RadMan24

Can't recall if it was this book or not, but it's always useful to put together 10 years of financials which will catch any huge discrepancies that suggest deeper dives or red flags. Sometimes the 5 year does it but another 5 years really puts things in perspective. i.e. big jumps from one account to another; no corresponding impact on cash flow; boosts earnings later on. Edit: 10 years of all statements, cash flows, earnings, balance sheet, change in equity

In the past he has. It's safe to say he hasn't been a huge fan of Trump, nor what Mitch has done in Senate appointing endless Judicial vacancies with conservative justices.

BBBY.

Oh that's not true, particularly for levered financials.

A few options. You can take whatever insights you have and apply it to ETFs. For example, if you feel like financials are undervalued or hated, buy the financial sector ETF. If you want to get completely out, mutual funds of interest include Sequoia Fund (post-Valeant) or a S&P 500 Fund run by Gotham Funds.

Warren clearly explained what he got wrong, and the realities going forward. Nobody questioned the strategic move, it just didn't work out as planned. And unlike everyone else, he still didn't lose money.

You guys are ridiculous. Navigator was a legacy holding of his, and he was unaware of some shares still held by the company in his name and ultimately amounted to minuscule amounts. Here, you're talking about $4000 in bankunited stock. Stop posting garbage.

Good stuff. It takes a while to get acquainted with the STOR story - but the CEO letters are top notch. The strategy is promising and, as the author eludes to, the high multiple is actually a benefit to STOR's growth - they consistently sell equity to invest in the business, with unlevered returns hovering 12%. This will limit both shareholder and earnings dilution. The price has run up in January, but I'd second the STOR idea is one a lot of folks should get familiar with. A seasoned manager recently left to begin his own investment fund in triple net lessors as the market remains underappreciated. Thanks for sharing.

I think people failed to read this. They're off on a tangent.

Okay, I might be the only one who thinks that a civilian going out on armed patrol at night is extreme. I guess I just figure that type of behaviour would put a guy in the 0.1% or maybe even the 0.01% of the population. It's not quite vigilantism, but... "Normal" leisure behaviour might be watching an Arizona Diamondbacks game, which would put you in the 10%? All in the eye of the beholder, I guess. SJ I don't think it's all that "extreme" ;) https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-border-militia-caravan-20181026-story.html https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-militia/armed-patriots-the-private-citizens-out-to-secure-the-u-s-border-idUSKBN0H50VA20140910 I think that so many people, like the article, try to do character assignation on others just because they don't like their opinions on something. It happens all the time for liberals and conservatives. So there's a couple hundred people along the border who are involved in this type of activity, but it's not extreme? There's more than a couple hundred in the Michigan and Montana militas, but despite the numbers, I don't think I'd characterize those as "main stream." SJ Dude, you're blowing this way out of proportion. 1.) He has written a book on the issue, if you want to know what he thinks first hand, read the damn book. 2.) He has a ranch by the border, has seen drug smuggling and human trafficking first hand. 3.) The liberal media has brain washed you and nearly everyone else to thinking border security is anti-immigration and taboo. I think that sums up this post.

Agreed, that or Phillips 66. Both are cash cows. He may have offered and been rebuked. Southwest is another option. Carmax could be a bolt-on type acquisition.

Interesting aspect on Lubrizol's loss for the year: http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20170228/NEWS01/170229809/berkshire-hathaways-lubrizol-takes-365-million-loss-on-oilfield

Barron's had an interview with Mohnish in today's paper about Big Autos and Southwest, for those who are subscribed check it out.

He said that as a joke at an annual meeting a few years ago, GM at $35, same line.

I thought he made his point crystal clear: He has to be passive given the Fed application. You can't expect the guy to barge in and demand change, or he'll be a bank holding company.

If it isn't a ponzi scheme, something's amiss. Numbers, returns, fiduarciary duties, etc just don't add up.

This whole thing about Coke is insane. Munger elaborated on this issue on the yahoo finance interview as well for those interested, look there.

Please. Why would Coke sell and make so many billions if people didn't enjoy the taste, flavor, feeling that goes into eating and drinking every day including being happy.

No. Cherry picking results.

You can do the same process two times but achieve two completely different results. That's investing. Over time, the work pays off as it works itself out.

Q&A is usually redundant. Half the time I wonder if analysts even pay attention. But earnings call, transcripts, investor meetings, etc. all provide a sense of how management looks at the business, their attitude and like someone mentioned above, what they don't talk about. Do they brush over real issues, or do they talk about them up front and be honest with mistakes? If you know what you are looking for, it shouldn't take long to see if management has a similar outlook or mentality on how to create value. Plus, it's easy to track what they say, and what the results are. These kind of things can provide helpful information on determining how solid management's track record is. My only warning is, don't get caught up in the media/analyst hype or despair over an earnings call.

This is a great question and it really is at the core of the gas problem. If you give a texan $1 they will drill a hole....you really can't trust these guys, they often don't pay attention to the economics. That said, what will change it going forward, has to be shareholders (and other stakeholders like banks creditors). The CEOs will be forced to come around and focus on projects with positive IRRs otherwise they will be kicked out. The shareholders buying these companies right now are value/capital discipline oriented, and they won't stand for growth for the sake of growth. Creditors will also tighten standards. The good thing about crashes like this is it will force capital discipline into the energy sector. Every crash is the same, people act irrational, people get burnt, the trash is thrown out, everyone learns their lesson, and rational thought sets in (often to the other extreme). I am not even a nat gas bull i just think it will be like a reversion to the mean...low prices will cure low prices. Well banks are reigning in capital for oil and gas names. If nat gas shoots up to 6 in a few years, the producers who are left are likely going to be able to enjoy high returns, before a bunch of companies get credit and ramp up again. Cyclical industries do pay off, just got to pick the ones who will survive and flourish in the up turn. --Assuming the industry is positive on demand growth, something like coal gotta be super careful.

Just to entertain the idea, even if we have two quarters of -.3% growth or something...and bounce back...is that the end of the world? The energy bust is for real, and onc it shakes itself out, things will improve on the investment end of GDP. I just remind myself that it's possible, and that earnings could decline, but that also provides opportunities.

Makes sense. Only in times of distress do those large cap companies really become appealing.

Could it be fair to say this guy just wasn't good?