Dustin T
-
Posts
118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dustin T
-
-
I would almost expect them to work together more in the future. Shipping containers are pretty standard and at the point that trucks are self driving I expect the exchange of the shipping container to the truck could also be done without an operator. This would shift more of the long haul trucking to train. I think the logistics make this a little more complicated now with the need to schedule around people. I believe the future favors rail.
-
28.7%
Biggest winner of the year IPGP, IPG Photonics disrupting the laser market one fiber laser at a time.
Biggest loser DKS, Dick sporting goods wrapped up in the retail tailspin, but still growing and buying back shares.
-
Surprised Thomas Gayner of MKL isn't on this list. He's 55 and has impressive results as MKL chief capital allocator.
-
Kansas City, MO
-
I don't think a public autonomous EV sounds very attractive as a sole mode of transport. I'd love to have one deliver groceries or run errands for me. My car will always be more comfortable then any commercial plane, subway car or taxi, which is inevitably what a public option looks like.
I would want my own autonomous vehicle. Knowing it could be outfitted as a mobile office, mobile theatre, mobile exercise complete with spin machine helping add a few watts to the car battery or a dozen other uses. These would all add value to my life and make travel more enjoyable or productive.
I've got no doubt sharing something that sits 90% of the time has a lot of economic benefit and many would choose that option. I also think many middle class and many more upper class families will choose a comfortable, convenient and customizable option. They may go from three vehicles to one, but there are many reasons to keep that one.
-
I certainly haven't shot many Ruger firearms, but that is because the high-income gun-nuts that I know simply don't own them, or if they do own them, don't consider them worth yanking out of the safe for the trip.
Maybe it's because I live in such a cosmopolitan state, but it seems to be relatively well-agreed upon among shooters (that aren't draping themselves in the American flag and occupying forest stations) that:
1. Mass produced weapons out of Europe (and Israel) are generally superior and that
2. European-designed weapons manufactured in America are lower quality than the same weapon designs manufactured in America and that
3. The only downside to these weapons is that they are generally quite expensive, which has a lot more to do with regulation and protectionism than underlying production economics (Glocks cost less than a hundred dollars to manufacture, which is probably less than Ruger's production cost per unit for its vastly inferior striker-fired series).
I guess if you wanted to test the "common" wisdom you would ask what the recent procurement decisions are for informed police forces, special tactics teams, the standard military, etc. SOCOM is toting around the FN Scar (Belgium) as their rifle, the army just recently chose the Sig P320 (Germany) to replace the long-serving Beretta M9 (Italy) as service pistol. And of course "America's gun" was invented by the very un-American sounding Gaston Glock (Austria), and that seems to be what almost every cop is toting, although I can't be sure because cops tend to get spooked when I stare too hard at their holsters.
AFAIK, Ruger is a non-entity in these contract wars, and the only historical significance of Smith and Wesson is that they used to be the standard for law enforcement until too many LEO kept getting slaughtered by baddies with better weapons. Hence Glock becoming America's Gun.
I hope it's clear that I've not even opened the Ruger 10-K, so I'm not at all making a specific investment call here; just throwing out some things that pop into my head when I think of the name Ruger. I'm also no gun expert, so I'm susceptible to kool-aid on this stuff.
I'm a Glock guy myself, if Glock was public I would already own it, there is no question that they are the best semi-auto handguns on Earth. But Ruger is a quality company which makes a quality product. No one makes a better revolver, no one. And as far as semi-auto goes, as I said above, I just purchased a Ruger LCP II. Yes if Glock made a .380 of a similar size I would have went with the Glock, but they don't. My main carry gun is a Glock 26 in 9mm, but depending on what you are wearing, it isn't always easy to conceal. Glock has a single stack .380, but it is huge compared to the Ruger, certainly not a gun you can throw in your front pants pocket. For pocket carry .380s there is Ruger LCP & LCP II, Beretta Pico, and a bunch of lower quality guns from other brands. For revolvers there is really no option better than Ruger. Ruger makes a quality rifles as well, although there is a lot of competition in that space. I just don't think it is accurate to say Ruger makes garbage.
