plato1976

Why canadian oil companies are selling cheaper than U.S. peers?

PWE,LTS, etc. etc. For all these mentioned here, which one is the lowest cost producer? This sector was killed the last month...

pardon me, just begin to look into F&F A naive question, if the gov wins these lawsuits, will these pref go to zero? or there will still be a floor price and floor value left?

Very interesting insight! Which alternatives mania are we talking about? btw: I think Fairholme got its alpha mainly from large cap if I remember it correctly but I agree they got it in a concentrated fashion

which russian stock is trading at 10% dividend yield ?

I searched around and didn't find one appreciate if anyone can post one I don't feel this is really cheap - it's actually at the higher side of valuation against its peers but maybe it's worth the premium

I think ADR dividend can be qualified dividend - so it's more like 15% If they withhold your div tax I think you can claim it back if it's in a taxable account Not sure how though

I have some difficulty to understand why ppl call Nestle stock as cheap now

semiconductor 's PE is ok Intel, qualcomm, ... My opinion is that it's hard to compare today's market to pre 90's as there were no software companies back then. If I look at today's market, the cloud/mobile/big data companies are overvalued as they have to execute perfectly to deserve their current valuations. However, if you look at traditional brick and mortar businesses, I don't see overvaluation. I'm not just talking about social media and cloud/mobile/big data. There are many areas of the market with very high multiples: biotech, green energy, healthcare IT, internet retail, semiconductors, 3d printing, etc.

I won't feel comfortable to declare 'retirement' until I can rely on the dividend from stocks like PEP to have a decent life. That probably means I need 3M ......

yes, not a big issue to me, sounds like btw: $6000 SSI seems good

what's the next cheapest country one year ago ? I think one of those EUR countries that were in trouble ? Spain ? Russia was the cheapest market a year ago too.

I am not sure if you can call qcom as cheap I never truly understood when qcom 's patent cliff would come, and royalty is responsible for 2/3 of its earning... So it's hard to assign a PE to its current earning. ok. but this tends to happen every 30 or 40 years. And it just happened 5 years ago. So is that a wise bet? I see a two tiered market. I see massive overvaluation in a growing number of "hope and change" type companies. And I see reasonable valuation in many good companies like msft, apple, qcom, aig, lots of small financials, etc.

I find this argument very convincing: "he isn't going to touch small cap Russian companies...just too small. "

10% cash on cash before any cost ?

Not sure how matters it is small value probably outperformed SP500 in the past 13 years but from 1925 there are many periods small value underperformed I am not sure in overall how much small value outperformed SP500 in the past 100 years And there is counter-argument that if you change to equal weight instead of cap weight for stocks in SP500, you dramatically reduce your underperformance against small value (equal weight doesn't help small value as much) I feel either way (using small value, or use SP500) doesn't make a big difference unless we use PackerIndex then most of us will feel pretty bad :)

Don't exactly understand what's MTGOX 's "technical" issue :) But it's taking them a long time to fix ...

A quick question is if their property are really valued at current market price, or valued at the acquisition price many years ago (maybe in some cases ?) Not familiar with the accounting and the situation there, so just wonder... I am just starting to look at Henderson Land, this HK company is ridiculous cheap. P/BV = 0.5x. Book value has grown around 10-20% EVERY year for the last decade..... does anyone own this baby? I am still in the process of due diligence which involves just glossing over their 10K (or the ADR equivalent)

What if we are on the road ? wifi coverage won't reach there, right ? So without using a tower nearby, we just rely on satellite ? Wireless coverage is really about more than just cellular towers. When you boil it down to its essence, it's about getting access to the communications networks in the easiest possible way, and that does not necessarily have to be done through the infrastructure and RE that the traditional wireless carriers control (i.e, their spectrum positions and cell tower networks). If I am a consumer, I don't care about what technology I use to connect to the Internet. What I care about is ubiquitous connectivity, high throughput, low latency, and mobility. The reason I go with the traditional wireless providers is because they offer me a last mile connection that I can utilize pretty much anywhere with devices that I can carry around with me. At this time, VZ and T are the big dogs of this space. In fact, they're really the only game in town -- as of now. That's why there is pricing power -- not because of capacity issues. In this type of situation, when new entrants come in that have a viable alternative to what you're selling, you have the double whammy of losing market share and price competition finally taking hold. And that hopefully (for the consumer) means reduced ARPUs/ARPAs -- or at the very least, more value for each dollar spent. Why would new entrants come in? Because there is finally economic opportunity in this space for these new entrants. The wait and see approach generally works when technology brings costs down and the market for your proposed services solidify, as John Malone has proved over the years. Someone already mentioned "carrier wifi." Why are these big wireless providers working on carrier wifi? Because they know that all consumers care about is having ubiquitous connectivity. AT&T's goal is to give you a very high speed connection from anywhere and convince you to subscribe to their services on a monthly basis. But what happens if the MSOs (cable cos) start blanketing cities with their own wifi access points and partnering with wholesale wireless providers (or white space providers) to fill in the gaps? All of a sudden, you have viable alternatives to AT&T and VZ. I can turn to TWC, for example, for all my connectivity needs instead of AT&T. What if big tech decides they will try to subsidize connectivity for customers who use their services by purchasing capacity from the wifi providers, sat cos, wholesale wireless providers, or whomever? What if content providers who also control communications infrastructure can subsidize their high margin content bundles by providing low cost Internet access? And if we get a metered world, then you start to see things changing even more. Consumers will be able to hop on and off people's networks in a much easier fashion. Again, IMO, it's not really about the spectrum positions and cell tower networks over the long run. It's about being a low cost provider of connectivity and about customer relationships. The telecom and media industry contains some of the best businessmen in the planet. IMO, for the vast majority of investors, they're better off putting their money with the John Malones, Brian Roberts, Barry Dillers, and Charlie Ergens of this world, rather than trying to do it themselves. Even WEB played this space by partnering with Tom Murphy.

Why QCOM ? Don't think their patent dominance can continue - they are already not dominant in 4G patents I think he's on to something. With more things utilizing broadband data (cars, phones, laptops, tablets, appliances) the demand should only rise. Another angle might be to buy QCOM. Even my cable internet had pricing power on me- comcast, time warner aren't losing pricing power considering regional monopolies

valid concern in my opinion; interesting to watch how this evolves

wachtwoord, why cannot a big player like visa/mastercard or amazon issue their own crypocurrency ? with their channel it will be much easier for them to pump up such a crypocurrency Sure they need to make that crypocurrency transparent and distributed just like bitcoin; the only benefit for them is that they can own a big chunk of such currency as the founder And if such a currency can be a major currency down the road - that chuck will be worth a lot for them I see this as a real threat to bitcoin b/c it's much easier for those ones to pump up another currency - to pump up bitcoin gives them zero benefit You don't see Bitcoin go up a 100x from here so you prefer the casino? I'd say investing in Bitcoin is a (very) profitable decision EV-wise while investing in a basket of altcoins is negative EV. I'm not saying it's impossible, but neither is 31 black ;)

That's nice But I suppose you can not put an online order and have to call them to put an order ?

Guys, what's our latest estimation of FFH 's book value now (after the $10 div) ?

no offense here, but I don't think Tim's long term record is good enough I really don't mind if the past 3 is good But really his track record in overall didn't convince me he is a star fund manager btw: I do enjoy his letters and some interview