adesigar

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

What do you like to read/listen to? If you listed the books you liked listening to it would give an idea of similar things we can suggest. http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/130.Best_Audiobooks_Ever We use it for the family so ive ended up listened to everything from Horton hears a who, Winnie the Pooh, the Harry Potter Series, to I am Spock, Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy, Game of Thrones and Einstein by Walter Isaccson and even Snowball.

interesting I had never heard of him before so thanks for the article.

Actually what is needed is a Charlie Munger for President. Munger is not just outspoken he is usually right because there is a lot of thought behind what he says.

There are doubts. Why would NATO risk nuclear conflict for Lithuania? But if they don't, then NATO becomes meaningless. And it would be an invite of further Putin expansionism. Where would it stop? Will we have a replay of pre-WWII scenario? It's not that cold. The climate is like US Massachusetts mostly. More rainy though and bigger day/night seasonal swings (long nights in winter). But you have swamps, zombies, cannibals and Russians. But then I repeat myself. To me NATO became meaningless after Crime. It may not be a NATO state but Europe the US (and Russia lol) promised Ukraine their sovereignty would be defended if they'd get rid of their nukes. Europe and the US sat on their hands and will do the same in the case of Lithuania. They are doing what France and the UK did when Germany annexed Poland and the west of Czechoslovakia in the run up to WW2. +1 This is also why I don't believe Iran or any country which has nukes or is developing them will ever give them up or stop developing them. They will all feel that you cant trust the promises of Europe/US/Russia and the only guarantee of safety/sovereignty is for a country to have its own Nukes.