Parsad

For those attending the Pabrai Fund's California meeting in September, which hotel are you staying at? Just trying to get an idea where most people are congregating. I'm not a fan of the Marriott Sport hotel near Soka, as it becomes distant from alot of things. Cheers!

Yes, generally most credit cards will charge interest on the new purchases as well...essentially, you are still using their line of credit...whereas if you had paid the entire balance, then you have the 26-day (or whatever) grace period where interest is not charged. Always pay the entire balance if you can...I like banks, but I've always thought their credit card business was pretty scummy in general! I never pay a cent of interest to them and I plan on never paying another cent of interest for the rest of my life! Cheers!

American's giving up their guns will never happen...they're just nuts...we have to accept it and move on! I like Chris Rock's idea...make the bullets cost $5,000 each...then people make sure they shoot the right guy instead of bystanders or innocent people! And by the way Eric, I'm sure this topic won't degenerate into flame wars! :D Cheers!

Another pet peeve is not a quote, but a word that is now used frequently..."alpha!" The next investment manager that asks me about "alpha" is going to get a kick straight in the nuts! Cheers!

"Buy what you know". Peter Lynch got everyone believing that if you see a store that is busy at the mall, that means it's proabably a good stock. Everyone, including myself, started buy shit like "Rainforest Cafe", etc. Then I actually learned about reading financials and went "oh, now that actually makes sense"! Needless to say, Lynch's book is not on my shelf! Cheers!

Also, don't forget as mentioned in the Big Short, Greenblatt's desire to withdraw his capital when Burry was making his CDS bet, almost had catastrophic consequences for Burry. Make sure your seed partner is one who is going to be there with you in the long haul! Cheers!

Whats with the stache? Looks pretty good, doesn't it?! Grown in quite well! Much better than the more pencil-thin mustache Mohnish had when he came to Vancouver for TED a few months ago. Cheers!

I look for cheap investments...simple. And while that is what I have done and continue to do, anyone who suggests that valuations make sense or assets on a broad scale aren't fully-priced is deluding themselves. As Sam Mitchell said to us once..."...at some point macro matters!" While investors on a regular basis should ignore macroeconomics, at certain times, ignoring them occurs at one's own peril. How anyone can tell me that there aren't gigantic market distortions around us, primarily due to weak monetary policy and a complete lack of fiscal restraint, and controllable debt bubbles with little in the way of economic growth to support them, is mind-boggling. I think investors are in a period where they should simply try to do the best they can. Some have and may continue to prosper because they took leaps of faith in 2013 and 2014. Some have remained cautious since 2009 and simply never felt they could take the plunge...to their detriment. And then there are those that did the best they could with the clouds around them and continue to simply dig for ideas as the clouds remain dark! Cheers!

Article on Hussman and his comments. Cheers! http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/07/28/john-hussman-yes-this-is-a-bubble-and-it-may-be-worse-than-1929/?mod=yahoo_hs

Not a big deal. It's all good! Cheers!

Yeah, I don't know who closed it, since I thought only administrators could do it. But I think the person who starts the thread can do it too, so maybe Oddballstocks did it accidentally. Anyway, I've unlocked it and people can post. Cheers!

Respectfully, Pppphhhhhhtttttt! :P I was in the lows of AAPL too, as well as LUK, BAC, WFC, SD and even BRK...lower than my friend Allan Mecham at Arlington Value...who incidentally has an absolutely stellar record and does not use TA either. Yes, TA can provide some idea of short-term momentum and investor sentiment, but for the long-term, patient investor, you simply just buy when you see that the whole world is selling. If you believe that it helps you, so be it and more power to you! But I would suggest that spending a second on technical analysis, is one second better spent on just reading 10-Q's and 10-K's. And the simplest experiment I can suggest on the complete and utter uselessness of TA is as easy as this: Suppose you found a small company, that has little market liquidity, little to no debt, is growing steadily and generates terrific net income. But it has run into a short-term issue of not having enough cash or credit to fulfill a huge order. You have the ability on the spot to give the company the liquidity it needs, and for the most part, can negotiate the terms you want within reason...in effect, this is going to be a huge winner! What advantage or gain can technical analysis provide in this investment? Absolutely zero...no advantage, nor even required other than to waste time...only to lose out and not making the investment, as they found another funding source while you were asking Fibonacci for guidance! ;D For newer investors, don't waste any part of your life on technical analysis! Cheers!

Looks like it was updated. Cheers! http://pgntgroup.com/

And he's on the prowl for another business. Congratulations on 15 years at Pabrai Funds as well! Cheers!

If atheism is accurate, I agree. With that being said, if we are truly rational, why shouldn't we overcome these emotional biases to give us more material wealth? That's all they are. I don't disagree with you. Cohen's behavior was only condemned as immoral when it was reflected upon by the U.S. government and society at large. The act itself at the time was neither moral, nor immoral. A hundred years ago, it may have been deemed ok by the same government and same society. But so was segregation! Or the lack of women's rights...or Chinese/Japanese internment...or the so-called perversity of homosexuality...etc. Has the Bible's verses changed in those 100 years? The Koran? The Torah? The Gita? Buddhism? Confuscism? Nope. So what gives?! Perhaps, the natural evolution and enlightenment of society. While deep down we may be animals, there is a higher plain of consciousness we are privy to, thus the ability to fly to the moon even though 99% of our DNA is identical to an ape. That human beings aren't simply "created in the image of God", but are God himself or God incarnate on earth...the hand of God! If that is the case, then we create our own ideas of what is right and wrong through evolution and rationalization, rather than simply being imprinted upon by a secular moral code. Religion is just another framework for life when humanity cannot explain its own existence. Once you get past that, you no longer need that framework, because you have rationalized or evolved a new, non-secular framework. - I'm not a generous fund manager, disinterested from personal gain, but understand my duty to create wealth for subsequent generations - I'm not doing charitable work, but work that allows the genes of those suffering from Crohn's or the imbalance of education to continue to be preserved - I'm not a proponent of imbalances that will allow one gene to prosper unfairly against others...thus my view of Cohen's agenda and self-interest I believe I'm on a higher evolutionary plain than Cohen, just like Buffett, Watsa, Pabrai, et al! Cheers!

Would you agree then, Sanj, that the work you do for charity is no more moral (or immoral for that matter) than what Steve Cohen did to Fairfax? Both are simply acts, right? He was providing returns (or trying to anyway) for his shareholders. Morals, in this case, are totally subjective. Both are simply acts...correct. One attempts to balance the scales...the other tries to create an imbalance. Nothing to do with morals. How does a child without being prodded, know to soothe another child's pain? Why does a female dog without pups, adopt a litter of orphaned kittens? Humans and animals, generally speaking, do have some understanding of an innate right and wrong...some basic instincts that are there without being taught...or what we would call morals. Whether God exists or not, we should all have a responsibility to ourselves and the people around us. Packs of dogs even know that without being taught. Birds fly in flocks. It's instinctive and not simply instructed to us. Cheers!

No, I'm not implying that at all. Even when I was agnostic, I lived a more "moral" life than many religious people (ie not cheating, stealing, lying etc). However, if atheism is accurate, none of that stuff is even "wrong" - especially if it helps you out. We each determine our morality. Funny things is, we also do a great job of rationalizing our faults. So many times I hear secularists talk about "we define morality by whether or not something harms someone" as some type of ethical standard. For one, that is completely arbitrary. Secondly, let's use an example of a husband and wife. Let's say the wife cheats on the husband. Now, since the wife has a new romantic fling, she treats her husband better and he is happier. She's also happier. Now, if he finds out, he'll be devastated. For the purpose of this exercise, let's say he never finds out. They both are happier however, trust was violated (but never known). Are her actions moral or immoral? Depends on what is important to those individuals...honesty or happiness. I know of people who were devastated by a cheating spouse, and believe me, neither spouse was happy when it was happening, because one knew something was different and was trying to figure it out, while the other one was preserving one lie after another to avoid detection. And then I know of couples where one of the spouses has/had a mistress or partner outside of their marriage, somewhat openly, and yet they remained married happily or relatively happily. God played no part in their decision...rationality of how they wanted to live their lives and what was important to them decided the eventual result. Cheers! Sanj, thanks for your thoughtful response. However, to be fair, you kinda avoided the original premise. We're not talking about people who weren't happy by the cheating (the premise was that the cheating spouse was happy) nor was I referring to a couple that was cool with the other's infidelity. Let's say that she is happier and the husband is happier (per the original situation). However, he would not be happy if he found out (unlike the second thing you wrote about). However, he never finds out. He is happy and she is happy. Is her cheating a moral or immoral act? Secular ethicists normally say that if "harm has to be done in order for something to be immoral." By the way, I'm not saying that God played any part in their decisions. I'm implying that if God doesn't exist, nothing we do (or not do for that matter) is inherently "good" or "bad" objectively. We can rationalize anything and everything to fit our whims. I would suggest that it is neither moral, nor immoral. Simply an act. The eventual view by her spouse when it comes out, or by others decides whether it is moral or immoral based on their secular or non-secular view. For example, killing another human being would be normally deemed immoral by most people, but what if it was in self-defense? It's neither moral, nor immoral, but only in the eyes of others would it deemed one or the other. It is simply an act. Cheers!

