constructive

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. That's begging the question. Bitcoin succeeding and transaction volume skyrocketing isn't a reasonable assumption to make when trying to value BTC, since BTC value and transaction demand are interrelated.

Yes I know all that, and pretty sure Levine knows it too. It's common sense. How would you estimate future $ fees earned by miners per transaction, next week or next month or next year? You would look at current $ fees earned by miners per transaction. $100 per transaction is not sustainable. Let's say $10 per transaction is a fair price. Either transaction volume has to increase 10x or BTC has to drop 90%.

How do you figure transactions are way cheaper? They're not when you take the indirect cost of mining into account.

As I understand it, if it's material and nonpublic but doesn't come from a relationship between the insider and investor, it's not illegal insider trading. Journalists aren't insiders, thus no insider trading. If the story is false there could be libel, fraud and conspiracy though. Not defending SAC of course, it's pretty clear that illegal insider trading was part of their business model.

Matt Levine's blog from a few days ago is a must read. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-02/bitcoin-is-an-expensive-way-to-pay-for-stuff.html http://www.bloomberg.com/image/iUy1FKJZ7.xQ.png Cost per transaction (taking the indirect cost of mining into account) is obviously high and on this basis it looks like a bubble. BTC has advantages over other payment systems but it also has disadvantages (acceptance, volatility, immature systems, potentially shifting legality). There is not that big a niche market for $100 transactions. And without enough underlying demand for BTC as a payment service, the speculation built on top of that will eventually collapse.

FDN and PNQI look like they have potential. Also check out SOCL. http://etfdb.com/etf/SOCL/#holdings Average trailing PE of ~125, forward PE of ~100.

I've never listened to Jim Rogers but LUKOY and JSHLY.

USG clever? 13 years into the investment, so far it's looking about as clever as USAir or Dexter Shoes.

short selling != naked short selling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_short_selling

Considering the ultra high borrow, didn't think it really met the spirit of the challenge.

1. FNMA 2. FMCC 3. GRPN 4. ANGI 5. RSOL 6. PRTS 7. VNCE 8. USU 9. NEWL 10. GSI

This in particular: "And [the potential Fairholme judges] do not have the kind of muscular judicial review strategy that has characterized my view for the last thirty odd years, ever since the mid-80s I declared the New Deal unconstitutional as a matter of first principal in my takings book." So he is a fair distance from mainstream political/judicial philosophy. I wonder what his analytical performance record looks like.

Why is it unfair, if he made a monster mistake that cost millions in his fund it should be recorded on his resume. As for your second point that he is addressing this cash issue, I see a red flag. He seems to be a general who is fighting the last war. An unoriginal thinker will not seek to understand the world but to look for a pattern that he hopes will repeat. The secret is out of the bag on that one which is one people had been taking money out of stocks into cash even through 2010-2012. That in part explains why 2013 was such a surprise...... Others like Buffett, Berkowitz, Bruce all had ample cash going into 2008. I am looking for the next great idea from a truely original thinker. 10 yrs from now we will hear about another book of people who foresaw something great, like Michael Burry, Paulson and Einhorne foresaw the mortgage meltdown..... cheers You are aware that Pabrai's total return since he started managing money has crushed Berkowitz and Buffett over comparable time periods, right?

Before the slump they were going a little bit crazy. Commodities had abnormally high performance 2000-2008 and 2009-2011. Valuations now seem on the low side but maybe not by a huge amount, since 2008 and 2011 valuations were on the high side. And I agree China plays a big role.

Making lists that include 2- and sometimes 3- but never ever include item 1- What kind of text formatting is that? Were you raised by wolves?

Last year's thread for reference: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/2012-returns/

+52% YTD Largest contributors were GNW, BIDU, SYA and APO.

Russia and emerging markets in general mREITs

Clothing retailers (BODY, GMAN, FRAN, URBN, AEO, ANF, ARO, VRA, COH)

Looks pretty solid to me. I wouldn't be surprised if the motion succeeds. The weak point is the claim that the intent of the Third Amendment was to strengthen the enterprises and reduce their cost of debt. But if the rest of their arguments are solid, that doesn't matter because the lawsuits will be thrown out.

http://somrh.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_25.html somrh is doing a research project. Spend 15 minutes estimating the intrinsic value of a company and you could win a $25 gift card. I entered and thought others might find it interesting too.

I don't follow your point. Most tech infrastructure in 1999 didn't exist in 1985 either.

Good read. I didn't notice anything about his book. I think he is more right than wrong, but at the same time I think Tepper, Marks and Buffett will make more money than bears like Hussman and Grantham across the cycle. Simply because great investors are more likely to treat market valuation as a hobby and security analysis as a full time job.

He needs a couple of hours with a graphic designer. That font/layout makes my eyes unhappy. I agree that only showing gross returns is problematic. Maybe he has multiple fee structures and thinks showing net returns would be difficult.

This is interesting but we're only getting half the story. What do the unsuccessful blogs about survivorship bias say? :D Speaking of learning from failures as well as successes, The Billion Dollar Mistake is a good read.