure this is a joke - again, I've heard him say the exact same thing in a similar setting using MSFT as the company instead of GM. Could he be actually interested in GM? Maybe - but in this case he was joking regarding his age/hearing.

i am not so sure... i have heard web saying he won't buy msft due to his relationship with gates, but i have never heard him said he would not invest in msft due to the fact its not a good investment. if you guys have read this or seen this please let me know. i mean he did invest in IBM and a big position at that, MSFT and IBM are similar in many ways as for valuation that is another discussion, also msft few years ago was reasonable valued vs today (you can argue otherwise etc.) EDIT: http://www.geekwire.com/2011/warren-buffett-vows-buy-microsoft-stock/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/45290263 search for microsoft "I think Microsoft is attractive but that—but we will never buy Microsoft. " I would agree this is a joke - I've heard him tell the same joke using Microsoft instead of GM about 7 years ago.

its not my quote, i read it, its from peter theil i think

fyi, i thought this observation was salient: the media takes trump literally but not seriously and his supporters take him seriously but not literally

i think we should stop calling names ... even though donald does it. instead, think of why someone would vote for donald, its not simply because they are stupid/racist/sexist, i am sure some of them are stupid/racist/sexist just like i am sure some hillary voters are stupid/racist/sexist.

i didn't vote for donald... lets get that out of the way however, if people think supporters of donald are simply crazy, racist or stupid, i think you have to think hard to why someone would vote for donald, given what he has said and done etc. i would also argue donald (if he wins) is a continuation of obama, along the lines of "change". people were tired of the status quo and wanted change, so they voted for someone (obama) who was different and promise the "change", however he still had part of his foot in the establishment. for a lot of people the "change" wasn't enough, or simply didn't work for them personally. now the change has been amp up 10 fold. the change is now someone who is completely outside of the status quo. despite of all the crazy/sexist things that donald has said and done.

oddballstocks, all good points but : 1. why does the auto maker need to bet the farm on EV to succeed? I actually think that would not be a good idea. Sure the autos can't stick their heads in the sand and simple dismiss EV/autonomy. But i don't see legacy auto doing that, unless they are just fooling us. 2. EV i actually don't think is the golden goose. GM just announce Bolt with a 238mil range available end of 2016. I think the golden goose is autonomy and i don't see a clear winner yet, even if there is a clear winner right at this moment, base on what i know the tech is still far from ready for prime time etc. So that means there is still time for players to catch-up or fall behind etc. 3. I hear ya about "The Innovator's Dilemma" and I have read it. But from what I can see I don't see all auto makers falling into that trap, then again I don't really know what is going on. The bad thing for tesla is, auto industry is such a capital intensive, regulation heavy, long lead time biz, expensive product. It allows time for the legacy players to wake up and catchup, which is not a good thing for tesla/innovators. 4. in regards to tone of the thread. we should keep it enjoyable/lighthearted. i'll blame this whole internet/online thing for the misunderstanding. just my humble opinion

picasso, for me even if tsla becomes a force i don't see why GM or Toyota can't retain their current status or become stronger (some weaker players can go bye bye or get absorbed, i guess i consider GM and Toyota some of the better position autos), you are saying once tsla becomes a force most of existing auto goes bye bye, how/why? i have been thinking about the winner take all/most scenario. Unless winner take all/most happens i don't see how tsla will wipe out most players. Its possible, but it would take a while before that happens. I guess once auto becomes a commodity or near commodity (you will always have exception or exotic that people buy for fun/leisure) or someone becomes that dominant (i don't see it). - car sharing/autonomy don't necessarily mean less cars being build. - will car sharing/autonomy create a winner take all scenario, where customer don't really care what brand it is. - will the expensive/need/cost for technology create additional consolidation which result in a handful of auto company left - others.... but i do feel all above will take a long time if it happens (who knows) hy

i hear ya, see that is the good and bad of this industry for tesla and legacy auto this is a very capital intensive industry, but also an industry that has a long life cycle, tons of regulation and very deep pocket players with very good talent. does it matter if GM spend $2 or $3bil? maybe it matters to Tesla. Even if GM (toyot, Daimler pick your auto) spend $10bil to get to par to tesla, whos going to end up standing at the end i don't disagree elon is awesome dude and tesla a cool/nice cars, like i said before what people disagree on is the probability of tesla becoming this dominant force. Then again that can be too simplistic a view, what if tesla merge with someone and becomes something else, etc etc. and also remember its not the outcome that matters its your investment process that counts :) EDIT: isn't tesla a golf car that can go 0 to 60 in under 3 second?