I concur with that, I think it's just Johnny's crowd and for their purposes it may be true. Glock makes a great gun but so does Ruger. It may not be the equivalent of a high end pistol but the idea that a Ruger is "vastly inferior" to a Glock makes me wonder what their metric is. It's not vastly more accurate, or vastly more reliable. It all depends on what you are doing. For shooters that compete one gun may be vastly inferior to another based on weight, reload time or other factors that wouldn't seem obvious at first. One mans perfection may be another man's junk.
-
Firearms do wear out. It Depends on the caliber, but its somewhere around 10,000+ rounds so it's usually never reached. Firearms hold their value very well if they are treated properly. Values usually drop 20% when you walk out of the store but then slowly raise with inflation over the years with some models doing better or worse.
I own several Ruger's and they make excellent products.
-
I read it several years ago and liked it. It provides a deeper understanding of a very impactful time that and shows that things were much more complicated then the standard narrative allows for.
-
A very well written review. I'm going to have to take a look at this book.
-
Most people vastly overestimate the power of the president to alter the economy, world politics, and their own lives.
But how about Angela Merkel's disastrous refugee policies that changed the lives of so many German people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany
1200 women were raped publicly on the street. Their lives were forever changed.
And this is just one incident. Smaller crimes happen almost everyday in Germany now.
1200 sexual assaults** and at least 5 rapes.
The president does have power, I didn't say his choices didn't matter. I didn't give much color to that last statement and you guys took it another direction than I intended. Many people buy in whole heartedly when a president speaks of creating jobs and improving the economy or preventing recessions, keeping the world safe, and improving the lives of the poor. A president does effect all these things but I think most people imagine he has more power over their lives than he does.
-
This thread is great for seeing who has checked their brain at the door and bought all the magic beans being sold by either the left or the right. Keep both eyes open my fellow investors, neither side has all the answers. We all know deep down that high caliber people like Buffett, Munger, or Watsa don't chase after political dreams and are wise not too.
It's ok to prefer the clown over the corrupt one or vice versa. It's not very wise to believe that one side will usher in Nirvana if it can only get complete control while the other side is the road to the apocalypse. Most people vastly overestimate the power of the president to alter the economy, world politics, and their own lives.
-
That is a great article. I think it rings true. I believe we have some of those technologies in front of us now that do get some attention but nowhere near the attention they would get if we understood their future value. Things like mapping the human genome, Siri/Cortana/Alexa, driverless cars, medical advances in too many fields to list. These things get some attention but if we understood how big the impact will be once those technologies are mature we would all be watching intently, pushing for adoption and cheering every advance.
-
How about a transportation system that merges rail and drones. The drones lift people or goods to the nearest high speed rail line, built conveniently on the now abandoned interstate system. It lands on the train on a specially designed car which is moving at 150 mph It then rides until it either needs to hit the air to switch trains or it gets close enough to it's destination to just take the last leg on it's own. The rail network is greatly expanded and may consist of single cars traveling in lightly traveled areas. Trains don't really switch tracks so much as drones switch trains, usually at intersections where they are timed to pass through at the same time with a swarm of drones jumping from one train to the next.
Combines what both technologies are good at, cheapest form of overland transportation with drones providing service for the last mile or ten.
I'm already invested in Berkshire, I better get invested in Amazon before the world catches on;)
I kind of like the hyperloop tech for intercity traveling at much greater speed than 150mpg (600-700 mph) in evacuated tunnels and drones for intracity short distance travel. This would leave airports for intercontinental travel only, at least until they put hyperloop tunnels under the oceans.
I was pretty sure I'd get a hyperloop reply, which I think will be awesome technology if they can figure out the little things like how to actually build a viable working model. I'm not sure whether it would be lower cost than rail, it would seem to be a faster more expensive way to travel. Well worth it over longer or heavily traffic distances. I don't see it totally replacing rail for many things like transporting high volume low cost goods like coal or agricultural products or large/heavy equipment.
I was just having fun with my thought experiment mixing drones and fast moving trains, you've now expanded it to include uber-fast trains. I thank you for that. The Hyperloop will now form the arteries of my transportation system, along with High speed rail as the vessels, and drones as the capillaries. You take the Hyperloop to go from LA to NY or maybe just from New York to New Jersey. You ride a drone from your house to hitch a ride on the high speed light rail to get to work.
-
How about a transportation system that merges rail and drones. The drones lift people or goods to the nearest high speed rail line, built conveniently on the now abandoned highway system. It lands on the train on a specially designed car which is moving at 150 mph and only stops for maintenance or off hours. It then rides until it either needs to hit the air to switch trains or it gets close enough to it's destination to just take the last leg on it's own. The rail network is greatly expanded and may consist of single cars traveling in lightly traveled areas. Trains don't really switch tracks so much as drones switch trains, usually at intersections where they are timed to pass through at the same time with a swarm of drones jumping from one train to the next.
Combines what both technologies are good at, cheapest form of overland transportation with drones providing service for the last mile or ten.
I'm already invested in Berkshire, I better get invested in Amazon before the world catches on;)
-
What I like best about CoB&F is that it's largely a troll free zone, when I saw this thread I feared it would drag out some trolls. I'm glad this hasn't devolved into a typical internet message board flame war. Though a few of these messages may have tiptoed a little close to that abyss. Kudos to all of you for resisting that temptation.
The world is full of Kool-Aid drinking types that manage to convince themselves that one side has the right of it and the other is evil and out to demolish the world. I'm glad to be blessed with some very intelligent friends from across the political spectrum. Being able to see the world through their eyes helps immeasurably in understanding the issues and not just the straw men both sides use to represent their opponents.
-
He may not have won many games but he invested in his teams future. He left the team loaded with draft picks. He may or may not have been successful in the long run, but I respect what he was trying to accomplish, I see a turnaround in the near future.
2016
•1st round pick – 76ers or Kings (Sixers get better of their own pick or Kings pick, assuming Kings pick falls in top-10).
•1st round pick – Lakers (unless it falls in the top 3)
•1st round pick – Heat (unless it falls in the top 10. Can swap with GSW if GSW pick is better)
•1st round pick – Thunder (unless it falls in top 15. Can swap with GSW if GSW pick is better)
2017
•1st round pick – 76ers or Kings (Sixers get better of their own pick or Kings pick).
2018
•1st round pick – 76ers
•1st round pick – Kings (top-10 protected, has to be 2 years after Kings pick to Chicago conveys)
•2nd round pick – 76ers
•2nd round pick – Nets or Cavs (whichever is better)
•2nd round pick – Clippers or Knicks (whichever is better)
2019
•1st round pick – 76ers
•2nd round pick – 76ers
•2nd round pick – Bucks or Kings (whichever is better)
•2nd round pick – Knicks
2020
•1st round pick – 76ers
•2nd round pick – 76ers
•2nd round pick – Nets
•2nd round pick – Knicks
2021
•1st round pick – 76ers
•2nd round pick – 76ers
•2nd round pick – Knicks
-
This is a horrid topic for this board, politicians are something to be scraped off ones shoe, I'd rather discuss actual issues than any of the narcissists from various parties that want this job no good man can get elected to anymore.
My only advice is too stay away from the political Kool-Aid. The only thing as stupid as a room full of Democrats is a room full of Republicans, and vice versa.
-
what time does it come out
Should post Saturday morning by 7 or 8am Eastern time.
-
I think everyone would agree it helps, If you are limited on time, and I think most of are. We don't have the time and/or passion to put in Buffetesque amounts of time reading and pondering. I think you have to go with the advantages you have. Most of us possess the ability to understand a section of the market, whether it's pharma, banks, or fast casual restaurants. We can have a niche. I think someone putting in 4 hours a week could be an absolute expert on a small area and recognize values in that area especially amongst smaller caps. It still takes the right temperament, the ability to learn from mistakes, and patience. I think Oddball is a good example of this with small cap bank stocks.
