Parsad

Online poker has gotten a lot less lucrative in the last 2 years or so. People I know who made loads of money when I also did are barely winners now (poker bots and the art of finding easy targets have been refined to an almost crazy extent), so going back to playing online is not really a live option. I do however still go and play live games from time to time. They can never yield the same hourly wage because they are imminently slower, but they will probably always be soft for someone like me. Going full-out live pro would however force me to move far away from here and it's not really appealing in terms of social life and working hours. Buy a condo in Vegas for less than $100K, and play real people at the casinos 3-4 times a week, four months out of the year. The rest of the time, manage your own money and go do your CFA, or study what you want if you don't really want to invest other people's money. Even pooling money from family and friends and managing it for a fee is not really legal here. Providing financial advice or assistance requires registering with our SEC and that is really costly. Where are you and under what rule do you have to register? Unless you are giving investment advice and acting as a financial advisor, you do not have to register with the SEC unless you are managing $100M in assets in virtually every U.S. jurisdiction that I'm aware of. Regardless, whatever you decide, you have a pretty darn good problem to deal with...I'm in my 20's, financially independent and can choose to do whatever the hell I want with my life. Wow! I'm pretty sure half this board would trade places with you in a heartbeat! ;D Cheers!

In general, I would say play poker, invest, socialize, exercise, contribute to your community, learn something new every year, and of course, when in doubt, f*ck. I couldn't stop laughing at the last part! I guess he's right. ;D Cheers!

The owner's of Buffett's childhood home are auctioning off an intimate dinner for 10 in the house with a starting bid of $6,000! And that is with no Buffett clan member attending. You do get a video from Buffett welcoming the guests to the house and reminiscing about his childhood there. The auction is for a non-profit organization. This is for the diehard cult followers! Cheers! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/group-auctions-dinner-buffetts-childhood-143638911.html

I am currently struggling a bit with the decision of either going to school (late, I'm in my mid 20s) or just keep on managing the money I have earned over the last few years (+$1.5m, mainly through online poker, so I am no stranger to mentally strenous work with volatility and a fair amount of lonely work). The only thing I am truly interested in pursuing at this point in time is investing. I have had pretty good, market-beating, results over the last few years but am of course a novice compared to most of you. Sadly, at this point there is pretty much no possibility legally to try my hand at managing other peoples' money. You already know what you should be doing full-time...playing poker! Why can you not manage money? What legal obstacle is preventing you from doing so? The other question is do you really want to manage other people's money? It comes with a whole host of challenges that you don't experience managing your own money! I am asking to get some wisdom about the obstacles and routines of only investing for a living from some more experienced people on the board. Do you have an office away from home? Regular work hours? Are there some people who have had to go back to regular work because it was too taxing? All input is welcome. Regular hours and then pretty much into the night and weekends...office both downtown and at home (I work from home or a Starbucks on Fridays ;D )...never, ever too taxing and absolutely love every aspect of it! I couldn't dream of anything better. I've been very fortunate because our partners, who are all individual families or trusts, fit in perfectly and understand the culture of our funds. Made a ton of great friends as well...both from our funds and this board! Cheers!

Long-term shareholders were given warrants to buy stock at a good price over the next five years, so that will temper the dilution a bit. At the same time, ask yourself which piece of the pie do you want to own: - the current Chanticleer that doesn't have the cash flows to sustain expenses. - the Chanticleer that will acquire and build nearly 30 Hooters restaurants between now and 2016, where the cash flows will more than cover expenses and should provide a decent rate of return, if not a very good one with the expertise they have. I would much rather own the latter, if the quality of what I own...even if diluted...is significantly better and will build long-term shareholder value. Also remember, that they have the ability to raise $15M, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will raise the total amount. Finally, the shares in the company are closely held, and so it is unlikely that the existing shareholder base would be able to fully subscribe to a $15M issue...it's a 6M company. They need to raise the money to build these restaurants out, and they are pretty much going to be the leader in Hooter's International expansion for the forseeable future. The other side of this is they need to get of size to generate more exposure so they can raise money for Matt and Joe to manage. It's just not happening at the moment, and these guys are smart and need to be managing more money! I'm trying to get close to Mike so I can steal these guys one day! ;D Just kidding...not gonna happen...they are staying put! Cheers!

