sys

i think optimism is a huge advantage. i also wonder a bit about some somewhat similar traits i've observed in myself that i think help prevent me from investing in (or at least wanting to invest in) really good businesses. 1) frugality/cheapness. when i see a business selling a product for far more than it costs to produce, or one that has (and is using) "pricing power", my instinct is "i would never pay that price, and inevitably, everyone else will stop doing so as soon as they figure out that this business is overpricing their product". i have this reaction not just with retail products, but with almost everything (real estate, etc.). 2) faith in mean reversion (maybe just an expression of pessimism). when i see a business outclassing it's competitors, i think it's just a matter of time before the competition will catch up.

gotta have snow for the ag water. rain washes out too fast.

i guess my own thoughts for new money are to move up the quality ladder, rather than look for deeper discounts on the more marginal names. more focused on debt than cost.

they may be a low cost producer (and growing production, unlike some of the names frequently discussed), but they've got plenty of leverage.

mbac. it's either going bankrupt, going to be diluted to the near equivalent or going to be a multiple of current market cap. i wish i better knew how to evaluate the probabilities. here's what drew my attention to it. http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/06/tim-mcelvaine-annual-meeting-full-transcript/

this graph (re. solar) may have already been posted somewhere on the board. it presents the information on a different scale than i usually see it presented, and it was, at least for me, eye-opening. http://www.bloomberg.com/image/igniG8R8Efd0.jpg

SA needs around $90-100/barrel to balance their budget. but they have huge cash reserves and could borrow at very low rates if they needed to. they have no short-term budget pressures that would cause them to either either cut spending or cut/raise production.

the crux of the situation, as i see it. low cost, unlevered companies are not down so much. if you want a significant bargain you have to invest in a company that will not do well with, may not survive, long-term $70 wti.

without putting much thought into it - just stuff i already own, never really check or look at, and have every intention to own basically forever - bam, cb & pm. not sure if it is in the spirit of the thread or the board, but the same would be true of the various index funds in my 401k. it's probably hard to find something you can be confident will outperform over ten years. but it doesn't seem that hard to me to find places you can confidently put money with little worry that you won't do ok.

is it just oil pricing? or fear of rising interest rates and/or tighter credit markets coming along?

ahh, but your attraction is rational - you know the industry. i have no justification.

i've been trying to move away from resource stocks (a fondness for which is a weakness of mine), but i hold probably more than i should now and will be buying more if prices stay down long enough for me to accumulate cash.

i have 12 currently. all are held because they in some way help me maximize the number of points/miles i receive from signup bonuses and spend.

there are two beliefs that are implicit in value investing. one, that significant mispricings can occur in the market, and two, that over time, the market tends to correct towards more accurate prices. using long-term market pricing of a stock as a shorthand way of evaluating an investment thesis might be a little lazy, but it isn't fundamentally incongruous with the philosophy of value investing.

did the poster say he wouldn't tolerate risk? not so hard to get 5% with riskier assets/no growth assets. might need to create the diversity himself.

should i be gathering cash?

why, or how, is the assertion of property rights over natural resources not also an example of violence done to those individuals excluded from using those resources? i don't think i understand the distinction that categorizes government as violence imposed on individuals but does not categorize private ownership of natural resources in the same manner.

hopefully it's not so minor. the sw and west coast really needs a good wet winter.

you are assuming they are/will do things better. this may be a correct assumption, but it is not based on evidence. ula has produced many more safe and successful heavy launches than spacex. i also don't understand the comment about competing with governments. as i understand it, spacex is complaining about not being allowed to bid on the future launches which were awarded to ula as a block. they are, or want to be, competing with ula, not with governments.

spacex isn't necessarily doing it better. they are offering to do it cheaper. very likely bidding has been based on what they think they can charge, not cost.

third ave has a lot of these. real estate mostly. presumably they did homework on safety/corp governance. if i were interested in owning hk real estate conglomerates, i'd probably restrict myself to the names they trade in. pretty sure their due diligence is more diligent than my own could be.

i don't understand how you made money on the pennies. i understand you sorting the high copper pennies from the low copper pennies and returning the low copper versions. but how/where did you melt or sell the high copper pennies that you collected?

the behavior of equity prices is influenced by human psychology, the impact of co2 on the mean temperature of the planet, like most phenomena investigated by scientists, is not.

i'm from kansas, lived for a few years in atlacomulco, mx, now living in california. what brought you to mexico city, if you aren't from there? if i may ask.

the first comment in that post (from "tired_of_nonsense" in case it doesn't stay first) is very good.