yadayada

I like Feynman's explanation, that you are sitting on a chess board in the corner, and can only see certain pieces being moved around, and then trying to deduce the rules of the game. You think you know it all, and then suddenly a pawn moves all the way to the other side, and all of a sudden it is a queen. Making you question what you really knew about the rules in the first place.

Some interesting things about this: past hoaxes with fusion were by shady people and not verified by someone reputable at NASA. So that makes a scam unlikely. So it has to be an error then. So basicly you can mount a shitload of these things with a lot of solar panels on a large space craft, and then constantly speed up without the need to carry any fuel. This allows you to reach a speed of several 100 million miles/hour. vs about 3-400k miles/hour currently? This would make it possible to reach the nearest star within a few decades. And it would make travel to our nearby planets a lot easier and cheaper. And maybe if the can jack up the force, flying cars? :D Would be pretty cool to be able to buy your own space bus for like a million$ or something. Launch from earth, cruise around the moon a bit, watch the sunrise from nearby earth, and then head back.

Do we have some physicists here? http://www.libertariannews.org/2014/07/31/nasa-confirms-new-em-thruster-violates-laws-of-conservation/ This time the experiment has been verified by NASA and two other unrelated parties. Slightly more trustworthy source: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive

If you want to solve all this, don't let those stay at home soccer moms who start sentences with 'as a mother I think...' vote. Hint very little thinking went on if they say that. Better yet, Only let people vote who pay a certain amount of taxes (like at least 5k$ or so). This will weed out a lot of complete dead beats and very emotional people who lack perspective. All these very expensive and stupid regulations are the direct result of political correctness run amok. And what causes that? Feminism. Because don't you dare say that maybe not everyone is equal. Even if that directly contradicts Darwin. Obviously we should not go back to the 19th century in that regard, but sometimes I think feminism kind of went out of control. Back in the day when I was in school you were retarded if you could not keep up and scored low on an iq test. And usually the teacher would be so nice to tell you that. So you would not waste so much fking time learning math. Nowadays the school needs to lower it's standards. Because everyone is equal!!! AND MY LITTLE TIMMY IS NOT STUPID HE IS JUST GIFTED IN SOME SPECIAL UNIQUE YET UNDISCOVERED WAY

but with bullets that expensive, they cannot target practice, so then they will miss a lot

couldn't this whole thing be so Malone can issue debt on this spin off, buy back shares at Liberty at still a discount? And then when price discount to IV closes over time for liberty due to the structure being less opaque, they issue shares for acquisitions? This is interesting (added bolted part myself): why on OTC board? This will probably make a discount more likely? My read on this is, they did a bid for Sirius, and then quickly cancelled it because shares of liberty are undervalued. It seems they do this transaction to use leverage to increase Liberty's value by buying back shares. And by making Liberty's value more visible. So shares are bought back, and then the share price will go up and gap between fair value and share price will close. Then they buy up the rest of Sirius using Liberty shares. Meanwhile they can do a rights offering with the spin off entity to derisk their increased leverage. And by doing it this way, malone can try to participate in that rights offering more cheaply then when he did not seperate them into a attractive and a more unattractive entity. It seems the value in this thing is the rights offering? OTC traded and probably a smaller market cap loaded up with debt and still somewhat opaque. So more likely people sell the shares then actually increasing their stake in the rights offering right? So how do you participate in the rights offering. Do you need to buy Liberty now? I don't fully get that part yet.

Charter has 12.8 million subscribers. But will they get more from Comcast or not? GCI does 600$ per subscriber right. Currently Charter does under 300$. If you think they can do 350$ in a few years, that is 4.48 bn$. Or equity value of about 17.5 bn$ . So not much upside there. But if you think they can come close to GCI at 500$ or something, then at 7x EV/EBITDA that is over 30 bn$ for the equity value.

No I mean that when Malone spins something off now, and he holds a large stake in it, everyone will pile into it. Since Greenblatts book is so popular, an Liberty media was one of the best investments in that book. what is the best way to get in this thing?

Seems like every special situations investor will watch this thing now.

"the way to beat the market is to find a stock that will go up, and if it will not go up, don't buy it" -no idea who said that

Bill gates

in general banks where this guy is not included http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/53469a4b69beddc917c62d84-1300-/joseph-stilwell-letter-to-shareholders.png

ok thanks for the response. I guess the longer term the lease is, the more risk there is then?

The REITs im looking at own real estate themselves.