Hi net-net, I was trying to point out the way they are using the model...not so much the model itself. Like the way beta is used these days, Z-score in itself is not a good predictor of anything. Most models utilize past data and cannot explain a transitioning financial statement. Finance is never static. Cheers!

Christmas 2012! That's what I said...barring a complete meltdown of the financial markets of course. Cheers!

You got it! Because they will hit Basel III numbers by the end of the 3rd quarter. You can't discount them below tangible book at that point. Biggest litigation settlement is out of the way, and now they tackle the smaller ones. Book value or better by mid-2014. Cheers!

Waiting for the next quarter's report...then the next...then the next...tangible book by Christmas is what I said all along. Cheers!

I suspect he would slap these accountants in the back of the head for being so stupid! Altman Z-score! Ignore the fact that it's Overstock.com and they are sourcing Sam Antar and Gary Weiss, but from the numbers they present, the Z-score hasn't successfully predicted Overstock's demise since 2006! ;D I think Z-score and beta must drive Buffett and Munger crazy. Cheers! http://blogs.smeal.psu.edu/grumpyoldaccountants/archives/569#comment-11141

Indirectly gets control of Netscape too...oh the irony! Cheers! http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4e69b676-8265-11e1-9242-00144feab49a.html#axzz1rZVya38y

Interesting interview with Schiller. One of the few economists who have gotten it right and always admits his limitations. Cheers! http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/robert-shiller-financial-capitalism-taking-over-world-good-130531139.html;_ylt=AkC2Wul5uKa9BhU8BeZp_NKiuYdG;_ylu=X3oDMTQ0MGw2czdrBG1pdANGaW5hbmNlIEZQIFRvcCBTdG9yeSBSaWdodARwa2cDNWJjOTcwOTMtNTMyMy0zNjU5LWIxMTgtYWEwMTYzMjEyZGExBHBvcwM1BHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyA2IxNjUyYjUwLTgyNDQtMTFlMS05YTMzLWNiMDUzNDFmNDFhNQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

Hi Folks, We are about two weeks away from the Fairfax AGM! If you have not bought your ticket already for the Fairfax Financial Shareholder's Dinner (April 25th in the Imperial Room at the Fairmont Royal York), please do so as time is running out. We have two types of tickets...the full dinner and presentation ticket ($100 + tax) and the presentation only ticket ($50 + tax). You can buy your tickets directly at www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca. On the right hand side of the site is a small ticket purchase box. You can pay by Visa, M/C, Amex, Discover or Paypal. The attached PDF has the rest of the details, including the menu. Thanks very much much and we'll see you there! Sanjeev 2012_FAIRFAX_FINANCIAL_SHAREHOLDERS_DINNER.pdf

Those three didn't suddenly become stupid! ;D You knew they would always rebound. Cheers!

Liberty, you just realized you're actually human! ;D Fight that feeling of wanting to buy something for the sake of buying. Think about what it was like to buy WFC at $9, BAC at $5, FFH at $80 or SNS at $4. Buy at points of significant pessimism...do you think the markets are feeling that presently? Cheers!

Here is the first quarter report by the AAR. Terrific analysis over the last three-five years. Definite recovery, but mixed rebound. http://www.aar.org/~/media/aar/railtimeindicators/2012-04-rti.ashx Personally, I think things could go either way...corporations are in great shape, but you've got significant deleveraging still occurring and governments are now out of bullets. If they find any more ammunition, it will come with a ton of delay and political back & forth. Many new controversial policy initiatives aren't likely to pass. Expect more volatility, and I would really be approaching things with caution. Buy only when you get something very cheap, and keep some dry powder! Cheers!

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Dimon should buy back shares when they are not trading at a significant discount. The question is whether buying only below book value is too conservative, given that Dimon threw out 23-24 billion as JP Morgan's normalized earnings. Even if JP Morgan buys back shares above book, if the purchase is done at a share price below intrinsic value, eventually the purchase will be accretive to book value. It might just be that Dimon's estimate of JP Morgan's IV is lower than mine; and his number is certainly more likely to be right than mine! :-) It is interesting that JP Morgan bought back shares at over $45 per share in early 2011, which was greater than book value at the time. It sounds like Dimon has gotten more conservative with buybacks. Re-read that paragraph excerpted by PlanMaestro. Dimon isn't saying he's resistant to buying back shares at $45...just that it's not as effective, nor as appealing an alternative. Basically, that the return on investment at that price isn't high enough to warrant LARGE share buybacks. My example of ITEX was the same as what Dimon was stating. The board wasn't interested in share buybacks when the stock traded at $3.25, but suddenly issues a 1M share tender at $4.20! Go figure! Most CEO's will overpay for their own stock because of their hubris or other reasons...just ask Eddie Lampert. Dimon won't, a la Buffett! Cheers!

