Borgesian

So they have now underperformed both the TSX and SP500 for over 20 years. I don't necessarily understand why people would keep betting on Prem.

I think you sold way too soon. I would held past 2020. Probably right, but from the other perspective I generated a lot of free cash flow for myself and there are plenty of other opportunities out there trading at bargain bin prices. In a covid free world there is no doubt I sold too early. If (I know, I know) the market takes another leg down and GOOG hits 1100 again I would be kicking myself for not selling out earlier an having the cash flow to buy shares. I feel good about it so I'm gonna go with that ;D Totally understandable. I guess the other question I would ask is, was your initial plan to always sell once the stock hit $1500? I mainly ask due to the duration, as you have a run way of almost 20 months but only held for 1 month. You're right that the market could have taken a leg down. Though my thinking would have been that sure, things going still go down and we may have another wave of corona, but I've still got a 20 month runaway in a tech company that is generally resilient. I have similar leaps in a variety of tech companies and its hard not to cash in those unrealized gains but I'm going to wait it out till next year, unless something material changes about the actual businesses. Anyway enjoy the profits!

I think you sold way too soon. I would held past 2020.

Yup, Jim Mooney runs the public investment portfolio.

Pocket Casts. Works very well and syncs listening history on all devices.

I use the office suite of programs on a daily basis (especially OneDrive, Excel and OneNote), never have any issues with them. Also switched to Microsoft hardware 5 years ago and the Surface lineup of goods is pretty great, have had fewer issues with them than my friends who have bought Macs in the last 5 years. Edit: Also the compatibility with various software that you can't always find on IOS makes it rather hard for me to switch from W10.

It's good to remember that Baupost's annual letter comes in three parts, the first which is written solely by Klarman and tends to focus more on the macro/political/psychology, the second focuses on the public investments portfolio and the third which focuses on the private investments portfolio. The latter two are a lot more in depth and go into specific positions and returns.

+1 I'll keep getting my entertainment from Netflix, I don't want wildcards in the White House dealing with National and Foreign policy.

Another recommendation for the books of William Poorvu.

There are complete transcripts out there for free. Is there a value-add to your notes? Not trying to rag on someone looking to make a buck, just curious. I'll just chime in, having purchased these notes 3X before (in addition to one meeting which i attended). I'd say this - it's the best transcript available - and almost like being there. I missed so many things in my own pages & pages of notes in 2013 meeting. All the other notes I've seen are fairly condensed - and very good - but not the same in my book. Too many nuances and fine points to capture. And if my small fee - allows me to not travel and incur much expense - I want the best notes possible. JMHO But there's also audio available (which I would say is a lot more like being there than a transcript), $50 sounds like much when there is free audio.

Thanks! I actually just got my kindle 5 days ago so I should be able to buy it. Would have been nice if his previous book also had a digital version.

Hey where did you get your copy of Capital Returns? Amazon doesn't have it available yet.

I pay $5 per month for 1GB LTE data Texting - Mixture of whatsapp and Telegram Phonecalls - Mixture of whatsapp & Skype (free minutes due to Office 365) And I keep $5 in credit on my phone incase I'm ever stuck somewhere without 3G/4G and I use a Microsoft Lumia 950

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/11/16/3722838/all-paris-attackers-identified-so-far-are-european-nationals-according-to-top-eu-official/

I am not familiar with Stanley Druckenmiller… Is he as good as Tepper seems to be at market timing? Cheers, Gio Druckenmiller is quite good at what he does, mixture of a very good trader and investor. Some resources

Easy to say, hard to do I would think... Last I looked he was invested in insurance, newspapers, utilities, railroads, a million kinds of manufacturing, another million kinds of junk food, and another 40 or 50 assorted service and retail businesses. Berkshire is different due to size, take a look at his DJCO portfolio.

You said "No" to your wife? How did that go? Do you do that often? Brave man. (Or foolish one) :) If you can't say no to your wife, you're doing marriage wrong.

