Read the Footnotes

Personally, the current bid of $17,000 is too rich for me. I don't consider myself enough of a high roller to bid on lunch with Monish. Maybe if there was an option for just coffee. Since this is supposed to be a value investor thread, I'd like to make a couple of points about what might be hidden value for some of you. First, I'd like to say that I am more impressed than ever with the wisdom of what Pabrai is doing with Dakshana. If you want your dollar to go a long way then Monish has found a very positive way of impacting the world. I also want to call out some people on this board who like to complain about the injustices of Hunter Biden starting life on third base, or the inequalities that the left concerns themselves with. Well why don't you put your money where your mouth is and give some money to an organization that actually does something about that sort of issue? Second, I think you could mock Pabrai for having this fundraiser and say that he is just copying Buffett. I might be tempted to do the same, but there's a problem with that. Buffett and Munger say that you can't pick and choose which parts of the system to copy. They say that if you want to adopt their system, you have to copy everything. I am guessing that Monish's interactions with Charlie, Warren and others in their universe have taught him something about that. There are too many people who say, "I'm going to be just like Buffett, except for the part about ethics" or "I'm just like Buffett, except for the part about living modestly, in fact I don't even want to live with my means, borrowing heavily to consume seems like more fun." Kudos to Monish for his efforts to copy ALL parts of the system rather than picking and choosing. It's probably better to risk being mocked for copying everything Buffett does than to leave out something important due to ignorance. It's probably also worth accidentally charging $8 dollars shipping or accidentally using your personal eBay account and exposing that your hobby is collecting beanie babies, either of which would obviously open you to ridicule. Finally, since I thought we were supposed to be analysts, here's an argument that the auction presents a bargain. Even if you don't think that speaking to Monish about investing or business has value to your particular situation, Monish has had the opportunity to spend time with Buffett and Munger and has become friendly with many people who are close to them. Even if you think the only value is that maybe some pixie dust fell off on to Monish, at 37 bps relative to the cost of lunch with Buffett, maybe it's not a bad deal? Even if you thought you should make adjustments for the relative scarcity of Buffett's time versus Monish's time, or maybe adjustments for the relative AUM amounts, etc I think someone could still make arguments that the lunch is cheap on a relative basis. Plus, I suspect we could learn something from Monish about marketing and self-promotion. Now Monish, I know you read CoB&F occasionally, and as a master marketer, I'm sure you check up on your online presence . . . so, about that coffee . . . feel free to message me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glide_Foundation Event number Year Winning bid (USD) 20 2019 $4.57 million[9] 19 2018 $4.23 million[11] 18 2017 $2.68 million 17 2016 $3.46 million 16 2015 $2.35 million 15 2014 $2.16 million 14 2013 $1 million 13 2012 $3.46 million 12 2011 $2.63 million 11 2010 $2.63 million 10 2009 $1.68 million 9 2008 $2.1 million 8 2007 $650,100 7 2006 $620,100 6 2005 $351,100 5 2004 $202,100 4 2003 $250,100 3 2002 $25,000 2 2001 $18,000 1 2000 $25,000

Poor and middle class assholes are easier to dismiss. Rich assholes live rent free in your head because jealousy is also involved. This is why people remember the Benz that cuts them off when merging lanes, but not the 1989 Toyota Corolla. Assholes are probably evenly distributed amongst the wealth groups, as are (I would wager) most personality characteristics. On the one hand, I could probably point you to the original article and point out that the study in question actually took steps to eliminate bias and had some amount of rigor to eliminate an availability bias such as you are suggesting (the Benz illicit jealousy, therefore that memory is more available when trying to recall bad behavior). I was able to quickly find the original study, confirm that they did take several steps to eliminate bias and randomize the study. Further they conducted multiple similar experiments (a failing to yield to pedestrians at a stop sign experiment and a cutting other motorists off at an intersection experiment). On the other hand, there are several easy ways I can come up with to support your argument. First and foremost, is the old adage that correlation is not causality. Maybe instead of the drivers of luxury cars being at fault, it's the cars themselves: Luxury cars might be more isolating and therefore make a driver more likely to ignore a pedestrian or another driver. Maybe luxury cars tend to have higher performance and therefore make aggressive driving more available to the driver. Driving a luxury car is an action not a personality trait, so what should any correlation tell us about the driver instead of the car? I regularly drive a car that the experimenters might classify as a beater. I also drive a car they likely would classify as luxury. Does my personality vary from day to day depending on which car I'm driving? I feel other drivers and pedestrians react differently depending on which car I am driving. How does that impact the behavior of luxury car drivers? Another peculiar aspect of the study is that when it was first conducted, Toyota Priuses were still new, were still a way of value signaling and were still selling at way above list price. Rather appropriately, Priuses were lumped in with luxury cars, but that is actually a bit of a confounding factor. Other studies have attempted to show that Prius owners felt pius for owning a eco-friendly car and subconsciously engaged in a compensating effect which basically returned them to an equilibrium closer to the norm. Here are two examples of what I mean. Prius drivers might have felt more pius for driving a Prius and therefore felt comfortable engaging in other less socially acceptable behaviors such as rude or aggressive driving. There was also a sense at the time that Prius drivers were speeding more than other drivers and that prompted studies to test that belief. Sure enough the studies showed that Prius drivers were speeding more than other drivers. The studies postulated that drivers felt that not only were they pius enough to excuse a little bit of speeding, but the cars were so energy efficient that it was ok to reduce that efficiency by speeding and getting lower gas mileage at a higher average speed. Including these pius Prius drivers among the luxury cars might throw off the results. Here's a blog post that points out some of the problems with these studies. https://www.exploringtheproblemspace.com/new-blog/2018/8/30/social-scientists-and-political-bias-the-case-of-rich-people-and-their-driving-habits Finally, to make an appeal to authority, I give you South Park's thoughts on the subject: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6f77ol