That would be my advice to a new investor who like most of us has limited time. Put most your money in index funds or a few BRK style stocks, and learn with a 10-20% slice, starting with a small pool.
-
As a kid I always loved to learn, read through encyclopedia's, read ahead if there was anything interesting in the textbooks. Yet I loathed school. I thought then and still think it was a waste of my time. It was the slow pace dictated by the poorest performers coupled with the fact that forcing a 6-12 year old to sit still for most of 7 hours straight is pretty dumb. I certainly learned a lot, but I could of learned a lot more, or learned just as much in a third the time. It would have been tough back then in the 80's to tailor things to my needs and abilities. They did the best they could with what they had.
Fast forward a few decades and not much has changed, like most government institutions there is no incentive to adapt new technology at anywhere near the pace of private enterprise.
I would privatize schools with a voucher system. Competition is a good thing and I trust parents to know best how to measure performance and choose the right schools. There are of course parents who could care less, and sadly it is difficult to help those kids, but I believe best practices would flow to even the worst schools.
I believe the technology is available to teach each kid at their own pace, in their own learning style, with stories and examples that resonate with them. We need to move past the one sized fits all education system. It should be highly individualized much of the learning would be khan academy style or via recorded lectures. A recorded lecture from an outstanding teacher beats a live lecture from a poor one, and the youngest generation learns all sorts of stuff from instructional videos on youtube as it is.
Lastly we should put a little more focus on our best and brightest. We will get much further by helping the top quartile reach their potential then by helping the bottom quartile reach theirs. I think if you broke it down you would discover that more money and teaching resources are poured into the lowest quartile.
I like the idea of making education voluntary. I'd hate to see any kid drop out, but also realize a kid who doesn't want to be there and whose family doesn't value education can truly slow down the learning of a whole class.
-
Anathem, and probably Seveneves after that, although I'm less than a quarter through it, it is very good so far.
Then probably Reamde. I enjoyed Reamde, although it was lighter on the Science than many of his other works, it could be turned into a great action adventure movie.
Next would be The Baroque Cycle, slow at times, but really good over all.
Then The Diamond Age and finally Snowcrash. They are both good (especially Diamond Age), but not at the level of his later stuff. As far as his first books go, I couldn't get into Zodiac and I've never read his first novel (I forget the name and too lazy to look it up).
I've read both Cryptonomicon and Anathem twice, plus listened to the audiobook versions once. All the others I've only read once.
I finished the "Crytonomicon" and it was a wonderful book, one of the better ones I've read this decade. I'll certainly read some of his others.
I also read "Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX" I think Elon Musk is a genius and I like that he's trying to change the world. This book convinced me not to invest in any of his companies. He would bankrupt Space X in a second if he thought he had to do it to put a man on Mars. He almost bankrupted Tesla a few times. He is brilliant but his passion is making the world better, not getting rich. I hope he succeeds, but my investments will seek safer harbors.
-
They are a little high-tech but I like UBNT and IPGP.
DKS and WINA are options that are a little lower technology.
It's just my opinion but I'd avoid "family owned". I love companies ran by the founder and invest in them when I can. I think very often after the original owner operator leaves it detiorates if he leaves family in charge, If he doesn't leave the family in charge it's not an owner-operator any more. Sometimes that's not the case but the son of the founder is too often an "August Busch IV". I'm honestly struggling to think of an heir that has took over a fantastic business that did half as well as his father. There are companies like DKS Dicks sporting goods where the heir took a sleepy 2 store chain and turned it into a huge company, but that's a case of the son truly building the company and exceeding his father’s record. Usually they are just average but I think heirs are more likely to underperform than outperform. I think you always have to wait a few years for them to prove themselves.
-
I tend to think driverless cars are going to lead to less total cars. Where a family today might have two or three cars because of the need to leave them at their workplace or school while there, a single driverless car can act as a taxi for each family member shuttling them around town as needed. It will be interesting to see how auto insurers deal with driverless cars, I expect that if they become universal, there will be a large premium for individuals who want the option to drive the old fashioned way occasionally.
