rb

This plus what Sharad said. Value funds tend to lump in all sorts of crappy stocks. But for example, in the 2010-2012 period companies like Microsoft and Google were OBVIOUS value stocks. You weren't paying 70 cents for a dollar bill. You were paying a quarter. How many of these so called "value strategies" added those companies to the portfolio?

My guess is that they're gonna have a monster Q2.

I haven't looked at the installment receipts. But I will now. Thanks. Off the top of my head the IRs may be trading at a discount because the deal is trading at a discount now but not sure. Need to do homework now.

H.to (Hydro One)

I'd say the first step would be to counsel her not to get into credit card debt. Credit cards target students big time. If she avoids making credit card mistakes she'll already be way ahead of her peers.

You know what, I'll echo what others said here. Screw Seth Klarman and his book. I have the book and I've read it. Anyone who paid $1,000 for it is insane and no investor in my book. Klarman is a much better investor than he is a writer. There's nothing in there that the median member on this board doesn't already know.... and membership on this board costs only 20 bucks. If you can get it for $15 sure go for it, but otherwise forget it. My guess is that Klarman doesn't want the book out there because he doesn't want people to read it and realize how bad it is. A sizeable part of the book is about how efficient the market is, having respect for it and acting when you have an advantage over the market. Very academic stuff. But in my book, the market is like a wild beast so you have to have respect for it. However, as a value investor you have to be arrogant to a certain extent. You have to know the market is wrong and you are right. It doesn't work if you're constantly petrified by the market. Instead of focusing on Klarman's crappy book I'd recommend reading "The Intelligent Investor" in conjunction with "Loosing My Virginity" and "Screw It, Let's Do It". You'll come much more ahead and save a bunch of money to boot.

I agree with what a lot of people have said here. But out of convenience I'm quoting yours post. I'm an introvert as well. Networking sessions make me cringe. So I think being famous and "on" all the time would not be enjoyable at all. I have way more money than I need. And I get to have that without a bunch of 300 lb dudes wanting to bash my head in on a regular basis. There's nothing that I want that I cannot buy. I'm not at MMM type I get nice things, drive nice cars, etc. Like rkbabang I don't need anyone to comp my meals and my clothes. I have money to buy my own. The craft thing I get. I have a competitive attitude. That's probably the reason why I continue to work and why I keep trying to learn and get better. I personally cannot understand people who do not work to get better and perfect their craft, whatever that may be. More so when those are people that are not happy where they are in life. This is not limited to just professional activities. One can always become a better parent, lover, friend, spouse, etc.

I'm basically with Gregmal here. I don't invest in Russia not because I don't like Putin (and I really don't like Putin) but because I don't know that I'm gonna get my money back. It's not just the political stuff. I also have zero faith in managements also. So Russia is an absolute no go for me. Now I'm sure that there are some (a few?) good honest companies in Russia and someone who really dedicates himself to it will find some gems. But from my point of view life is short and I can think of much better ways to spend it than to find the few honest companies in Russia. There are a shitload of other public companies in the world to choose from so it's not like I'm constricted.

Normally I'd agree with you, however where I'm going driving is a lot more dangerous than the Florida Keys so a claim is a real possibility. I also wouldn't want to put a claim on my main insurance where I end up paying for it for the next 5 years.

I'm looking to book a rental car for a trip and I was wondering whether anyone purchased insurance with their rental car from an online place like Expedia or similar. I noticed that the insurance is not through the rental car company but underwritten by 3rd parties. I'm wondering if the insurance is seamless such as the one purchased from the rental car company or is it gonna be a hassle, such as in the case of an issue i have to pay the car rental personally and then make a claim to the 3rd party insurer. Thanks.

I wonder if the price gets close whether the buyback threshold will get altered due to the tax law.

US GDP print for Q1 just go revised down. But let me spare everyone the suspense... The US won't grow at 4% GDP. In fact growth, unless something weird is going on, going forward we'll most likely see weaker growth than in the past years. There's nothing wrong with that, btw. A bump in margins and profits to GDP can happen even from the levels we're at. But probably nothing too dramatic. Banks could do quite well as the US could be going into a credit cycle.

Such an underachiever :P

USB is a really, really well run bank. For that reason they always seem to have a premium-ish valuation. I also think that their growth prospects are inferior to the majours. Those two factors combined have always conspired against me building a position in USB.

Those are good points, backed by historical Berkshire facts, Cardboard, I would add Munich Re to your list. And Tesco, Kraft, Johnson & Johnson, Wal-Mart's gone, back in the day Freddie Mac was a huge position that got the boot, IBM was in and out, Exxon was a real quick in and out. There is a list.

Give him a minute. He needs to google some outperforming small caps.

Alwaysdrawing, please point out which one of your posts talks about whether Berkshire Hathaway is cheap or not right now.

