rb

Shkreli gets 7 years. Cried like a little bitch. Not so smug anymore apparently. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-09/martin-shkreli-sentenced-to-seven-years-in-prison-jekb13w6

There's lots of reasons. Berkshire has a large non-institutional investor base. It gets poor coverage. Doen't do a lot of shareholder communication. The list goes on.

Global fund managers are always underweight Berkshire.

oh yes, zero hedge. That paragon of reliable information.

Can't. UK golden share.

Focusing on #1 or #2 businesses in the field is actually a pretty dumb idea. It bases capital allocation on the chase of the grandiose instead of valuation. That in turn motivates management to build a stable of really pretty businesses at the expense of shareholder value. I guess that policy has served it's purpose at GE.

I can see if you've been picked before you can be a bit paranoid. I've traveled extensively and never been picked. But then I've also lived in a bunch of places in Europe and I'm pretty good at spotting "riskier" situations. OK, tips: The places you're going nobody is going to pull a knife or gun on you and rob you. If anything it'll be a quick pull. So it's actually pretty easy to avoid. Keep your phone and valuables in your front pockets (much harder to reach). You could do the under the shirt carrier thing, but that's overkill and annoying. Don't do the American bulging wallet thing. You don't need your Costco and American Airlines miles cards when on vacation. There's no reason to have your bank card on you unless you're going to an ATM. Just carry some cash for the day and a credit card. But I would bring several cards with me. Sometimes your bank blocks them or you may get nicked. Carry one and leave the others at the hotel. Never carry your passport on you. If you're not driving don't carry a license. Btw, in Italy at a lot of places museums, etc you need to leave a piece of ID as deposit for audioguides and other stuff. What I usually do is bring a bunch of no longer valid drivers licenses with me to use. That way I don't care what happens with them. Oh, and no tablets. You don't really need them and they're really easy to nick. Let's see what else? Be vigilent of people approaching you. These are usually scammers. A common scam in Italy is for these guys to act as if they work for the rail company or the subway and offer to help you. Usually to buy a ticket or whatever. Don't engage with them. In Italy workers of public transit don't care if you need help. Also in places where you may be at risk there will be Carabinieri (military police) and possibly actual soldiers. You can signal to them or walk over to them. It's totally safe. You won't get shot in Italy because a cop felt insecure.

The short answer is that No-Go zones in Europe are fictitious. Just like anywhere the are rougher neighborhoods but even there you'll be just fine unless you make a total ass of yourself. But as others here have said you're unlikely to find yourself in one of those. Just as a reference, crime in the cities you'll go to is much lower than in any American city. So you really have nothing to worry about. Pickpockets and hustlers are another thing altogether though and as an American you're likely to be a target. Law enforcement over the does a pretty good job keeping an eye out for these things. But unfortunately the large numbers and high skill level of these individuals means that pickpocketing is still a problem. So use common sense and be especially vigilent in and around major train stations.

I'm sorry but that is complete horseshit. Jack Welch is so revered only because the stock has done well. That and great timing - he retired while the stock was on the top. The problems that GE is facing can be traced back to Welch. Meet the numbers, beat the numbers at all costs - Welch. Juice earnings by under funding pensions - Welch. By the way that liability is now 1/4 of GE's market cap. But sure Welch was awesome because he gave a great speech at Cornell. Welch created a rotten culture at GE and that rot has continued to spread. That rot has created spores which now permeate the management ranks at GE. I would love it for Berkshire to buy parts of GE but why would I want to bring that pit of dirty vipers into my pristine home? Maybe they'll pick off some peripheral divisions. But the only way I'd like for Berkshire to swallow big chunks of GE is together with 3G. Where they have the 3G guys go in and fire everyone and start from scratch with management.

Well nobody can argue with that on the face of it. But somehow it has an unBerkshirey feel.

Reckitt Benkiser would be a nice business in Berkshire. But I think there's zero chance in that. It would make sense to buy it with Kraft Heinz and there's zero chance that RB guys will agree to that. As others said, they're far from tapped out in utilities. They may even buy a large foreign utility like National Grid. I also don't see why they can't keep buying smaller (relatively) companies. I think that a company like Meggitt would do great inside of Berkshire. I mentioned a few foreign name in here because I think in the future we'll see more foreign acquisitions.