No, I'm not implying that at all. Even when I was agnostic, I lived a more "moral" life than many religious people (ie not cheating, stealing, lying etc). However, if atheism is accurate, none of that stuff is even "wrong" - especially if it helps you out. We each determine our morality. Funny things is, we also do a great job of rationalizing our faults. So many times I hear secularists talk about "we define morality by whether or not something harms someone" as some type of ethical standard. For one, that is completely arbitrary. Secondly, let's use an example of a husband and wife. Let's say the wife cheats on the husband. Now, since the wife has a new romantic fling, she treats her husband better and he is happier. She's also happier. Now, if he finds out, he'll be devastated. For the purpose of this exercise, let's say he never finds out. They both are happier however, trust was violated (but never known). Are her actions moral or immoral? Depends on what is important to those individuals...honesty or happiness. I know of people who were devastated by a cheating spouse, and believe me, neither spouse was happy when it was happening, because one knew something was different and was trying to figure it out, while the other one was preserving one lie after another to avoid detection. And then I know of couples where one of the spouses has/had a mistress or partner outside of their marriage, somewhat openly, and yet they remained married happily or relatively happily. God played no part in their decision...rationality of how they wanted to live their lives and what was important to them decided the eventual result. Cheers!

LOL! Cheers!

Yeah, because all the single mothers I know do it for the money and life of leisure. If we made that life less attractive, maybe they would stop consciously choosing to become single mothers; heck, maybe it would even force them to stay in bad relationships and be financially dependent on abusive men, like in the good old days... LOL! Couldn't agree with you more Liberty. I don't think single mothers go out of their way to be single mothers, but more so because they are naive, run into loser men, not enough education, or never fully understood the consequences and repercussions. Not to say there may not be a certain niche that get pregnant simply for welfare payments, but I would say that percentage is far smaller than those simply falling into single motherhood due to circumstance, than making it a lifestyle choice. Buffett says that the children growing up today, will live better than his generation, and those after them will live even better. I'm not sure that isn't the case, regardless of the huge gap in wealth, income and opportunity. You have a black president in the United States today...how can that not be more advantageous for the millions of underprivileged black youth, than 50 years ago when segregation still existed! Cheers!

Harsh in terms of driving on a track, but not in terms of road performance. It's a $55k supercar...it's not going to be as great as a 911 S4 or a Ferrari California, but it you pay a quarter of those cars. Cheers!

Enjoy! https://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/driving-the-2015-alfa-romeo-4c--is-it-really-as-good-as-it-looks-134548168.html Cheers!

Young boy takes selfie of Paul McCartney and Warren Buffett eating ice cream in Omaha. Cheers! http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/starstruck-kids-post-picture-with-paul-mccartney-and-warren-buffett-on-instagram-194728820.html

Lemmings! :P Cheers!

Motley Fool interview with Lawrence Cunningham also discussing his new book: Berkshire Beyond Buffett: The Enduring Value of Values Cheers! Part I: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/19/berkshire-hathaway-doesnt-need-warren-buffett.aspx Part II: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/20/why-berkshire-hathaway-will-thrive-without-warren.aspx Part III: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/23/heres-a-strong-list-of-who-can-run-a-post-buffett.aspx Part IV: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/28/warren-buffett-why-the-billionaire-doesnt-want-to.aspx#commentsBoxAnchor