What happens to interest rates of for example low risk REITs if interest rates go up because the FED influences the markets less? If inflation stays roughly the same, what will happen to for example 5-6% interest rate loans with little risk? You would say that with low inflation, there will always be capital out there willing to borrow for at least close to that rate on a low risk asset? So the only bad outcome would be inflation going up (and thus all interest rates) without ability of those REITS to increase prices?

Extendicare is a nice one.

looking at this: http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-earnings/table We should have an earnings correction soon. Usually after 5-6 years of growth like this... Allthough it does seem that a lot of cyclical industries have been holding off on replacing since 08-09. So there still might be some pent up demand out there.

Also if everyone is afraid it is a bubble all the time, shouldn't that mean we are not in one? Look on SA and reddit investing, everyone is afraid the market will crash. Talked to someone who doesnt know much about investing, and when I told him Im investing he asked if I wasn't worried the market is overheating. It seems you need the opposite ingredients for a bubble. Where everyone and their mother talks about investing in stocks, or some asset class, and how they will go up.

Ok hold on a second He got his PhD in Economics from Stanford. I was more making fun of economists there :) But looking at multiples: http://www.multpl.com/ It does not look that bad? It seems to me that we will see a tech boom in the next 20-30 years. Number of people doing research and access to information is at levels never seen before. This is like a exponentially growing colony of bacteria. You have some guy in Mongolia who learned math and physics by himself, and was invited to study in the US, all through the internet. Population is now much larger then 50-100 years ago. And the number of people that is educating themselves is much much greater with more funding access to various kinds of research. I think the next 50 years will make the last 100 look pale in comparison. Basicly science is a numbers game, and the odds of innovation have massively improved over the last 100 years. There is a lot less ignorance, and some curious genius can now educate him (or her) self through the internet, and get in touch with the latest information and other smart people out there. We could do a lot more in terms of improving education though. And it seems this would all be good for the economy? edit: As for Shiller's PE, what about globalization? We now have China and other countries with fast growing middle classes. You did not have that 10 years ago. That could explain Shiller's PE being high. When it comes to regular PE ratio it does not look that high. http://www.economist.com/node/13063298 Look at graphs.

Ok hold on a second

The tough part is actually getting the diary's, the owners usually don't give them up that easily.

Is this by mistake?

I think that with technical analysis, you have to also know where you use it. There is a reason that stuff worked so much better 30-40 years ago. Markets were more driven by emotion, and that made them more predictable, and that made reading charts more effective. If you use it with some stock that is daytraded by housewifes, then I can imagine it working quite well, but if hedgefunds trade in or out, then it should be much more random right? But what works best for me is have enough good idea's and a more strict valuation requirement of getting in. So let's say I have 20% of my portfolio in cash, then having 5 or 10 decent idea's I could get into instead of just 2 helps a lot. The probability that out of those 10, 1 or 2 go lower to reach a very attractive valuation is good enough that I can wait and not be afraid of missing an opportunnity. Doing it my way requires more work searching for idea's, but that is imo better time spent then studying charts.

I still like khaneman's explanation better. Intuition gets less and less usefull if the system you use it in becomes larger and more complex with more unknown factors. If it is more of a simple closed system, then intuition is more usefull. For example with poker, all probabilities are known, and in a lot of situations you can trust your intuition quite well if you know the game well. If a person you play shows little intelligence and little respect for money, and if that person keeps making large bets in situations where the rules of the game (a limit of 52 cards, 2 cards in your hand and and up to 5 on the table) dictate that having a good hand is quite rare, then I noticed from personal experience, my gutfeeling was right quite often. I think this is because of predictable odds that do not change and signals of higher order level thinking. So the only way your intuition can fool you there is if the person you were playing was actually on a higher level then you while make believe they were on a lower order, and thus manipulating your intuition. But if you use your intuition to try and predict macro events for example, the unconscious part of your brain will probably not have complete enough information, while possibly being fooled it actually has (khaneman warns for this in his book). So you can get a gut feeling, but the situation is so complex and probabilities can change in unique ways (the equivalent of suddenly not having a 52 card deck, but a 250 card deck without knowing), that intuition is rather useless. You go by intuition on the basis on 52 cards, but there were actually 250 cards all of a sudden because of some outside factor influencing things or causing a butterfly effect that you couldn't possibly foresee (because the system was too complex). In theory though, if you are insanely smart, and you know all the moving parts of this more complex system, and find a way to prove that beyond reasonable doubt, then intuition can serve you well. But I guess the more complex something is, the more sceptical you should be about intuition. Also the better informed you are about the closed less complex system, the better your intuition will serve you there. Anyway this has always been a intuition of mine, and now I am able to put it into words :D

I like this one: