rmitz

You are correct. But I also agree there is some value to that public statement--he does have some incentive to keep the price not absurdly low for his donation, and he will now use his gusher of a capital stream to buy opportunistically over time. I wouldn't expect there to ever be much of a purchase, but it will be a factor over time. Anything can happen on a particular day.

It won't generate returns, but I don't expect it to lose money over time. There is still going to be value in local news reporting, boots on the ground as it were; just not as much as there once was. A lot of people are up in arms about paywalls, and I do think that for the public good many news articles about world events and political watchdogging should be free (we already have this capability, in libraries--we need to be careful not to neuter this functionality electronically), however, I see no reason not to charge for the great variety of other local reporting.

Desirable areas of Pittsburgh are likewise hot. My impression is that areas that have decent economies are getting inflated prices due to the low interest rates.

I think mainly that he's irritated that he wasn't able to buy lots more super cheap assets...I predicted standardized unemployment rates at well over 20% without TARP, and at this point I think that may have been conservative.

This may fill your needs, but it's this kind of thinking that keeps developers in companies with short-sighted beancounters in 5+ year old crappy machines, with bad monitors. There *is* a difference in productivity for a lot of different people, and a lot of it depends on your workflow. That said, it's certainly true that Apple has little interest in low-margin products. As an investor, that seems somewhat appealing...

$2,200 is pretty much around the price point they've been going for, and they loaded in a ton more tech. Just to give a perspective on inflation, $2200 today is about $1000 in 1984 dollars. You can't buy significantly cheaper products with the same build quality and technical capabilities. I don't really like the direction they're going with totally integrated systems that you can't touch, but I can't argue with the results.

You are correct for wash sales in the US. Other countries have different rules. There are no wash gains in the US.

I actually agree with you about being a resident of another country and having real, earned income taxed as if you lived in the US is excessive. It doesn't really make sense. However...why would this apply to an investment he made while here? Think also of people who build whole companies here on this system, working here all along and using the system to build their business. The logical conclusion of your argument is that if you have a significant amount of capital gains, and you head to another country for a full year (meeting the physical presence test), then you could cash out with whatever local capital gains are and not pay a dime. Then you could come back to the US. That doesn't really make sense, either.

Say "hi" to Ayn Rand for me. Absolutely rediculous. Allow me to elaborate--Facebook is hardly a particularly innovative application. This particular person didn't even have much to do with any of the actual incremental "innovation". I do think that there is value in the *effort* to bring that innovation to reality, but the idea is hardly original in itself. And without the *society* of the US, this would have gone no where.

The book BillG has in the Omaha World-Herald photos is http://www.amazon.com/The-Man-Who-Stayed-Behind/dp/0822326671/ which looks interesting. Still trying to get a better understanding of China.

If that is 30 year fixed, stick with that. 15 year makes that a trickier decision.

There's a difference between Anchoring and "expecting not to be swindled". That is still a valuable lesson, though.

I disagree with this assessment. The only reason the price makes sense is if you already have a significant interest in ABH. That's the only way it makes sense.

On the other hand, that's an argument that they should want to feed money to ABH to protect their investment there... I thought they had an interest in Mercer also. They do, but Mercer is, I think, the stronger company, so they don't need the help.

On the other hand, that's an argument that they should want to feed money to ABH to protect their investment there...

Kind of a judo move, actually--Instagram wouldn't have gotten as big without Facebook and the other networks--but that leverage can then be reversed later.

Unfortunately, I doubt that he can legally comment at all.

From what I've read and understand doing this is illegal, copyright infringement. A company's annual report and quarterly reports are copyrighted material. The figures inside are not, but the actual presentation and format are. So this means if you took the figures in the annual report, transposed them and wrote up your own summary of the company it's fine. If you just posted what the company published it's not. This is how books can publish this information, it's the figures, and summary level info. Yep, exactly. Though an interesting possibility would be to develop a format and start a small, hybrid wikipedia where the cost of membership is putting out data for a company currently not in the database. Of course, one could also pay a fee for access once there was enough momentum...

I almost have to believe that Resolute has gone off the reservation with the direction of the takeover following the lockup. It's possible that FFH is regretting that lockup and doesn't like how this is being done.

Yeah, it seems like it might be personal somewhere along the way.

That sort of inside information wasn't illegal at that time.

The thing that gets me, is why do people even think that was a bad thing? It's life! I thought the Buffetts actually dealt with it in an incredibly touching and mature way. There was nothing insulting to me about it. I know, it has to do with people's obsession with things like monogamy and forever...the world usually doesn't work that way.

While one can make money in anything, I would say that for a new investor getting their feet wet it's easier (and usually far more profitable) to investigate the smaller companies. ATSG is a good example--there was one small twist back in the dark days of trading under 20 cents, that if you understood, you'd know that in bankruptcy, the company should have been worth at least a dollar. Everything since then has been gravy. I would say ATSG is easier to understand now. There are certainly many tiny companies even easier to understand. Even if you don't end up investing in them, it's a good way to get started without sinking into trying to figure out behemoths like BAC and AIG.

Oddly enough, this conversation makes me think that Apple actually has a wider moat than I thought. The thing is, for every product Apple has come out with for *years*, many people have always been "meh" in the reviews. Heck, I thought the original ipod was crap. How quickly people forget, but a whole lot of people thought that the iPad was a bust...an oversized iPod Touch. A remarkable percentage of those products have ended up making Apple a whole lot of money. I think at this point I'm adjusting my personal estimate to another 10 good years for Apple.

Honestly, it was exactly what I expected. I was disappointed that the 2 didn't have the higher res (though since I had skipped the 1, I bought the 2 anyway--a year is a long time to wait). I've already got a couple on order, the screen is *absolutely* want I wanted. In fact, I don't know what could come out to make me want the next one... Regarding the earlier two...I don't think there was really anything unexpected about *them* either...so I don't get people who say that this isn't "revolutionary". Apple's entire bit is about taking the current evolution and just pushing things a bit, and refining them. It's not about huge researchy breakthroughs, and anyone expecting that is kind of deluding themselves. Apple isn't that kind of company, which does lend a bit more stability.