at the end of the day i am confused what everyone is talking about (that is a long writeup below about tesla), lets get some facts straight. 1. volt can use gasoline, getting stranded is not a concern. 2. bolt is not a golf car on wheels, people who think it is are committing the same sins as people who just hand wave at tesla and say they are doomed. 3. GM pay $600mil for cruise automation and $500mil for part of lyft, both critical ingredients for the future of auto for many reason. not sure who say auto is a crappy business, there are some "legacy" auto company that is doing quite well, Toyota, Ferrari, Porsche comes to mind. i think we can all agree tesla/elon has done great things, but what i disagree is extrapolating that to complete EV/auto domination that all legacy auto are stupid/slow and doomed base on what i see. That is pretty arrogant considering what is happening in the industry. I find it strange and funny whenever people talk about tesla they seem to compare apples to oranges. tesla awesome EV, volt what a crap (conveniently forget one car is $100k the other is $40k, conveniently forget existing volts owners love the car etc.). why is that importantly, because it shows you that existing auto makers are not taking this lightly. people who use apple as an example conveniently omit things like the $500 vs $40k, network effect/eco system vs none (at least not yet). so they extrapolate "look at apple, elon is like job etc etc. => complete domination like apple" why don't we look at other example where innovators in tech didn't "dominate", some examples are Tivo, commodore, apple (PC), blackberry, palm, yahoo, xerox, Polaroid, altavista, friendster, ibm, sure none of these are exact comparisons, neither is apple/iphone/ipod. I find it interesting that people can be so sure of what tesla will become and one thing we know from tech, especially tech, dominance is an illusive thing (except for the select few). There are so many landmines for Tesla, beholden to the capital markets etc (sure maybe this will end soon, maybe not), tons of competition, at the end of the day we can just agree to disagree. Tesla/Elon good car and awesome entrepreneur, but that is not enough yet for me to declare them victory considering what is happening to this industry, the players, the size etc etc. Do they have a shot, sure they do. I guess what people disagree on is the probability of this shot. You say 50%, I say 20, someone else may say 70. I am ok if i lose out on tesla's potential double or whatever. EDIT: as for how do you copy the autopilot, you don't copy you come up with your own system base on your own experience/data/software. there will be many black boxes, all trying to have the same end result. But i doubt the black box all look the same, at the end of the day the customers don't care what the blackbox looks like as long as it works. Similar to search engines. But yeah, let's just say Elon is promotional because "Elon who?" Or how about this latest upgrade to a 2-year old autopilot system for every Tesla produced past Oct 2014? https://www.tesla.com/blog/upgrading-autopilot-seeing-world-radar How the hell do you copy this? Seriously? I put the odds of someone ripping out the profits from the legacy automakers as very high. Probably around a 75% chance over the next ten years. But I put the odds of it being Tesla as 50/50. So in my mind I think there's something like a 30% chance that Tesla does incredibly well. But based on the work I see from people either short the stock or long GM while talking down Tesla, I think it might be higher than 30%. I don't find the short sellers work particularly impressive. Things are looking pretty tough for Elon right now, but that's usually the best time to bet alongside him. He didn't think it was probable that Tesla would succeed in its mission, but I think he now sees it as very probable (I mean Apple is a trying to steal his employees for a reason). His willpower to see this through shouldn't be overly discounted. If you keep doubling down eventually you go bust, but I don't think he's too far away from the point where doubling down will no longer be necessary. *walks off mumbling* someone will clone Tesla, indeed.... *mumble mumble*