I think at the time they made the switch berkshire was trading at a fairly low price to book. I also think it's safe to assume that Berkshire will grow book at 8% in the future if they don't start dividends. But also I don't think it's reasonable to think that you should get a 1.5 PB multiple on your 8% ROE company. So your mileage may vary. Also my safe 8 is over a longish period (5 may be too short). Keep in mind that Berkshire has something like a 175 billion equity portfolio now that will get marked. If you have a market crash (they happen!) that will seriously distort book in the short term.

I'm not going to speak for Viking. But the story you're looking for is that one that you only need to get rich once. Concentration works to create wealth. All rich people are either concentrated or made their money through concentration. Most often it's not marketable securities. It's a private business. But those are securities nonetheless. Market listings don't matter that much. Also if you want to expand the field of vision almost everyone on the planet is concentrated. People are overly concentrated and exposed to their careers. Furthermore people are overly concentrated in their jobs. That's why most really don't want to loose them. So concentration is mostly everywhere and a fact in everyday life. So concentrating is great at building wealth. But it also carries risk - don't drop that basket of eggs! It's stressful - keep watching that basket of eggs! Why should you have to deal with that crap if you're rich? A lot of people here are very focused on performance vs some index. But that's not so relevant if you're wealthy. Does your jet (or insert you own reference) run different if you made 8% or 10% last year? Also the wealthier you are the greater the incentive not to loose it. Because the wealthier you are the harder it will be to rebuild that wealth. So you're inclined to pay a premium to maintain that wealth... kinda like a wealth insurance policy.

Warren Buffett to retire from Kraft Heinz board. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-23/warren-buffett-to-retire-from-kraft-heinz-board-as-his-term-ends I don't want to be a downer but this coupled with Abel and Jain being named vice chairs gives me a bad feeling that the Buffett era may be coming close to an end. We may get some big changes/revelations in the Letter tomorrow.

See this is another nonsense post. All based of one's feelings and not much fact. Oil and gas has been the growth engine of the Canadian economy? This is one of those incorrect views that Canada is some gas station. Here's a fact all extractive industries (mining, quarrying, and oil and gas) make up about 8% of Canada's GDP. That is meaningful but nowhere close to overwhelming. Also Canada created a shitload of job in a depressed oil price environment. About trade I'm not that concerned. Our trade with the US is pretty much in balance. But a large part of our exports is oil. I'm not that old but I don't think I'll see the US taxing oil in my lifetime. On the other hand we are the biggest customer for US exports and we import the stuff that is made in factories in places like Ohio. Our retaliation will hurt bigly. On top of that Canada has had for years a trade retaliation plan that not only targets country/industries but zeros in on retaliation to specific districts and states of politicians voting against Canada. We not only get mean, we also get personal. Now Donald Trump may not be aware of such a plan but I can guarantee you that members of Congress are acutely aware of its existence. So bring it on! This is before we move to regulate and tax the shit out of their tech companies. You want to talk taxation? Our corporate tax is still lower than in the US. The small business tax rate is significantly lower than in the US. Oh and in Canada you don't have to pay for the workers' health insurance cause we have that covered. You want to talk fiscal position? Canada's debt to GDP is around 31%. The US's is 104%. Our national pension plan is more than fully funded, the US's has unfunded liabilities up the ass. Our deficit is around 1% of GDP which means that our debt to GDP will continue to shrink at a pretty good clip. The US is projected to run a deficit of 5.7% of GDP (at full employment!). That will cause their debt/gdp to expand in a healthy manner. We in Canada could eliminate corporate taxation completely and still not come anywhere close to running those deficits. So yea a lot of the stuff that got posted here is nonsense. By the way Canada's stock market bares no resemblance to the Canadian economy. The ones that make comparisons since 2008 on are basically saying in 2008 I bought a bunch of overvalued oil companies because I thought oil will go to 1,000. But it's not my fault it must be Canada's. Oh and for the guy that thinks taxation in Canada is higher than in Belgium. Stop talking about taxation and go learn about it.

What a bunch of nonsense.

Why? Sorry if this is a dumb question. Not a dumb question at all. With a pipeline you can basically ship from point A to point B. That's all. But the worst part is that as a producer you usually have to sign a multi decade shipping contract (you thought your phone contract was bad?) with the pipeline and you pay whether you ship or don't. The reason why Energy East was so appealing is that it was a conversion of an old natural gas pipeline that's no longer used but the producers were still paying for it. With rail you don't have long term contracts and you have flexibility of where you can deliver your product. Also oil moves faster on rails then in the pipe - maybe that's not all that important but it's another advantage. So to a producer rail is a superior way of moving oil. The only advantage pipes have is that they're cheaper. But if the price differential should narrow then we could see big changes in how oil moves around.