Looks like the link to the piece was broken. Here's another. https://www.wired.com/story/why-are-rich-people-so-mean/ Years ago I came across some research about rejection. The literature on the cost to the rejected individual is pretty broad, and it is widely accepted that rejection can have an emotional, psychological and physical health impact on the rejected party. A rejected person may be more likely to become socially isolated which will just compound the problem. We are social creatures and we have over time likely depended on others for our survival, so rejection and isolation are very painful. What is interesting is the smaller field of research on the people who reject others. Most people cannot comfortably inflict pain on others, and rejection frequently clearly causes pain and distress for the rejected. So it shouldn't be surprising that it can be difficult for everyone to fire someone from an job or to end a romantic relationship. Breaking up really is hard to do. None of that should be surprising, but where it gets really interesting is what happens to the rejectors. You might assume that someone who has to do a lot of rejecting might become more sensitive to the suffering of the rejected and develop more compassion and more sympathy, but generally it is the opposite. The mind of the rejector might prefer to minimize its own suffering, so reaction formation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation) comes to the rescue. Instead of becoming more compassionate, the rejectors become more dismissive and more isolated. They are more likely to feel the rejected deserve to be rejected and that they are highly skilled at determining who deserves to be rejected, even if there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Also, though you might expect the rejector to try to engage in rejecting fewer people to balance out their guilt, instead they frequently start rejecting even more people. Sometimes you will see someone who has to reject people for a living then starts to reject people they are not required to such as coworkers or people from their private lives. In some professions it can lead to an insider's gallows humor as people start to protect themselves from the discomfort of rejecting people. Does this sound familiar? Can you see a connection to the article? As an example of reaction formation, think about someone who feels guilty for cheating on a romantic partner. You might imagine that they would be extra nice, or bring flowers to assuage their guilt. In fact they are more likely to blame the victim and lash out at them in anger. They also are more likely to falsely accuse them of also cheating. If the innocent romantic partner retaliates and is nasty or mean in return, it actually makes the guilty partner feel better and the offender feels they were justified in their cheating actions because they can now point to the innocent partners angry behavior. This is all reaction formation. So if someone starts acting very belligerent and accuses people falsely, it actually could be a sign they are feeling guilty. With respect to the Wired article on why rich people so mean, as they isolate themselves, it is easy for the process to become self-reinforcing and to continue to be more and more isolating. When you think about it, as someone tries to isolate themselves in a privileged environment in order insulate themselves from privation, they are simultaneously rejecting others members of society and isolating themselves. This can become a feedback loop. Eventually, someone who started off a connected, social creature could end up an isolated, anti-social creature as described in the article. I agree with DooDilligence that many people I have met through CoB&F are extremely kind and generous people and many have great examples to follow of how to be fine member of society. I also think if someone understands the value of community, the costs of rejection (to both the rejected and the rejector), and the concept of reaction formation, then that person has an even better chance of not ending up on the wrong side of this slippery slope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation

Thanks. I just made it up in hopes of amusing you. Hopefully the discussion will be more amusing than the title. The topic is a bit redundant to the WeWork thread, but I don't believe there is a place to discuss the trend as a whole, so maybe this thread will be of use.

