AzCactus

I don't think that you're necessarily a bad capital allocator. May somewhat inefficient. But so what? Strip malls and parking lots exist because they are efficient (read cheap) but they're ugly as balls and make your life worse so in the end not such a good thing despite efficiency. Yes maybe you can leverage your house and use the extra funds to make some smart investments and in the end you'll end up a bit richer. Bu then you'll have to monitor and balance your leverage, etc, basically more headaches. Alternatively one can be less capital efficient, have peace of mind, enjoy life and have no worries regarding having to put one's home back to the bank or not. What if you get rich enough and don't need the extra funds? Wasn't that a waste of time? This +1

Debt generally adds risk. Maybe not so much at that interest rate. But that rate probably won't be available forever. Furthermore, debts such as credit cards and student loans can be a huge burden and in some cases never get paid off. There are reasons that banks have very nice buildings and most people have a pretty negligible net worth.

My thought at a quick glance is that you have a company with solid management, a more conservative culture financially and a focus on the long term. While I don't have a position it seems to check a few of the more important boxes.

I thought this was worth sharing : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/opec-said-to-agree-oil-production-cuts-as-saudis-soften-on-iran

I think another important item here is your age. Someone at 25 years old with a net worth of $250K is likely in better shape than someone who is 65 with a net worth or $1,000,000

BAM, CMPR, MKL and UA

Or I could find one I love and we could share our stuff. I like my idea a tad better.

This is more general but I know that different cultures have different traditions and that's fine. However, spending more than you have or parents contributing more than they probably should is still not a good idea. I think it was De Beers who promoted spending two months' worth of income on a ring, there are wedding lists so large that people don't see each other and most weddings are over fairly quickly. If you are affluent (or have parents who are) that's fine but lots of people have a big hole in their pocket and a 50% chance of having nothing to show for it. Just one man's opinion.

I was just reading through the transcript from the annual meeting a few weeks back and got to thinking what would happen if we all adopted Buffett's diet. My opinion Coke stock would rise. Diabetes and obesity would rise at an even faster rate and those who make vegetables maybe in trouble.

One of the things that I like about this forum is that people can/should think for themselves. I think most of us would say we aren't lemmings. So if Gio or anyone for that matter posts something it really only expresses their opinion. If he was wrong about Holmes or VRX who cares....we are all adults and should make decisions accordingly. Just my two cents.

Anything new here?

CMG is interesting. A lot of growth though already seems priced in even after the recent drop.

Fortunately reduction of expenses is different from abolishing them altogether

You're confusing cost and value. My wedding was in Manhattan, was 3x over budget and absurdly expensive (despite being described as 'modest' by out of town guests). It was also worth, and I'm not being hyperbolic here, infinite dollars as there was no amount of money that I would have been willing to trade for the experience. So, I don't know, I guess you should save your money? Ai, A couple points to make. First I don't know if your comment "you should save your money" was addressed towards me or a general comment. That having been said I wasn't asking for advice regarding my specific situation. Here are some facts though: Most people in their 20's and early 30's (those getting married) have debt of some kind (credit cards, student loan etc), most people don't save enough for retirement, and most people have no idea how to fix this. A cheaper wedding isn't the only route to go, but given a 50% divorce rate and the fact that many of those people aren't actually known to the bride/groom down the road its a place to start. Yeah, you're taking a risk by getting married but spending less on the marriage doesn't mollify that risk. Better risk management would be to do the equivalent of "diligence" on the marriage (e.g. living together, premarital counseling). Assuming you're confident in the marriage, the wedding often has value that far exceeds its cost, often regardless of the cost. I'm arguing that having a fancy wedding their 20s is more valuable to people in than having a comfortable retirement. AI, I would say that really depends on what your retirement would be without $500,000. The difference between having $300K and $800K in retirement is huge....The difference between having $2.5 M and $3.0 M probably won't effect lifestyle that much. I would think that most people on this blog have a combination of above average incomes and life below their income. I don't think the average person across the board though lives this way.

