Palantir

^That's really no different from volatility, but merely looking at one side of the distribution.

I don't understand why we're expecting Davita to have ethical management?

^ I agree, very interesting. This chap is also an analyst at Berk: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=54082724&authType=name&authToken=0g8y&trk=prof-sb-browse_map-name

People keep saying that "permanent loss of capital" is the main risk. How often does that actually happen though with equities? Doesn't seem to be a very robust measure.

^ I do. I think Ballmer is brilliant, and most close accounts of him uphold that statement.

I only invest through a non taxable account...so I for sure hope that my firms pay me dividends instead of buybacks.

Added a call on CBRX dated Mar '14. Added DOX too.

Maybe you should hire her. ;)

Can't resist making inappropriate puns.... >:( ;D

Core-satellite. I take concentrated positions in larger firms like BRK, GOOG, MSFT, and small positions in speculative microcaps. Granted, even my small positions are like 3-5%.

Two words - Lower cost. When you slowly, step by step remove impediments, people can create new markets. By the way, whether railroads were that instrumental in promoting growth has also been questioned, see RW Fogel.

What about turnarounds and distressed opportunities? Lot of upside there.

...pics or she doesn't exist?... ;D

I agree it is interesting and useful to study patterns, but I feel that thinking can get too rigid. Point being, many value investors admire WMT and would love to own it at an early stage. How many of them picked up AMZN ten years ago? :) But yes, a brilliant (and young) CEO seems to be the common thread!

IMO you should never look for the "next" anything. You are just using dated mental models to fight yesterday's war, so to speak, and you'll miss out on great emerging firms that should be evaluated very differently. Peter lynch has hinted at this, but to expound on this more, how many times has another firm successfully cloned another mega firm to equal heights?

Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel.

I thought the bolded was interesting. Really makes me wonder what I'm doing investing in GOOG, MSFT, and AAPL.

I don't see how this is different from the notion of a "liquidity trap".

I agree with OP, plus, don't take the Yield + Growth = Return formula too seriously. It's a nice shortcut, but I wouldn't bet an investment on it. There are many great businesses with a Yield of 5%+, I don't see the case for KO either.

And that's "usual" environment? Yes.

Even if you take 2% as your "base case" scenario, it doesn't mean that suppressed rates relative to that "base" are unusual in the strictest sense. There is a clear case that suppressed rates are very much the expected case in a deleveraging/post deleveraging environment.

The base rate is unusual. Once it goes back to the usual level, the banks make more money on the non-interest-bearing deposits. What is a "usual rate" and what is an "unusual rate"?

I think you need to look longer than 1870 to determine whether the current scenario is unusual. You may have read Reinhart and Rogoff's paper that looks back 500 years. I don't believe the "low interest rates" is as unprecedented as some say.

You are free to exchange your dollars for gold anytime. May I ask why you are referencing 1870?

Some people say low rates are "unprecedented", however, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that periods like right now have happened multiple times throughout history. The point of low rates and QE is not to make the economy grow, but to prevent it from getting worse. It's like being on life support.