wiessman

key success factor manage your expenses with a microscope manage your investments with a telescope it's really not all that more complicated than that

FWIW I was paying $8k/yr for 4 cars with Nationwide - had been their customer for 20+ yrs I walked into my local GEICO office (nothing fancy, actually kind of a dump) and lowered my policy cost to $4k/yr Don't you know I signed the papers as quickly as i could. I have found their customer service to be superb.

Broxburnboy One doesn't have to be a right winger to be libertarian - they are not necessarily the same. Ron Paul is the sanest guy out there. You are absolutely right on regarding his position statements.

Dealraker Me too. I remember his analysis of Leucadia back then - he was one of the few that really tried to understand how they made it happen. Good guy who is bright and transparent. He seems to really care about his customers in an environment where he could easily run money in hedge fund world and dispense with the little guy.

I think you got it right Buffeteer An empty trash can makes the most noise

AXP - owned 10+ yrs; basis = $10 AES - owned 5+ yrs; basis = $2 DELL - owned 15+ yrs; basis = $1.25 BRK - owned 10+ yrs; basis = $30,000 C - owned 3+ yrs; basis = $20 JNJ new position KFT new position NLY new position KO new position PG new position T new position all new positions are primarily yield driven based on relatively low absolute PE's (Low P/B in case of NLY)

Bronco - at what price do you like KFT? thanks

Parsad, I just read your initial post right after reading Howard Mark's latest commentary. I don't know how to reconcile the two views which on surface appear to be diametrically opposed. It seems like every dimension of life these days involves a struggle between polar opposites. Are these merely descriptors of fat tails that will resolve themselves somewhere in the middle?

The credit agencies in relation to the bond market are no different than appraisers are to the real estate market. Any serious participant in either market understands how spurious the assessments of value formulated by them are. Any business person who utilizes either in lieu of performing their own underwriting deserves what they get. Relying on a mere agent to assume responsibility for the performance of the underlying principal interest makes no sense in the world. Agency opinions were never intended to nor could they ever be considered insurance.

FWIW I read in an old Sports Illustrated article that his actual out of pocket equity investment in the original transaction was $170k for a little over half interest. Presumably the balance was financed. In addition, because he died this year, any tax liability associated with his death has been eliminated. The IRR on the deal is thru the roof. That's why the limited partners have always been relatively quiet and you never hear about them. While they have cringed over the years over all the bombast, they knew they were making a ton of money. If you go to SI Vault you can read the old articles on the man. While not always pleasant to work for, his philanthropy (mostly anonymous) was significant as was his work ethic. A very interesting man who accomplished a lot in his life.

I'll be interested to see what "good" friends the three amigos are when crunch time comes. LeBron is a quitter. Talented to be sure but he has quit on his teammates in the past when the bell was ringing. And a poor sport. I think the guy has a huge bulls-eye on his back. He's upped the ante on those rooting for him to fail. I don't see how that can enhance his brand. I just don't like the cut of the guy's jib. Rant over.

I guess I'm an old timer. The whole thing reeked of personal aggrandizement. I harken back to the day when the team was what mattered. It was probably an illusion. Having said that, I don't have a problem with free agency (how could a self-described libertarian think otherwise?). The major problem I have with the NBA (and all professional sports teams for that matter) is the issue of public financing of stadia. What happens is that these "colosseums" (a reference to the Roman Empire) are financed on the public dole which then allows capital to be freed up to pay these enormous salaries to the players. And then joe six-pack can't even afford to go to the game. The financing capacity of the dole is then limited; no wonder our schools and hospitals are falling apart and under funded. The Reason TV (www.reason.com) series on Cleveland is a case in point. Moreover, I will never understand how the titans of Wall Street and public CEO's get pilloried for non-sensical pay packages in comparison. When the Martians invade us 1,000 years from now, they will observe and contemplate how such an advanced society could completely have it's priorities so screwed up.

No kidding as to the reasoning. And the people who write this crap actually get paid?

Thanks elltel - very helpful

Thanks Tariq for the quick response Very helpful to us

To the board - I'm looking for insight and ideas My cousin is a summer intern with a large investment bank's currency trading desk in Hong Kong. Apparently, the training is pretty cryptic. Accordingly, I'm looking for some ideas - are there any books, articles, papers, etc that you are aware of that would discuss the introductory elements of currency trading? Any and all ideas are welcome Thanks!!!!!!!!

This is setting up as a teutonic intellectual contest between Krugman on the one hand ("we need to spend our way out of this problem and we'll worry about the debt later") and Niall Ferguson on the other ("we've seen this movie before and it always has a bad ending"). I read them both and I don't know what to believe. Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle? On the other hand, maybe the "problem" has no solution.

