adesigar

ROFL Click the youtube link in his signature.

Learn to read. Besides the biggest leap in improving the human race is the move from Anarchy to government(Democracy/Monarchy/etc).

Maybe the ego club? The launch and landing was incredible. I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning. My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible. My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy. This is how it should be. I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace. I agree, it is certainly exciting to think about where we will be in a few years. But that also causes some consternation/melancholy for me. Some of the greatest advancements in science came from our government's investment in the space program, and because this was funded with taxpayer money, these advancements were generally shared with everyone such that society benefited. Now we spend so much money on entitlement spending that we can barely scratch together money for our space program, and thus we rely on commercial enterprises to do the work. This is a poor reflection on us as a society, that we over-invest in our past at the expense of our future and our children... Wouldn't it be something if we could invest in our future, and give society (especially our children) something to aspire to (i.e. in the same way that Kennedy challenged the United States to reach the moon within a decade)? I have the exact opposite reaction. I think it is wonderful to see a private company, sending a private rocket, loaded with private satellites into orbit. And the only thing that would make it better is if it was done from a private spaceport and had private astronauts going to a private space station or even better a private settlement on Mars the moon or an asteroid. The government needed to drain an enormous amount of money from the private sector (the only way government gets money is either taxing the private sector or printing more which is just a tax on savings) to get into space and to the moon. How much quicker would private industry have been able to do it if $Trillions haven't been sucked out of the economy over the years fighting wars, drugs, poverty (ironically), and subsidizing everything under the sun. We will never be a space fairing society if the final frontier is left to government bureaucracies (with no incentives to succeed or not waste time and resources) funded by stolen money. Watching that rocket touch down last night gave me the chills, it is finally happening. The first important step to opening up space to humanity. I would have not responded to you comment, except that you stated that taxpayer money is stolen. Your political biases are very apparent from your post, and thus I now I feel the need to point out a few basic facts: 1. If you look back at history, government has generally been responsible for opening up frontiers using taxpayer money. The Wright Brothers would never have been successful without that initial contract from the US Army Signal Corp. The United States would have struggled to settle the Western Frontier if not for the taxpayer-funded Lewis and Clark expedition to map the territory, the taxpayer-funded army outposts in the West, the Transcontinental railroad, etc. 2. We would not be in space in the first place if it wasn't for the government. Don't forget that the entire reason SpaceX is able to fund this adventure is with taxpayer money that is funding future resupply of the International Space Station. Remind me, did private companies fund Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the shuttle, the ISS or SpaceLab, or did the taxpayer? Most of these commercial companies (with the exception of Virgin) are innovating precisely because they are competing for government contracts.) 3. If you compare the amount of money spent on the space program to the scientific advances directly attributed to the space program, the ROIC is substantially positive. However, government is generally not allowed to patent taxpayer-funded scientific advances, so the private sector takes them and exploits them. If you look at the American aviation industry over the last 50 years, the primary reason we have been competitive is because private companies were able to exploit taxpayer-funded R&D in hard science and avionics (funded by DoD, NASA, NOAA, etc). If you look at the renaissance in biotech that is occurring right now, a big reason that is happening is because many of these companies are exploiting taxpayer-funded R&D that was conducted to answer basic fundamental questions. The entire reason this taxpayer money was spent on R&D @ NIH and HHS is because commercial enterprises were unwilling to do this science in the first place. Just like space, and just like the moon, the Martian frontier will also be opened up by the government, using taxpayer money, because commercial firms will be unable to show a positive ROIC. But don't worry, commercial firms will come along for the ride, because they will benefit financially from the government contracts. Just to clear up a few things. 1) What was done with the money afterwards has no bearing on whether or not it was stolen. If I put a gun to your head and steal your money, and then proceed to do something wonderful with it, it doesn't mean that the money wasn't stolen. When you take money from someone against their will that is theft. Always. 2) If I steal your money and do something that has never been done before, that doesn't mean that only I could have done it. It probably means that the private economy wasn't ready to spend its money on that yet. Money is always put to its most useful current purpose. What you don't see in all of your above scenarios is what didn't happen with all of the money spent by government on those things and what all of the people involved didn't spend their time doing. If that was the absolute best use of those resources then the private economy would have produced the same results, if that wasn't the best use of those resources then the world was a poorer place for those events occurring, not a richer one. 3) I don't want to go to Mars until it is profitable for the human race to do so. The best way to make sure that is the case is to keep the government out of it. Go back thousands of years in the history of civilization Indian/Chinese/Egyptian/Roman anywhere you go it has been the Kings/Pharaohs/Government who have built the infrastructure and pushed the development of technology. They have done it through taxes. You are deluded if you think that private enterprise would have achieved anything without government infrastructure and help. The private economy doesn't put money to the best use. It puts money to the most greedy and selfish use. Private enterprise cant see beyond their current lifetime (if that long). Elon Musk is just ok. Hes a businessman and leader but theres nothing special about what he is working on. Hes just retooling/refining/improving technologies that already exist, similar to what Steve Jobs did at Apple. Hes not doing anything innovative. The innovation and research takes place at NASA. In a few decades the "private economy" will takes the successful research of NASA and speak about how they can do it better. Now if Elon Musk was working on something like the IXS Enterprise id say he was doing something innovative. No private money will be put for this until the science is confirmed and the technology is developed because till that happens there is no money. Then the greedy "private economy" will take over. http://100yss.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IXS_Enterprise http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2655105/Engage-warp-drive-Nasa-reveals-latest-designs-Star-Trek-style-spacecraft-make-interstellar-travel-reality.html