As I said, inflation won't happen. When the talking heads on tv say inflation they don't actually mean inflation. They mean inflation pressures.... not the same thing. But it does mean rising rates. So if lower rates help real estate prices.... then why won't higher rates hut real estate prices? To borrow a phrase... interest rates are like gravity.

Inflation will remain low. Rates will rise. Bond investment managers will benefit and some FIs.

I think you are correct that it's an economic decision and mainly about money. Though I don't think it has anything to do with money from "eco-terrorist groups" as you put it. I think it's a lot more simple. It's that those groups realized that they have a powerful negotiating position and won't roll over anymore. So if you want their valuable product you'll have to take out your wallet and pay for it. They're probably right too. Now about non aboriginal BC people, most of their money is in very expensive real estate. In their mind the real estate prices are linked to beautiful mountains and pristine waters. Pipelines and tankers are generally pretty safe but every now and then they spill. Now I don't know what a bitumen spill would do to real estate prices. I don't think it would help them or maybe it won't do anything. But if you were one of the people of BC where so much of your wealth is ties to that one asset, why take the chance? You may be able to buy the aboriginals with a higher price but the price but the price required by people in Vancouver/Victoria areas may be uneconomical. In that case maybe it's better to route through Oregon if they're willing to take your bid. By the way, my opinion is that these pipes should be built because it's for the best. But let me invest this a bit. If this is about money as you and I think it is. Then the government jamming this thing though amounts to the government interfering in a market to set prices. It's funny that all the market, anti government people all of a sudden become big government interventionists when it comes to pipelines - is it superseding ideology, one's portfolio, or both? Also thinking more about routing through Oregon. Is that so bad? As a country we would cede the some rents and some maintenance jobs. We still get to ship our oil which is the most important bit. The rents aren't very high and the maintenance jobs are few. Tanker and pipeline spills are also real and we get to outsource those. The big risk would be that the US could shut down our pipes for whatever reason. While that risk went up slightly in the past couple of years it is still negligible in my view. So maybe we're actually getting a good deal with an Oregon route. Some musings on pipelines in general... I've been reading a lot over the past few years about dissatisfaction between land owners and pipeline owners/operators. It basically comes down to the fact that they feel that they're getting a bad deal and it's not worth it to have a pipeline on their land. If that's the case in the future pipes will have to sweeten the deal and shipping costs will rise. Now if I were a producer a pipeline is an inferior way to ship. I'd much prefer to ship by rail. Pipe's only advantage is cost. But if the price between pipe and rail should narrow, are pipes even viable in the future? I guess it depends on how much that gap narrows. But it's something to think about. Apologies about the long post, I wanted to squeeze a few extra points to make it comprehensive.

But, but, but, but. But the mayor was an idiot, but the mayor didn't win re-election, but Montreal released sewage in the Saint Lawrence, but, but, but... The pipeline company flat out refused to engage in discussion or consultation with any local municipalities. When you're gonna run a pipeline through water sources and refuse to engage with stakeholders that's stupid. When one of those stakeholders is the 2nd largest city in the country in a province with a lot of political power and you tell them to shove it? Well that becomes massively stupid and gross negligence. My best friend's dad is a very senior executive who's very involved in all these pipeline projects. I was having some scotch with him one night, this must have been in 2011 or 2012, about the time when the first troubles with Keystone XL were popping up in that liberal bastion called Nebraska. I told him that I was seriously concerned about the local opposition because of the route it took through Ogallala. His answer was not to be worried because the locals don't have a choice. Boy was he wrong! Then years later we have Energy East by the same company and they use the same playbook and they make the same mistakes. They've learned nothing!

They've tried a pipeline to the East (see Energy East). But the pipeline company pissed off the people in the center (Quebec in particular) so that didn't happen.

Interesting article in The Globe about drug dealing, moving money in and out of china, and money laundry all done through Vancouver real estate. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/investigations/real-estate-money-laundering-and-drugs/article38004840/

Nah. The rocket financial report is incorrect. They only added about 90,000 shares... roughly $9 million.

It's the world we live in... where clicks are all that matters. Some members here may hate pretty hard on the article, but they still clicked on it to read it. That's all good in the eyes of the author. Mission accomplished.