Jurgis

It likely will be unless it acquires controlled operating businesses fast.

Spek, do you still hold QUCT?

I agree with theasiareport on diversification in net-nets. Does anyone use Piotroski score on net-nets? Theoretically, it should improve the results. Practically, I don't know since I have not bought money-losing net-nets. :)

Isn't this like a loan against your 401(k) just for regular account?

This is not high frequency trading at all though. And if the scoop was false, the trader would have lost the money they put in based on WSJ tweet... so it was risky. TLM trade last year was much less risky IMHO and was available for a whole day... 8)

AFAIK, Barron's roundtable is the only place I have seen her picks. It would be interesting to see if there are other places to find her investments. I think somebody said recently that she might be not reporting and not publishing, but I don't remember the details. :-\

Yes, you are right in your thoughts. When Graham talked about net-nets, he talked about profitable net-nets. I don't have exact quote off top of my head, but he did not suggest buying money losing net-nets. Unfortunately, in this time, there are very few profitable net-nets, usually microcap and/or international. Others might be able to give you examples. I have not bought net-nets personally recently.

Ted and Todd are not women. ;) I am happy that Buffett's attraction to females is not getting attention. Just means that people concentrate on important things and not person's personal life. 8) Question about the interview: is it the 16 minutes clip or are there other parts?

So in your opinion it would be better if there was no rate cap limit and military personnel was loaned money at over 36% APR? :o

I am not going to justify Clayton. One thing to note though: if they cannot sell their mortgages to Fannie/Freddie, they might have to charge quite higher rates for 20+ year loans. This is the same argument people make about 30 year mortgage availability and rates that would be much higher if Fannie/Freddie would not buy them with government backstop. This does not justify some other things in the articles if they are prevalent.

Ah, this says that 30% drop happens only one in 10 years: http://investment-fiduciary.com/2011/08/05/how-often-do-market-corrections-happen/ This makes the above results worse... 9 years of 3% fees + 1 year of plus 10% vs drop of 30% is becoming to look like a wash. Yeah, there are some 10-20% corrections where you would make some money, so more precise model would be needed to see if you come ahead. I also assumed static 10% OTM put pricing which will not be true during corrections. Plus 30% drop is per year. If it does not happen within 2 months you have an option, your return will be worse. I.e. if market drops 10% per month, you will still lose all your option money but your portfolio will drop 30% like the market. So... this does not look very good anymore.

One in five years. So 0.005 to 0.4 5 to 80 I have no clue what you meant by this. :) Assuming 1 in 5 years: - 4 years you get a return of your portfolio minus 3% annual fee. - 1 year you get a return of plus ~10% instead of minus 30%. This is actually a good result. :) Which means that I am probably simplifying too much, missing something or calculating it wrong. ;D

If you buy 10% OTM puts with 0.5% of account and market falls 30%, you will get about 40% return on account from put position (eyeballing at current SPY prices). Assuming your account falls 30% with the market, you would still be ahead. So I guess 10% OTM puts at 0.5% account is not a bad deal in this case.

If you spend 0.5% of your account to buy OTM puts (10% below market let's assume) 1-2 months out, you are going to lose 3% per year in rising markets by definition. That's 0.5% * 6 (12 months / 2 months out) that is total loss. (Yeah, you might be able to roll over, but I am not talking about option-fu trading - if you can option-fu trade, then you are option trading, not downside protecting...) This is quite high cost. So either you have to spend less than 0.5% or you need to buy a longer puts or ... ???

Just FYI this transcript has some errors. E.g. Munger's Posco answer is quite different in audio.

I will take that bet.

Thanks JBird!

There is some guy selling notes for $33 or something like that. I won't advertise for him though. No free notes so far AFAIK.

Yeah, Liberty, but you and others argue the opposite of what you said here on VRX thread. ;) Of course, I guess I also argue the opposite to what I said here on VRX thread. ;) .... Edit: In general, I don't give a ^*&( much. I still think that Buffett's integrity is overrated, but I'm fine with it, since he's a human and he can hold contradictory opinions at the same time and rationalize why they are fine...

I prefer Darien Taylor... but Greed is good. 8) :P :-X ::)

There are a lot of things we support or like when Buffett/Munger do them, but not when others do it. There is definitely some hypocrisy in their actions and words.

You've just found out you are not like most random people off the street. Congrats. This can be good or bad. Thanks. 8) I knew it already. I'm not even like most random people on CoBF. 8) This is good and bad. ::)

Careful guys. This begins to sound like "get rich quick or not at all". How about "getting rich slowly"? ;)

OT I did not like this article. It touched important topic(s), but I thought that it was too simplistic and I'm pretty sure "caching" model is not a good shortcut to describe how brain works. Artificial neural nets would be a better model, but possibly tougher to explain to non-computer-scientists. It also might be better model to explain why "recomputing" is not as easy as author might imply. It seems that the author took "caching" and shoehorned heuristics and a bunch of cognitive biases into this model. I found his examples strange, since I personally would not complete any of them the way he did. This is not to say that I don't have (false) heuristics, biases, etc.

I just realized that oddball is making "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" arguments. ;D