Whaaaa? How the heck does that happen? Without some sort of penalty or recourse? -Jeff http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=clearlyerroneous

StarCraft 1 and 2 Warcraft 3 Civilization 4 and 5 Company of Heroes X-Com

You should compare it against what a short position in the S&P500 would have done in the same period. Why? Last I checked, Einhorn reported his results based on absolute returns...an 8% return is an 8% return. Cheers! Probably not worth over-analyzing (after all, I don't want to take anyone's attention away from the VRX thread), but I think this sort of high single digit positive return like this on a short position is better than just the equivalent in a long position in some ways, because he was essentially paid that rate to borrow the money. That's less about Einhorn and more about the economics of shorting...Obviously Einhorn was exposed to different (and likely much greater) risks than a traditional loan, but he gets to put the short proceeds into long ideas, thereby providing his portfolio with leverage, so you could also look at this as if he borrowed money for 9 years, and was paid 8% per year to hold it. Really? He was paid 8% per year? Who are these amazing people lending him shares for 8 years at no cost?

Just rent a U-Haul truck, park in a remote location, and cook hamburgers over charcoal in a Weber in the back with the rear door closed. Search on Google for indoor BBQ carbon monoxide poisoning -- it's surprising how many people accidentally kill themselves and others this way. So it's very effective. And if it doesn't work, at least you have burgers. BTW: In 2005 even Canada had a higher suicide rate than the US. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html I intentionally separated out homicides vs suicides expecting you to have the brains to use the homicide number. Guess you are too dumb to do that. The car accidents include everything from distracted driving to drunk/reckless driving, rain/ice/potholes, design defects/tire blowouts and a few dozen other not all of which can be avoided by autonomous cars. Would you like to adjust the 30,000 number down to deaths that can be avoided by autonomous cars and compare that to homicides? You also have no idea if autonomous cars cause their own set of problems. Since you've got no answer to 11,000 homicides vs 30,000 accidents feel free to focus on the suicide and ignore the homicides. The issue with homicides is about the same as suicides. It is cultural. How do you stop people from wanting to kill themselves or others? Taking away their guns isn't solving the problem. 100 years ago when neither country had any guns laws to speak of, London was a much, much safer place than NYC. Now that isn't as much the case. What changed? If anything there are much fewer guns in London than there were. You are trying to make these issues black and white when they aren't. Did you actually READ THE ARTICLE you linked ? It specifies that things that are considered violent crimes in UK are not considered violent in other countries. eg:- UK violent crimes - 1,158,957 of which UK homicides 921 - SA violent crimes - 732,121 of which SA homicides 20,000+ now UK Population - 64 Million - 921 Homicides - 14.39 per million US Population - 320 Million - 11,000 Homicides 34.37 - more than twice the rate of UK. SA Population - 53 Million - 20,000 Homicides 377.35 - more than 25x the rate of UK. I understand the personal protection reason and I get why in 1791 the 2nd amendment was necessary. Is it the same world as it was 200+ years ago? The military at that time was mostly privately owned. Wasn't it mostly militias? Weren't they trying the keep the people as an armed militia against England/France/Spain. Does that reason exist with the current status of the US military (strongest in the world)? Do you really believe the people who passed that amendment imagined the weapons available now to the general population. Edit: I forgot to mention NYC and London have the same population and the homicide rate in London is less than half of NYC. London had around 85 homicides and NYC had around 200.

Just rent a U-Haul truck, park in a remote location, and cook hamburgers over charcoal in a Weber in the back with the rear door closed. Search on Google for indoor BBQ carbon monoxide poisoning -- it's surprising how many people accidentally kill themselves and others this way. So it's very effective. And if it doesn't work, at least you have burgers. BTW: In 2005 even Canada had a higher suicide rate than the US. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html I intentionally separated out homicides vs suicides expecting you to have the brains to use the homicide number. Guess you are too dumb to do that. The car accidents include everything from distracted driving to drunk/reckless driving, rain/ice/potholes, design defects/tire blowouts and a few dozen other not all of which can be avoided by autonomous cars. Would you like to adjust the 30,000 number down to deaths that can be avoided by autonomous cars and compare that to homicides? You also have no idea if autonomous cars cause their own set of problems. Since you've got no answer to 11,000 homicides vs 30,000 accidents feel free to focus on the suicide and ignore the homicides.

The posts comparing 300 school MURDERS vs 30,000 car ACCIDENTS is typical dumb pro gun crap. 1st the morons are comparing MURDERS vs ACCIDENTS. Are you too dumb to tell the difference between the two? 2nd You conveniently leaving out all the other gun related deaths. Guns are linked to 33,000 deaths annually in the US(11,000 homicides, 21,000 suicides).