The fleet of driverless cars on call is an interesting idea but I think people will still want a personal car, especially families living outside the heart of major metropolitan areas. The real question is will your driverless car be able to hire itself out while you're working and don't need it, wonder what the insurers would think of that scenario.
There will certainly be people who own their own vehicle, but I think this will be at the wealthier end of the spectrum. For most people it won't make sense. Even for people who can afford it many will opt not to bother. If you work 50 miles from home does it really make sense to have your car bring you to work then drive 50 miles back home empty to drive your kids to school, then drive 50 miles empty at the end of the day to pick you back up? I think that as much as people above a certain age like driving and owning cars, it is more of a cultural thing that will not last very long (especially with younger people) if the economics doesn't make sense. My son is 15 and I was talking with him about it and it'd be fine with him if driverless cars were available now and he never had to learn how to drive. He'd rather watch youtube and let the car take him where he wants to go. Sort of like now with me driving :) Younger people simply don't have the same cultural attachment to cars and driving that people over 35 have.
I agree with you for the most part but I think there will be things that slow it down. First off public transportation just isn't as comfortable or clean as most people prefer their own vehicles to be. I think most of us would prefer to ride in our own cars over a typical taxi. People prefer their own space to communal spaces. Many a soccer mom will choose to transport their kids in a known clean vehicle than risk whatever disease the previous occupants of the week may have had.
Many people have hobbies or work requirements that a fleet of vehicles will be slower to provide. Hauling golf carts, four wheelers, kayaks, bicycles, home improvement supplies, and pets, and landscaping all to some degree require special equipment that will require specialized services. Certainly niche services will provide some of these, but there will always be atypical transportation needs.
We also enjoy the level of customization that comes with our own vehicles. Always having the seats adjusted just the way you like it, the presets on the radio, and other little creature comforts like heated seats. I also think working from a car would be much easier if it's customized to your liking. Not to mention entertainment I can imagine cars set up with wraparound IMAX type of entertainment systems or whatever else is used for entertainment in the future.
I think the tremendous savings will make penetration over 50% and will cause virtually every family to use them some.
But I think the best correlation is probably traveling commercial vs. a private jet. Most of us can't afford a private jet, but the private car will be much more attainable for the middle class and possibly just as desired as the private jet is for the wealthy.
-
When valuations are higher, this is actually the logical course of action, especially for individual investors, rather than lowering standards further and further and spinning trash as gold. When people don't have investment ideas, they don't have investment ideas.
Innerscorecard, what markets are you referring to where valuation is higher? There are 60,000 stocks that a North American investor can invest. There are always pockets of cheap stocks: eg., HongKong, Russia, Greece, many stocks in these areas are not trash as I think of the word.
I definitely agree that there are cheap stocks out there, or sure. But the crucial variable isn't whether there are cheap stocks on an absolute basis, or even enough cheap stocks for individual investors to be completely fully invested. It's whether valuation levels are higher or lower than they were when this board was more active. All those international opportunities existed then, too, but there were also more US and large-cap opportunities then as well. So the aggregate amount of actionable ideas is lower now than then, even if it is still enough for people to be fully invested. Some people will be entrepreneurial and risk-seeking enough to find the ideas that exist currently. That's why we still do have posts on this board. And others won't, which is why there are less posts than before. For example, copying 13Fs will be less frutiful than before, because this only draws from the universe investable for 13F filers.
I agree with innerscorecard. There will always be undervalued opportunities, but there were a lot more 1,3,or 5 years ago. My suggestion is to follow the threads about the stocks you are interested in and ignore the ones you find less illuminating. Nothing wrong with a little small talk on the fringes and it's going to be a larger part of the conversation when compelling investment ideas are few and far between.
What are your favorite history books?
in Books
Posted
"A short history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson.
Bryson is gifted with words, no depth to this book at all but he covers nearly everything in one fun to read volume.