Very cool analogy, Sharper

I've always respected Bruce and try to read everything he writes. It seems like in the past he has publicly stated that he shies away from the financials precisely because he can't underwrite the quality of the assets, ie, the loan base. Now I believe he's saying the equity at C is so cheap that such a view doesn't matter - at least I guess that's what he must be saying. To take that view don't you have to then underwrite the reserves - in other words do they fairly represent the loss potential of the loan base. FWIW, the view of this "man on the street" is that we haven't seen the end of loan problems owing to the much advertised hangover awaiting us in commercial real estate. Maybe they have already taken their licks on the balance sheet, maybe not. But based on their history who can be sure. Seems I've read that this is why Buffett has always been so high on Wells Fargo - he trusts their culture to properly take the correct marks. I've come to this conclusion much to late. I've lost my butt in the stock and don't expect to recover. I bought in the 40's and view it as a permanent loss of capital. Thanks for the various viewpoints.

Txlaw, Thanks for the reference to your other posts which I had not seen. FWIW, I appreciate your long posts - I think I always learn something

Myth - I can't disagree with the hypothetical - of course that's not right. But I don't think the situations are similar. We're talking about heavily traded markets among sophisticated investors where price discovery occurs constantly so to calibrate the views of buyers and sellers as to the constantly changing attractiveness of their positions vis a vis changing market conditions. And the shorts are there to keep everyone honest as to euphoria. Moreover, everyone understands the role of the broker, ie, GS - not that they will act fraudulently but that they can, will and do work both sides of the transaction. Dual agency happens all the time if that's what the lawyers would call this. ACA relied on the rating agencies - shame on them and they ought to be able to collect on that if the collateral is there. I like Buffet's view on this - if you're sitting at the table and you don't know who the patsy is, guess what. You're the patsy. I just don't think fraud was involved and if it was ACA should be bringing the suit not the SEC. I just loath the idea of some regulator trying to keep up with all of this to protect me - I would rather seek redress myself if I think I'm wronged. Thanks for responding to my thoughts and I guess we'll see how this plays out.

I will state again that I'm not a Goldman homer. But they play it both ways in all kinds of markets. Different sides of the house can, will and do play the trade as a principal and/or play it as a broker - at the same time and on the same trade. There's a law against that? I read the offering memorandum and there are at least 10 pages of disclaimers. Among sophisticated market players, I think the issue of disclosure is (or should be) an issue of reputational as opposed to regulatory risk as in "fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you." In other words, screw me and I'll never do business with you again. Do you really want the SEC to monitor this stuff? In addition, why is the SEC filing suit instead of the supposedly put out client? Having said all of that, if true fraud is involved, that's a separate matter and it obviously has to be prosecuted but I don't sense that is the case here. The way to solve all this is to reinstate Glass-Stegall which isn't going to happen. All my comments are offered in good faith - I'm not just trying to be argumentative.

I thought the editorial in the WSJ this morning was revealing as well. I'm not a Goldman homer but this is not the deal by which to tar and feather the supposed miscreants. These were sophisticated investors who acted as principals on either side of the transaction. The street likes to use the phrase "market makers." Where I come from, market makers are nothing more than brokers who perform as instructed by principals on either side of the deal. And job #1 when dealing with brokers is to recognize the following (perhaps cynical) truism - "How does one know a broker is lying? Answer = his lips are moving." It's not that simple, I know, but for crying out loud, these were very sophisticated people. Goldman may have done some bad things but it didn't happen on this deal. Looks like more prosecutorial excess in an attempt to fan the political flames. Is there something I am missing?

Neglected to buy AXP at $10/sh in March when it was yielding 8%. Would now be a 4 bagger Neglected to buy PLD at $2/sh in Nov 2008 when it was yielding 45%. Would now be a 7 bagger Huge unforced errors or "acts of ommission"

FWIW......................... I've owned the company since 1993 and have a basis of $1.25/sh. It's been good to me but I should have sold it in 2000 or so when it got over $60/share. No different than Buffett saying he should have sold Coke at around the same time. But I didn't, so I've just decided to hold on to it. I think the previously stated concerns about growth and margins are likely valid. On the other hand however, the company has no debt, $4/sh in cash and throws off nearly $2/sh in cash flow. It's arguably a cheap stock - not as cheap as it was at 8, but cheap nevertheless. In addition to FFH's recent commitment, it's also the largest holding of Longleaf/Mason Hawkins/Southeastern. I guess my perspective today is why fight the apparent logic of Watsa and Hawkins particularly when I have such a low basis. I have not bought anymore and won't - it's 10% of my portfolio.