AzCactus

I'm not sure I would say Mayweather's legacy is "on the line." It's not as if he loses he won't have a legacy. I would argue his legacy would be somewhat dampened. But that's it.

Oddball---I honestly don't disagree with you. For my age I am comfortable with where I am at. And that won't change just because somebody on this board has a couple more 0's than me. However, I think that generally speaking though people are always comparing themselves to others--especially in their own age range. In the end though, the key is to be happy with what you and :)

I think an interesting and in a way less personal way to get some information would be to ask what is your Aum/Age. This way you can get an approximate number and unless you actually know the age of the person posting you won't have a complete answer. The other key issue (from my perspective) is that it would be logical that people in their 40's/50's would generally have higher AUM than someone in their 20's. This would be based on a combination of compounding and earnings power.

There are two points I would like to add. The first is that expenses are relative: So if someone nets 10k/month $100 is a mere 1% which is neglible. However, the second point is really a matter of simplifying your life. If you could use Netflix, Hulu or some other platform and that covers 95% of what you would be watching than having cable really is more of an annoyance. In terms of sports you could typically stream those for free online. See, I would have said the opposite. Having Netflix and Hulu and Amazon and Sling and HBO would probably cover 95% of my viewing but it's more complicated not less. Now I have 5 bills plus the broadband bill and it is a major pain to switch channels back and forth. It's worth the extra few bucks to have one provider, one bill and be able to surf channels - not to mention the other 250 channels that get thrown in too. I see your point. However, if your bills are on auto-pay its not a huge hassle to have it debited every month. This year I think I have literally written two checks and I think others on this board are in the same boat. Also, while having one bill might be easier it will likely be more expensive and you will have 250 channels that probably comprise 5-10% of your viewing time. To me it seems unnecessary but to each his own.

There are two points I would like to add. The first is that expenses are relative: So if someone nets 10k/month $100 is a mere 1% which is neglible. However, the second point is really a matter of simplifying your life. If you could use Netflix, Hulu or some other platform and that covers 95% of what you would be watching than having cable really is more of an annoyance. In terms of sports you could typically stream those for free online.

Maybe Mike Tyson will step into the ring and give each of them a right hook. At this point in his career I think he's a "value" actor.

Isn't there a quote that goes like a market forecast tells you more about the forecaster than the market.

"The man who dies rich, dies disgraced,"

Right when I was about to get some plastic surgery and change my nose to Warren's. What a bummer lol.

Piggy backing off the thread that talks about cutting cable----I am really thinking about moving to Republic. I understand it may not be the best but with the price so low the value seems great. We have two plans and figure that we'll have our money back in 6 months (cost of phones $150*2) and everything after that is gravy.

My gf and I never had cable and use Netflix, Hulu etc. for our streaming needs. It's just a ridiculous, repetitive and excessive expense.

Like most others rooting for Pacquiao, but think Mayweather will win.

I don't really know what being the "best" means. I want to be happy and to the extent that correlates with achieving above average returns it is meaningful. But if you have everything you need, a lot of the things you want and some of what you desire than you should be ok. Whether you are top 2%, top 5% or top .000001% its your attitude/appreciation that will make the biggest difference.

I agree with most of the chatter that (%'s) are relevant but so is your ability to earn back that income. Clearly if the position is 20% of your net worth and a single paycheck is 10% than its really less of an issue. However, even if you have a 8%-10% position, but it would take years to earn back if that substantially moved against you it is (in some ways) are more risky. The overarching key is the ability to sleep at night and be comfortable irrespective of any specific position sizing.

I think we are too....However, there are always metrics that can counteract one side of an argument.

I would agree with you that he is probably the most famous example. While I would say that growth is part of value and vice versa---he seemed primarily focused on the growth component and (in my judgment ) did not give enough credence to the value component. Just my two cents.

Pretium----I don't actually know that Bill Miller would classify as a value investor. He seems to look for growth first and not invest with the same margin of safety some others such as Meacham---Arlington or Greenberg---Brave Warrior would.

Thanks for posting....Seems like an interesting read.

Jay---I know you addressed your question to Liberty and I'm sure he'll respond. In terms of retirement relative to net worth, expenses etc. there's a blog called Mr. Money Mustache that basically gives an estimate of retirement based on savings rate. The link is below: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/ However, as an example if you are saving 50% of your net income you should be able to retire in 17 years. Below are the assumptions made in the calculation: •You can earn 5% investment returns after inflation during your saving years •You’ll live off of the “4% safe withdrawal rate” after retirement, with some flexibility in your spending during recessions. •You want your ‘Stash to last forever, you’ll only be touching the gains, since this income may be sustaining you for seventy years or so. Just think of this assumption as a nice generous Safety Margin.

I am pretty sure that Buffett said rather recently that if he was managing small sums he could get like 50% per year. However, Berkshire's size would obviously not constitute a small sum. I do agree though that the market does seem rather high.

I think you should be able to do a transfer in kind. However, I am not an expert in this.

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants---Isaac Newton. I like this one because pretty much anyone in this forum owes some of their successes to the experiences/lessons of others.

Yeah Baupost, maybe Brave Warrior and Arlington too.

Is there any concise way to find letters from different hedge fund managers either on this website or another? I think it would be cool to read letters from different value guys going back as far as possible.

+1 I was thinking this too...However that would be more of a long term goal. It would be tough to put a 1 year old on a budget lol