ExpectedValue

I think that you're misreading the political landscape if you seem to be thinking that we'll be going to war with Iran. If anything, US interests will fight Iranian backed interests in the region but little else.

Zarley I dont think he's trying to "BS us" In general we have long threads of posts, so for the most part it holds true. Occasionally you might see the ad at the bottom of a short thread of posts, but thats mainly because its easier to implement the code in a way that says "place ad at bottom of threaded posts" rather than trying to create some kind of scaling rule where it depends on the amount of posts in the thread.

I think that Sanjeev is making the right decision by going with ads. It might be difficult for donations or dues to cover the hosting cost and I think that by keeping it free we'll keep in tact a good community.

he seems to like Krugman's writing: How many people do you know who actively seek out opinions contrary to their own? Munger certainly does. For example, he said: .take Paul Krugman and read his essays, you will be impressed by his fluency. I can't stand his politics; I'm on the other side. [Krugman constantly bashes Republicans and the Bush administration on the Op Ed page of The New York Times.] But I love this man's essays. I think Paul Krugman is one of the best essayists alive.

If it has become less active it makes sense to switch to two times a month.

``Every little stalk of wheat was not doing so great, but most of them were, so you're working on statistics,'' Simons says. By contrast, he says, the traditional focused investing practiced by Warren Buffett is akin to intensive farming, in which each individual plant really counts. ``It's two completely different ends of the spectrum,'' Simons says. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=aq33M3X795vQ My guess is that at Renaissance they use a variety of strategies, investing in net-nets is just one of them. Like others have stated, they've probably seen a trend in net-nets being out performers in the market, just like Graham.

You Can Be a Stock Market Genius by Joel Greenblatt

PFE is mentioned in Einhorn's latest letter. He thinks that even if the WYE deal falls through, at $13.50 the company is significantly undervalued compared to its run-off prospects.

I wonder why the previous CEO resigned, I remember reading his book about selling the company to Buffett.

thanks a lot viking! this stuff looks great!

They had a great interview yesterday, it will be re-aired over the weekend. Saturday at 9PM EST and Sunday at 10PM EST. But if you want to watch it online, i've provided links to each segment of it over here: http://streetcapitalist.com/2009/05/05/warren-buffett-charlie-munger-and-bill-gates-on-fox-business/ I don't mean to self-promote or anything -- it's just that I didn't have time to code up the links for here.

I don't subscribe to the publication, so can't say for sure -- but I heard that in OID Klarman was discussing NWS as an investment idea.

thats for 2008 I believe. Good read though.

I agree with the above.

Zarley, I definitely agree about the Omaha.com site, its coverage is more detailed. But, I think the people on Twitter sometimes manage to catch different angles on what is said. I'm using both right now though.

Wow- "if Buffett could have invested his whole net worth, it would have been in Wells Fargo when they ticked below at 9.00/share"

Coverage on Twitter-

I agree, I've always thought that Klarman possesses a lot of the qualities that would be ideal in a new CIO at Berkshire. I think that Buffett has publicly praised him as well.

http://cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/index.php?topic=406.0 ;)

You're actually incorrect about the page numbers. Go back and look. I don't mean to be offensive, but in a lot of your posts, it kind of comes off as if you're asking to be spoon-fed information rather than doing the research yourself. I mean a simple google search of "Buffett Conoco" will yield results like this one: http://iamamazing.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/warren-buffett-brka-and-conocophillips-cop/ or this http://www.dailywealth.com/archive/2006/aug/2006_aug_25.asp which would have answered some of your questions.

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2008ltr.pdf page 16

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/22consumer.html AXP gets government protection and then fights any government protection for consumers. Ethics, Schmethics, right? There is a famous quote some investor once said about falling tides and naked swimmers. Except in this case, AXP was caught swimming naked, then stole the bathing suit from taxpayers and then kicked sand in their faces when they protested. And then we are told it has to be this way ... because they are just so important and special. On your first point, to me if you're going to take that perspective then you should also take the perspective that no bank should have received TARP money. But credit card companies would have likely pose a systemic risk. Any kind of threat to the credit card system could cause an issue. You can argue that it isn't, but regulators clearly did not believe that to be true so it's their judgement you have to trust on that end. On your second point, I completely agree but I also think that the government has the right to influence banks too because they took the TARP money as well (and have not paid it back yet).

Last I checked Packer, the purchasing of stakes in Banks by the TARP happened all under Bush and Paulson's watch, not Obama's. So much for your theory of letting the market determine the outcome philosophy.

John, your hyperbolic examples continue to undermine your argument here. Credit cards are instrumental to the flow of commerce. If they were to stop working you would see massive declines in spending and the flow of commerce would be severely hindered for the sheer fact that most consumers don't have the necessary cash on hand to make their purchases. That's why every credit card received TARP money. The only reason companies like Visa or Mastercard did not is due to the fact that they're largely payment processors -- the lending risk is transferred to the banks that issue Visa or Mastercards. Coincidentally, those banks received TARP money. Supplying TARP money to Capital One, Discover, AmEx, and the rest of the banks was one way to ensure that credit would continue to flow to the American consumer.

John, I think that's a weak criticism. It seems logical that the Fed intended to keep all credit card companies functioning, as they play a huge role in the American economy since so many consumers use them for purchases. Discover Financial and Capital One also received TARP money, no need to single out AmEx in your crticism. In addition, companies like Visa and MasterCard depend on banks for their cards to work and those banks received TARP money as well.