a little insulting, "Not much second level thinking on here eh?" i don't see any 2nd level thinking below much. people understand your point, yes emotional, tesla/musk, yes same tech put together differently etc etc. yes playing music digitally from a portable device wasn't specif for the ipod, but the entier experience was (easily download music from a large libray, easily usable interface etc.) "Have a superior product coupled with a very savvy marketer is the perfect combination. That's what captures mindshare." i think that is pretty much common knowledge, don't need to make it sound like its some unique revelation. the biggest different is apple dominated in a way that makes competitor's same tech irrelevant, almost like winner takes all (then android came along that did something iphone didn't, its free along with multiple hardware options). which is not the case with automobile that cost 45k. if $500 item isn't much different from a $40k item then you live in a different world than i do.

i think this is too simplistic, if this was the case then everything that apple/steve job touch should turn into gold, but it didn't (apple tv is great example) sure awesome leader like musk/job helps, but i don't think that is enough (not for the long term). at the end of the day your product/service needs to provide considerable utility and value ... relative to the competition. i would argue ipod did and iphone did when it came out. and i would argue tesla less so. ipod was one of the very first that had a complete experience (ipod, nice design, easy of use and ... don't forget itunes). everything else at the time wasn't the case (especially ease of use in terms of downloading music etc etc.). also don't forget ipod is a $200 item. it can capture the market fairly quickly, even when competition catched up in terms of the actual product, it was too late. tsla doesn't have this characteristic. now does tsla provide enough of value to get to ipod/iphone status. i would argue no. but then again that is my opinion.

i don't have a home page, i have a list of pages/tab that my browser opens up when it launchs and yahoo finance is one of them

adesigar, was wonder where exactly can you buy property for 500k and rent for 3k/mo in souther ca. i would like to know, and probably invest there I already know what they "have been trying to explain". Do you really? Firstly property taxes vary by state from like 0.5% to 2.3%. Secondly in my neighborhood (in south California) homes are selling for 500,000 and they rent for 3000/mo. If someone choses to be dumb and buy a Million dollar property with 40k in rent per year that's the problem. Finally please don't turn future threads into whines about taxes like you have a tendency to do.

wouldn't the richest man ever lived be genghis khan or some emperor in china at the height of china's power? i am equating the riches with controlling/owning the highest percentage of the world's wealth.

aig shares will tank :(

cevian, in regards to Cat 1. I think you are making assumptions here, typically sellers sell because they want to be done with the biz. But i believe in this case that is probably not the case. I imagine it is more like 1) liquidity 2) under a large umbrella were you can concentrate on doing what you love, running the biz vs deally with all the outside crap. selling to brk gives you both 1 and 2. as for cat 2 I'll let other answer hy

HHC - not pure retail housing, but a good portion of it

Common sense has its place Then there is the rule of law I don't agree (but I am not a lawyer :)). One way is to partially nationalize which would dilute the common to the hilt. It's impossible to dilute preferreds. To make prefs worth less than par, you have to go through formal recap in which case they come before common, but might be worth little and common might be worth nothing. In general though, I think most arguments in this case are emotional or mind-screwing variety from people with ownership agenda (i.e. people holding securities that are possibly worthless will argue anything to prove they are right and other side is wrong). Personally, I am on the government (and Munger/Buffett) side on this: if government would not have backstopped Fannie/Freddie, they'd be BK and worthless now. So IMHO from common sense, government should have nearly 100% ownership in remaining entity. Legal case might have completely different result though - common sense is not what the law is about. ;)

in regards to #4, what are some of your tax strategies?

cardboard, awesome posts. #4 and #6 has bit me in the ass many times just recently with BAC around end of Dec 14 BAC was around $18. I was thinking I need unload some of this, but then i thought its almost 2015 will delay the cap gain until 2015. Then 2015 comes around the stock started to drop, I thought/hope it should pop back up a little then I'll sell some etc. :(. #4 and #6 working hand in hand. hy

i'll be swapping my fnma with fmcc hy