Peregrine

A counter argument can be made that the most at-risk drivers will turn off their computers and drive however they please, while the least-risk drivers will keep their computers on (if it does improve safety). Overall the possibility of accidents may not change much at all.

Why not? Would people really feel safe or comfortable with a computer guiding their cars? Besides, even on planes and trains where everything is highly automated and human input is designed and forced to be minimal, humans still have to be at the controls.

Can technology completely eliminate the possibility of accidents? I highly doubt it. A level of human cognition will always be desirable. Whether it will make driving safer is an entirely different question. But I don't think people can handle not driving their own cars in one form or another anyway.

I think people ultimate make their own prospects and I think running away from your problems generally compounds your problems. I generally agree but I think there are exceptions. Sometimes you are born into good prospects (Buffett being born in America) and likewise sometimes you are put into an insurmountable situation. Now, if the question is choosing to take out hundreds of thousands of debt...that is a whole other issue. So what are her insurmountable odds? She lives in the richest country in the world, she's healthy, she has shelter and food, she has a source of income however meager it is, and she has huge debt that will probably leave her with negative net worth for a while. Right now, she just needs to increase her income enough to where she can start chipping away at that debt a little at a time. I assume zero prospects...Im not sure what her situation really is. I was speaking more in a hypothetical case, not specific to this woman. Yep. I think the insurmountable situation would be that of the African baby born into a place with no food or shelter or the person dying of cancer. I think that people, particularly those of the developed world, become so entrapped in their own worlds that they lose perspective. This woman may never have a lot of money, but that doesn't mean she can't still live a very fulfilling life. Needless to say, all of us will meet our ends eventually but it's how we make use of that time that counts.

I think people ultimate make their own prospects and I think running away from your problems generally compounds your problems. I generally agree but I think there are exceptions. Sometimes you are born into good prospects (Buffett being born in America) and likewise sometimes you are put into an insurmountable situation. Now, if the question is choosing to take out hundreds of thousands of debt...that is a whole other issue. So what are her insurmountable odds? She lives in the richest country in the world, she's healthy, she has shelter and food, she has a source of income however meager it is, and she has huge debt that will probably leave her with negative net worth for a while. Right now, she just needs to increase her income enough to where she can start chipping away at that debt a little at a time.

I think people ultimate make their own prospects and I think running away from your problems generally compounds your problems.

Does she like practicing law? I think that's the major question. A lot of people get into things without truly understanding what they want, though not all get into it with a huge pile of debt either. IMO, if you truly have passion for something, you will ultimately become good at it. And in time, the market will hand you the rents that you deserve. Probably the best thing for her to do right now is to decide on what she wants to do and then go after it relentlessly. Worrying about her problems will get her no where (and probably will serve to put her a few steps backward too).

One line summary: Long term shareholders made a nice buck (some, gazillions) off the Short sellers, that's what happened. What were the reasons for them shorting?

I read that just now. Anyone have any more details on Fairfax's problems with short-sellers in 2006? What exactly happened there? Thanks.

ROAs and NIMs are much lower for banks than they used to be and appears to continue to contract. There's certainly less cushion for them to take on loan losses than before. That seems likely. What seems odd is the notion that that banks are restricting lending to even very good credits.

This is one of the things I question. I know there hasn't been enough demand from highest-credit borrowers to soak up all the deposits. But hasn't there been a class of borrowers shut off from credit that normally had access to it? In July 2011 I had a net worth in excess of $5m, and I couldn't get a 100k loan at a 50% LTV on a 4-plex in Sacramento with a 16% gross rental yield. My only other debt was my house mortgage -- less than 400k. They seem to be somewhat full of shit when they say they can't find anyone to lend to. Hmm..that's interesting. If you don't mind answering, what banks did you approach? At face value anyway, all the big banks have been complaining about anemic loan demand - particularly the ones that have weathered the financial storm better than others. I think it's very possible that a select few are seeking to grow market share while the vast majority are still retrenching. I think poor loan growth is due to a combination of both low demand and far stricter underwriting standards. Moreover, F&F make up an even larger percentage of the mortgage market than they did before the crisis so bank's loan growth depends far more on the commercial side than before. Mortgage originations have been at record levels in recent years but commercial loan growth has been flat since 2008 end. Combine that with the fact that deposits have grown 75% over the same time span and it's clear to see that banks have been drowning in cash. Also, the new capital rules are forcing banks to keep a higher percentage of earning assets in liquid securities, meaning less room for loans on the balance sheet anyway.

Hi Eric, I think when interest rates get higher, it will have a host of different effects on many things including the banks' ability to attract as many noninterest-bearing deposits like they have. Would banks be able to retain such a large proportion of cheap deposits when conditions are markedly different five years from now? That's a difficult question. Macroeconomics has so many first-, second-, and third-order effects that a rise in interest rates cannot simply occur in a vacuum. Savings accounts at all US depository institutions have increased 76% since the end of 2008. There clearly has been a "flight to safety" that has aided banks' deposit-taking abilities. The problem is that there isn't enough loan demand to sop up all those deposits.

Investing involves consideration of the opportunity cost of capital. Over the long-term, equities will be by far the most attractive asset class where ever interest rate levels are. So you can either stay invested in equities at these relatively lofty levels or earn almost nothing on fixed-income investments or even worse, completely nothing on cash. Faced with these options, I think the choice is fairly obvious for the value investor. Btw, this is my first post on this forum. Have lurked here for a while and finally decided to plunge in!