Money laundry going on at Casinos? This is ground breaking stuff. Who knew? ::)

Screw this new age bullshit about visualization. LC is right about youth helps. Like anything related to age when you're young and have that marvelous 2k portfolio is the time to LEARN. You'll make some mistakes (hopefully not too many). But pay attention and learn from them. You'll of course recoup those losses by flipping some extra burgers. Then when you're older and have that 200k portfolio you'll handle situations much better than because you've learned your lessons in the past. The way to calm your stomach is not visualization exercises. It's knowing your stuff. Know what you own. Know what it's worth. This is where investing in individual names is superior to index investing. You know what you own and you know its value vs the mythical "market". Bull markets are fun. Like a nice party. We all showed up, there's music playing, and we're getting drunk on returns. But bear markets are where the wheat separates from the chaff. The market doesn't care about your feelings and let's face it this gig isn't for everyone. Noone's even mentioned the sideways markets between the bears and bulls. Where you know you've put together a great portfolio and you're screaming in the woods because the market doesn't recognize that. How shitty is that? Bottom line, there are bull markets, there are bear markets, there are sideways markets. It's all part of the market. You take the bitter with the better. The ones that work hard and prepare do well. The ones that don't become bear chow.

Unless I'm mistaken, BAC was due to the preferred shared converting upon the common dividend yielding a higher return than the prefs, and although I don't especially like BoA, it's not as bad as the others. I wouldn't particularly call KHC a successful investment, would you? Wells Fargo is only gaining as a percentage of ownership because of buybacks by WFC, not because Buffett has been buying in the open market. As far as I recall BRK paid about 12 billion for KHC back in 2013. That investment is now worth about 20 billion at market cap plus a whole slew of massive dividends because I think about 8 of the 12 billion was the 9% preferred. So without crunching the numbers I think it washes out at around a double over the 5 years. That's after the stock took it in the shorts this year. Since you've asked: Yes I would consider that a successful investment. I have no problem with just doubling my money every 5 years. In the case of WFC Buffett was making open market purchases as recently as Q4 2015. Based on what you write here tells me that you don't actually know much of what you're talking about.

Let em pick at another thread here. Coke has no pricing power beyond inflation? Coke revenue is about $0.09 per 8 oz serving. A standard 330 ml can is just shy of 1.5 servings. Are you seriously telling me that Coke's maximum pricing power is $0.0018 per serving or $0.0027 per can? If coke raises prices by $0.01 per serving or $0.015 per can, it's earnings go up by 25%. That's serious pricing power. Anyone who think that Buffett doesn't care about making money and only cares about his record clearly doesn't know much about the man. BAC, KHC are fairly recent acquisitions. Not that long ago BRK was adding to its WFC stake. It's application to the FED to waive the 10% threshold on WFC is also quite recent.

H.TO, BRK.B, AAPL

I appreciate your indignation and I think it's warranted. But in my view your hope will not be realized. The "golden generation" has under contributed and will collect in full. Fair it is not, but such is life. I've become resigned to that fact. Looking past that I think as a society we face another test in the future. Over the next 20-25 years CPP assets will grow to a level that's about double than what's required to service its liabilities. Right now we're in we'll all live forever and we're sure we're guaranteed to run out of money mode. But as assets grow and grow and grow I'm sure people are gonna start to notice. I'm looking forward to that conversation.

This is nonsense from the point of CPP and Canada. You can see that with some simple excel modelling. Thanks for the time taken to dispel the nonsense. I respect what you describe and understand that CPP funds are "segregated". But the reference provided about the retirement shortfall is based on the three-pillar concept and: -the premise that funds will remain segregated is an assumption that can change (I remember that this was a big issue with excess federal insurance employment funds when rating agencies felt that the books should balance) -the old age security schemes are pay-as-you-go in a historical context of an increasing burden going forward -in 1989, the universal OAS program lost its universality for some with the clawback provision I remember discussing this topic with uncles who suggested that I should not rely too much on the government for retirement since I wasn't born at the right time. Born at the Right Time: A History of the Baby Boom Generation. Owram, Doug Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. No it isn't. The reference you've quoted is absolute drivel from an actuarial perspective. It's basically a piece that looks and sounds smart meant for people that don't know what's what. It's marked right at the front that it is an opinion piece that is not endorsed by the World Economic Forum. The author is a US politico who has no experience is either investment or actuarial sciences. So it's not a reference for anything. When it comes to your uncle he's entitled to his opinion. I have a fun uncle too. Love the guy to bits. He has lots of nuggets I enjoy. But I don't make financial decisions based on what he says. Similarly, your uncle's opinion isn't worth much in this context unless he was an FCIA or something like that. Basically when confronted with mathematical facts your retort is basically that "anything can happen". Sure we could get hit by an asteroid tomorrow and we'd all be dead. But that's not the principle on how life insurance companies are run.

This is nonsense from the point of CPP and Canada. You can see that with some simple excel modelling. Let's look at a simplified example that can be sketched easily. Maximum CPP. CPP deposits and payout get indexed with inflation. Let's assume that inflation will be 2% over the period. In order to get max CPP you need to contribute the max for 40 years. Currently max contribution is $5,128. Current max payout is $1,134 per month, or $13,608 per year. In 40 Years max payout will be $30,047 per year. Current blended life expectancy at 65 is 20 years. In 40 years you'll maybe get 4 years more. So lets assume life expectancy at 65 in 40 years is 24 years. The breakeven rate of return to make all of this possible is 3.9% per year*. CPPIB's 10 year rate of return was 8%. Is there anything unattainable in all this that requires great sacrifices to be made in order to keep the system going? What will happen in actuality is CPPIB keeps up the good work is that CPP will need to increase payout or cut contributions. * The breakeven rake actually will have to be somewhat higher than that because CPP is tasked with paying some other benefits than just CPP pension. But not substantially higher. Again this was a stylized model. I didn't really feel like building a full actuarial model for a post.