Palantir

Ignoring Buffett, I think the issue is that their main value driver is increasing BV, which is denominated in an inflationary currency. So how much of that growth is really organic vs inflation inflated....?

Is momentum trading good for society?

I believe I am the one who brought up the taxi drivers analogy. I did not mean that taxi drivers don't add value, but merely that we do not add value any more than (for example) them.

I expect that most of this board will say yes, being an investing board, yeah of course investing is good for society! But I will disagree, as a passive investor, all you're doing is moving capital around, from one place to another. So it may be profitable to you, and it's great, but I don't think it adds value to society any more than other activities like say, driving a taxicab. Conversely, I am beginning to feel that when companies seek to satisfy shareholders' interest at the expense of long term goals, investing could quite feasibly destroy value.

What are you looking at? I think SUSQ looks cheap. I looked at the numbers quickly, it seems they permanently issue shares, is that normal for a smaller bank? You're right....I somehow missed that.

What are you looking at? I think SUSQ looks cheap.

^I agree, performance has been excellent, and I don't think this firm will ever be "cheap". But I am curious though, how would you account for inflation in your valuation? It seems to me that inflation alone would explain a reasonable part of the firm's increase in equity, but hopefully I am wrong. :)

I didn't need an edge in GOOG to understand that when it was trading at 10x FCF it was a steal. No complaints selling it a 100% later.

https://plus.google.com/106271056358366282907/posts/GoeVjHJaGBz

I think it is because AAPL for a while was a badly mispriced megacap. If they didn't know the firm was Apple, I think even the deep value guys would have said it was attractive at 400.

I think this is indeed part of it, but I believe deleveraging referred to the early part of the recession, not our current state IMO.

I find it curious that Buffett followers are worried about market declines. As long as the firms you own keep operating well and growing earnings, it should not matter what the market does right? ;) EDIT: This is an interesting set of graphs: http://www.morningstar.com/market-valuation/market-fair-value-graph.aspx

I agree with this. IMO, Klarman is a superior investor to Schloss, I don't think they're even in the same discussion, few are really. That being said, if you're investing Schloss-style, you would not really be worrying about market levels, just selling when you reach or exceed IV which would take a lot of the guesswork out of it.

That's interesting, I thought Mario Draghi was turning Europe into a Truman Economy with rampant inflation and sky high asset prices.

Anybody buying GCI?

^Why do you feel so, given that the US is trying to export more.

I find this pretty concerning that China is devaluing the Yuan. Most expect that this is driven by the slowing economy, but my concern is that the US is tapering right now, which implies rising US rates and capital outflows from emerging markets, which should devalue the yuan anyways, but China doubling down on it, when really they should over time be raising the currency is very worrisome.

You could take a job with fewer hours, or maybe something like a teacher with 2 mos vacations.

It distresses me to pay taxes when there is no gain. I have a Roth...although the tax withholding might be a concern.

If you're getting dividends you will worry less even if your stock stays cheap.....

I've been drinking, but CTCM looks good. I'd prefer to stay away from strategic assets like energy or minerals, and focus on firms that are paying dividends from their FCF.

^His...er...romantic life has been too interesting to believe a diagnosis of high functioning autism. ;D

Fair enough, I agree that the US habit of anointing one side as the "good guys" is annoying. Hmm...I think you are conflating Putin with Yeltsin. In Yeltsin's times, the billionaires had power over the nation, now to me, it seems like the opposite, powerful people stay in power because they have Putin's favor......

^Or we could talk about why the Ukrainians have good reason to be fearful of Russian hegemony given that they starved Ukraine to the extent that people had to resort to eating their own children. Or we could talk about the multiple Russian genocides throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia. Perhaps the Ukrainians don't want to end up like the Circassians.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of Risk Parity is: Stock: 8% Return, 15% Risk Bond: 1% Return, 1.5% Risk Lever up bond by 10x, we get: Bond = 10% Return 15% Risk This should replace part of the stock allocation. In other words, turning your bonds into stocks, but with lower risk.