Jurgis, I want people to be happy as much as the next guy. That being said bigger, more expensive doesn't equal happiness necessarily. If anyone can find a study showing a positive correlation between the amount spent on a wedding and happiness I'll admit I'm wrong. However, based on what I've read/seen that's not really how it works.

You're confusing cost and value. My wedding was in Manhattan, was 3x over budget and absurdly expensive (despite being described as 'modest' by out of town guests). It was also worth, and I'm not being hyperbolic here, infinite dollars as there was no amount of money that I would have been willing to trade for the experience. So, I don't know, I guess you should save your money? Ai, A couple points to make. First I don't know if your comment "you should save your money" was addressed towards me or a general comment. That having been said I wasn't asking for advice regarding my specific situation. Here are some facts though: Most people in their 20's and early 30's (those getting married) have debt of some kind (credit cards, student loan etc), most people don't save enough for retirement, and most people have no idea how to fix this. A cheaper wedding isn't the only route to go, but given a 50% divorce rate and the fact that many of those people aren't actually known to the bride/groom down the road its a place to start.

Quite honestly I'm not claiming to be a huge fan of frugality forever. However, a wedding is something usually done at a relatively young age (at least the first time) and something that comprises a large % of the average income. The suggestion of eating ramen forever or buying a 25 year old car can come with other repercussions such as health issues with only ramen and maintenance/time costs with a super old car.

Here's the link to the knot for those intereested: https://www.theknot.com/content/average-wedding-cost

I chose 8% because I thought that was fairly reasonable over the long term. Obviously, all these numbers change big time if you assume 12 or 15% returns.

Per TheKnot.com the average cost of wedding is $31213. Obviously this varies by location but that's the average nationwide. The average age of those getting married is 29 for men and 27 for women. Now let's say you had a very small wedding think fewer or around 20 people and it was more of a lunch/get together that costs $6213. This would leave $25K to invest. Now let's say that this couple agreed to invest and not draw on these funds until the woman turned 65. Additionally, let's say nothing else was added and the return was 8%. This would be about $500,000. I understand that sometimes (maybe often) relatives step in and help but either way this seems like a lot to "spend" especially when we know that about 50% of the marriages end in divorce.

In one of his letters (I think 2011) he mentioned that Arlington only outperformed the S&P 55% of the months. I think someone previously uploaded it...but I added it just in case. 2011_Annual_letter.pdf

Over the past couple of weekends I have decided to try to think and learn through the mistakes that some highly regarded value investors have made. I began with Sears where you had Lampert and Berkowitz who have held onto this declining business for years. I then moved onto Zinc where you had Guy and Mohnish speak of how this business was going to do ok even if the price of Zinc dropped. Moving along we saw Mecham get into Outerwall amid a change in consumers' preference for streaming rather than going to Redbox. Lastly, we have Valeant which took with it a host of well renowned value investors (Brave Warrior, Sequoia, Pershing, Valueact, etc) who bought into this roll up than got into a host of issues. The point I am making here is what can we learn and how can we prevent the mistake from happening. My thought regarding retail is that generally it is not a good business. You have exceptions but I would imagine its pretty tough to have a moat in that space. Secondly, if you get involved in a business that is commodity related its better to look for a business that is under (or not) leveraged, well managed and can ride out the roller coaster. Thirdly, when you see an obvious change happening its better to not go with the has been. In terms of Outerwall it may turn out not to be a total loss and certainly is not down 90% from highs like the other names but between Netflix and other streaming services---it falls into Buffett's an ounce of prevention is worth a point of cure. With Valeant my takeaway is the importance of looking for managers who are both humble in how they communicate and conservative in what they communicate. I don't know Pearson at all; my hunch though is that he wanted to grow too much too fast. Any and all additional thoughts appreciated. David

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-11/iea-says-oil-price-may-have-bottomed-as-high-cost-producers-cut

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-09/john-gutfreund-king-of-wall-street-at-salomon-dies-at-86

The above reminds me of Richard Feyman's quote about fooling yourself and remembering that you are the easiest person to fool.