Latest from Michael Pettis: http://blog.mpettis.com/2015/02/when-do-we-decide-that-europe-must-restructure-much-of-its-debt/

He's not saying there isn't. He's saying that the money flows out of Germany into the peripheral states were caused by imbalances within Germany, and that there is no reason to believe that states with a different culture would have handled them better, because historically states with difference cultures have handled them just as badly, including Germany 140 years ago. He also makes good points about how perceptions of different cultures change according to the state of the times. Confucianism is currently thought to bestow the Chinese with an incredible work ethic, but it's not all that long ago that it was thought to make the Chinese lazy. By the way: the Chinese don't have a lot of savings if the projects they've been invested in are malinvestments (as seems likely given the incredible pace of investment and credit growth). And I'll be stunned if the economy is actually growing at 7%, despite what the official stats say. And the demographics are awful. China probably has a great future, but I think you're oversimplifying the outlook ;) +1 I would personally be very surprised if China even manages 5% plus growth over the coming years.

Oaktree Memos - Howard Marks Margin of Safety - Seth Klarman Meditations - Marcus Aurelius Poor Charlie's Almanac - Charlie Munger Lolita - Vladimir Nabakov Berkshire Hathaway Annual Letters - Warren Buffett Wesco Financial Annual Letters - Charlie Munger Blood Meridian - Cormac McCarthy Collected Fictions - Jorge Luis Borges

Munger had to say this about him during the most recent DJCO meeting: "I think Elon Musk is a genius and I don't use that word lightly. I think he's also one of the boldest men that ever came down the pike. His IQ is 190 and he thinks it's 250. I do think there's a little bit of risk with Elon but he's a certified genius"

They recently got posted here

That was a simplified analogy to try and break it down but the coins we have will actually be in both states so nothing will be predetermined. So yes it is a random process and the act of looking at one coin will collapse the wavefunction but you still can't transmit information with it, you're simply measuring what you observe. You do collapse the wavefunction by measuring the state of your coin but its essentially a random distribution and you have no effect on what state the coin ends up in. Changing the properties of any photon will break the entanglement between them. It becomes even trickier when consider frames of reference with people apart because its hard to determine who acted first, whether my coin has the properties it has because you looked at yours first or because I looked at mine before you. Maybe there will be a time when we can transmit information at speeds of faster than light with it but based on what we currently know and how we define information we don't consider entanglement to be a transfer of information at FTL speeds.

Information still isn't being transferred between the two photons because one photon isn't causing the other to change, the properties of the photons are already in place. It just so happens that when you as an observer measure one photon you discover what properties it has and are able to infer the properties of the other entangled photon. Lets try a different metaphor; say that we have two different coins (same size but different colour) in a dark box. I take one coin without looking at it and you take another coin without looking at it. You travel to New York and I head to London, when we arrive at our destinations and look at our coins I will know what coin you have based on the one I have and you will know what I have based on what you have. However no information would have been transmitted between the coins, there is no cause and effect which is an important thing when defining information in physics. Information transfer is always bound by the speed of light. And further more, if an observer tries to change one of the properties of an entangled photon like the spin it won't have any effect on the other photon and the entanglement between the two photons will be broken.

You can't transmit information faster than light with entanglement. Entanglement is essentially a way of saying that two particles are correlated, you will still need measurement of the whole system to transmit information which can only be done with classical slower than light communication. For example, by conservation of angular momentum you can fix the total spin of a two-particle system to be zero. This tells us that if we measure one particle as spin "up", we must measure the other as spin "down". But, importantly, the measurement of "up" (or "down") is inherently probabilistic; one can interpret this by saying that it only takes on a definite value when you measure it. The main point being that quantum systems are fuzzy and probabilistic and can't be said to be "in" any definite state until you measure it. Imagine that Alice and Bob take two particles entangled in this way and move 10 light-minutes away from each other. Alice the measures her particle and finds "up", so Alice immediately knows that Bob's particle is "down" without directly measuring it. If Bob measures his particle any time after Alice measures hers (so including times less than the 10 minutes it would take the light to reach him) he will definitely get "down". What brings it back down to Earth is that in order for Bob to know his particle will be measured as "down", he has to wait 10 minutes for a normal "classical" signal from Alice to get there. There's no way to influence what spin you measure, so there's no way to "send" any information through the system to your colleague who is measuring the other particle. Only after you and your colleague come together and compare results do you find the correlation.