I think Dimon has buybacks nailed on the head. He understands exactly how much he should or should not be paying for his own stock. This is a very difficult concept for many CEO's to grasp. I had the same problem with ITEX's board about buybacks. They were insistent on not buying back shares...then changed their mind and said that they would buy back shares...then went all the way and made a tender on 1M shares at a price significantly higher than the market price and above book. The buyback will be accretive to earnings because they aren't making much on the cash, but it won't increase book value per share. They could have bought shares in the open market below $4 for the last six months! Why would Dimon buy back large amounts of his shares unless they are trading at a significant discount? He completely understands that at higher prices it may be accretive to earnings, but that it would not be accretive to book or tangible book. He's smart enough to be patient! Cheers!

Very nice! The weather has been awful in Vancouver in the New Year, and I'm sure Seattle wasn't any better. Although, I'm one of those guys who will never get used to a warm, dry, very green Christmas, so no plans for me to ever move to somewhere warm! ;D Cheers!

Not a fan of debt-laden, capital-intensive businesses. Especially, if they are in a cut-throat business, beholden to strong unions, and have few competitive advantages. There are easier ways to make money! Cheers!

For you long-time Pinnacle shareholders. Never understood the interest in this business...even when Mohnish invested in it. Cheers! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pinnacle-airlines-files-bankruptcy-035519030.html;_ylt=Anu1MYSsyw28XBoWvPznspmiuYdG;_ylu=X3oDMTQ0cTVxNHEyBG1pdANGaW5hbmNlIEZQIFRvcCBTdG9yeSBSaWdodARwa2cDMjEyMzk2Y2ItOTM4YS0zNzk3LTllYTktYWU0Y2UxNjg0YjA5BHBvcwMxBHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyA2Y0ZDZkYzIwLTdjODItMTFlMS04ZmY3LTcxZGU5YmM5NDFiNw--;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

NO! Shortcuts lead to poor results or even worse...catastrophic decisions! Over time, all of the 10-K's you go through will create a significant base of knowledge for you to work with. You will get faster and faster, and out of habit, you will be able to go to exactly the areas you need to examine. But to put it as bluntly as I can, because it is for your own benefit and your future client's benefit: If you don't want to do the work, then it is not for you. Cheers!

Very easy to get around by car, and cabs aren't that plentiful. You might be out of luck on car rentals though. Better hurry to book one! This is the first year that Berkshire has recommended for people to fly into Kansas City and rent a car, because it is getting tougher to find flights or rental cars. Cheers!

Article on Buffett at the Omaha Press Club Show. Cheers! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-delivers-news-tune-omaha-190758611.html;_ylt=AtAqKjHXIR4MV7eRk0YzqciiuYdG;_ylu=X3oDMTQ0ZTdhOHJxBG1pdANGaW5hbmNlIEZQIFRvcCBTdG9yeSBSaWdodARwa2cDNmM5OTY5NWYtYmQwYi0zZjI0LWIyN2UtMjU1NTY4MzdjMGNmBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyAzRjN2UyMWUwLTdjMmUtMTFlMS04NzhmLTZmZjRlZjFmZTkyNA--;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

Yeah, Buffett never took over a company so that he could fire the CEO... NEVER. Oh, wait a minute... That's exactly what he did with Berkshire! Of course, there is going to be some sort of similarity...he's not reinventing the wheel...Buffett did that. But I think much of the managerial skills and behavior is quite different. - Buffett became the buyer of choice for businesses because people wanted to work for him...the sellers came to him, not because they were takeover candidates or challenged in proxy fights. - Buffett still makes only $100K a year - Buffett never changed the company name to Buffett Holdings - Finally, Buffett never put his own self-interest ahead of other shareholders...you were legitimately a partner in Berkshire Hathaway if you owned shares...he didn't make a buck on the back of the remaining shareholders. As far as the resemblance of the annual reports...you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig! Cheers!