I will pay more than 1.5X when the earnings power dictates that 1.5X is substantially below fair value across a range of scenarios. One could argue that time is now. I would personally be in the "not quite as big as I am now but still have a decent position" at 1.5X. Every day you hold a stock, you are buying it net of tax consequences, so given that I would still own some Berkshire if it went to 1.5X (or 1.7X), I would be a buyer at more than 1.5X. The buyback level honestly plays no real part in my decision making. I simply look at the SOTP and the earnings power like I would any other company. You can buy it at whatever. It wont change the fact that most value investors (and Buffett has made sure that Berkshire investors are long term value guys) are influenced by the share buyback price Buffett has set.

Have you considered the possibility that the buyback level will march upward? What if it marches to 1.5x in 10 years? Berkshire paid close to 3x b/v for Precision castparts. A few more deals like that and I'd be willing to pay up to "only" 1.5x. I know it will. But while it is at 1.2 - people will pay upto 1.5, When its 1.5 people will pay maybe 1.9, when its 2.0 people will pay upto 2.5x. So basically its share buyback price * 1.25.

All this talk about float, deferred taxes etc is useless. You wont get any more than 1.5x-1.6xBook for Berkshire. Which people are interested in buying shares of Berkshire? - Value investors like the people on this board will buy Berkshire. How much will these people pay for the shares? - They will pay a little bit more than the share buyback price. When Buffett set share buybacks to 1.2xBook. He put a floor under the stock but HE ALSO PUT A CELING. How many of you will pay more than 1.5xBook for Berkshire when the buybacks are at 1.2x? - NONE. How will you get more than 1.5x-1.6xBook? - It will happen when Warren Buffett increases the buyback price to 1.3x Book.

He has being saying it for a few months.

Simple answer is the people investing in Berkshire. Shareholders of Berkshire are people who believe in Warren Buffett and value investing and so they want to invest at a discount. They also want to buy Berkshire at a discount. Would any of you pay full Intrinsic Value for Berkshire? I know I wouldn't. I bought Berkshire when I thought it was at a large discount. As long as the investors it attracts are Buffett style value investors Berkshire Hathaway will almost always trade at a discount to intrinsic value.

I haven't looked into it beyond the article but from a social point of view I much rather prefer this company to Valeant. If he launches 20 IPOs and 18 fail but 2 major drugs get discovered that would have been ignored. I think that's worth it. Valeant on the other hand is in the business of shutting down research. [RANT] Pharmaceutical companies are in the business of making money. Hypothetical example A pharmaceutical company had 2 candidates 1. Something that would cure a person. 2. Something that would need to be taken daily to control symptoms. Company will go for the second option because there is more money to be made that way. Any cures will be shelved/cancelled. Cures don't make money. A cure is a way to lose a customer. If this guy succeeds(and I hope he does) it will force companies to look deeper into their vaults at stuff they have shelved/cancelled/ignored in case there might be a few billion dollars lying around there. The biggest winner could be the patients who might end up using a drug (which may never have existed if not for this guy) that might relieve their symptoms or possibly even cure them. This is also why no research is done of herbal meds because the company cannot patent it and so cannot make any money. They will try to do any and everything possible to discredit any alternative cures. [/RANT]

Wouldn't it be the perfect complementary to VRX? If I understand correctly VRX does cost cutting by reducing R&D and trimming pipelines. This company buys the stuff VRX wants to get rid of.

Maybe I misunderstood this but If BRK has higher earnings he has to pay increased no of shares which will also be valued at a higher price because of higher earnings. If BRK is lower he receives similarly increased number of shares but valued at lower prices because of lower earnings. Does that seem like a fair bet?

Im not defending the calculation mistakes David Winters made but shouldn't this have been picked up by Buffett? Why did it come to his attention after David Winters pointed it out? And what does it say about Berkshire Hathaway's future chairman who is on the KO board? Is the board seat more important than the duty to the shareholders? Frankly I didn't care too much for his explanations at the annual meeting about abstaining, how boards work and why even though Howard Buffett voted for the compensation plan he is still the best choice for BRK Chairman. edit. PS: Let the flaming begin on how im clueless.

http://choufunds.com/semiann_reports.html The 2015 report is there

Sounds like Tesla to me.

Everyone makes mistakes. I've made tons myself. Its all good if Its just a learning experience. Some of my mistakes were 1. Buying Kmart in bankruptcy because I thought the assets were valuable. (This was when I first started investing) 2. Selling Naspers early 3. Selling WMB early (bought it when Buffett bought the bonds) 4. Selling Costco early 5. Not selling CHK when it skyrocketed (got out a little higher than I bought it). 6. Diworsification. I used to hold 15-20 stocks. Now I have maybe 3-7. 7. Following Buffett into USG blindly because I got it 40% lower than him without understanding the company. 8. Not buying Google at the IPO (I thought Microsoft adding search into the OS could mess up GOOG's stranglehold on search). 9. Not selling LUK at $50 when they used stock to get a stake in JEF. 10. I suck at options I've tried and its obvious to me that I am terrible with them. I think ill stop.

+1 You beat me to it.

Just https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nZzSAzHmzk and of course H2O