There have been many qualitative factors for years that indicated that PE/VC is was an area that was ripe for silliness to ensue. Do you think the recent round failing IPO's is a sign that these businesses were really i-P.O.S. ? Do you think that the fast reversal in how IPOs have faired this year is a PE/VC bubble is starting to deflate? Lyft and Uber are Down since IPO WeWork and Endevour IPOs were postponed SmileDirectClub and Peloton made poor showings in their IPOs

You're welcome! To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to ignore a single thread, but I wonder if it might make sense to ask Sanjeev whether a certain thread might deserve its own category. In eight years, that thread has grown to be 1397 pages in length and we might have four more years of that thread dominating the new posts. It might deserve its own category based on volume, if not logic. If that thread were moved to be in its own category, it would give more flexibility for people to manager their inbox.

Voting and commenting have slowed down, so I will now summarize the results of the poll and the comments made in posts. Here are the results as of now. Have you set the politics category to "ignore" Yes. Thank you Sanjeev for that option. 55 (62.5%)No. 20 (22.7%)Thanks. Didn't know I had the option, and I will set Politics to "Ignore". 13 (14.8%) Total Members Voted: 88 62.5% of respondents were already automatically blocking the Politics board with the ignore feature. An additional 14.8% of respondents said they were going to block the politics board thanks to this thread, representing a 23.6% increase in members automatically blocking the Politics board due to this thread. In combination 77.3% stated they would be blocking Politics automatically in the future. 22.7% were not automatically blocking the Politics board and did not indicate an intention to do so in the future. It should be noted that a large portion (3 out of 16 or 18.75%) the commenters posted that they do not automatically block the Politics section, but do ignore the Politics section through good old fashioned mental effort. I'm not sure how much power you can assign to 3 out of 16 electively mentioning that they just ignore posts, but I think it is an indication that a large portion who are not automatically blocking are not actively engaged or interested in the Politics section. Here is a summary some of the comments posted as replies to the poll. There were 16 members who posted substantive comments regarding the usage and value of the Politics board. Three respondents mentioned they ignore the Politics board, but do it by old fashioned mental effort. Four mentioned that they are not a fan of blocking boards for various reasons Five alluded to automatically blocking the board improving their process Eight mentioned the quality of the posts being the reason they ignore the Politics board. Four mentioned the quality of the analysis or discussion One mentioned logical fallacies and cognitive biases Five mentioned the posting of ideology instead of analysis One poster mentioned participating in the Politics section as a form of entertainment. It's not clear if that attitude would contribute to meaningful analysis. Interestingly one poster mentioned participation or the temptation to participate in trolling on sites other than CoB&F, which lead to a message board therapy session of sorts. In this case the lightbulb did want to change and the attempt at counseling seemed respectful, appreciated, professional and possibly effective. One interesting point for me is how many of the best all time contributors to CoB&F actually posted to this thread. Three or four who I would rank as top posters said or implied that they were not at all impressed with the quality of conversation on the politics section. Several also mentioned the value they see in political discussion, just not the current quality on CoB&F. I would welcome a higher quality of analysis as it seems they would.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. You clearly have your own unique voice in all your posts. I have heard it said that a unique voice is a sign that someone is not acting as an ideologue and is likely to engage sincerely in debate. I would like to add to one point you make here. Although in advertising and commerce the goal is frequently to a consumer to take an action as you said, when it comes to political disinformation, a very common goal IS to discourage someone from doing something. Voter suppression is frequently a goal and that makes my point, but there are plenty of other examples. Disinformation primarily is aimed at creating distrust or apathy. A passive, demoralized, disinterested populace is frequently the ideal outcome because they will be better opponent and less likely to offer resistance as an adversary. Whether it's Russian disinformation, or Trump talking the message often is that "everybody's a crook, so why bother". That is the common theme. The fact that Russian disinformation and Trump supporters have this in common is probably just coincidence. Criminals frequently justify their actions by telling themselves and others that "everybody does it". When in fact that's not the case. Criminals are in fact rather rare. In the case of Russian disinformation, it is much more the case of decades of practices and refining of their techniques and distrust and demoralization has worked for them for decades.

Wrister, could you elaborate on the specific reasons you are not interested in the discussion on CoB&F? Is it the quality of discussion? Is it specific behaviors or practices that are an issue? Is there something that would make the section useful to you? Do you find the contributions of some contributions useful? By the way, thank you for the excellent contributions you have made on CoB&F. You have posted tons of good materials and comments over the years.

I just confirmed the poll does not work with my iPad. That must be where I have seen issues before.

+1! - I'm desperate to vote! - I hope you can edit the poll, Read the Footnotes [i suppose you've set it to be open for a very short time span]. The poll should still be open. I did not set an expiration date. I see others have been able to vote very recently. I noticed at some point in the past that the poll feature doesn't seem to work with all mobile devices. I would try using a different device or different browser. If others have had the same problem as John, please chime in with what device, browser OS you're using and maybe we can pinpoint the problem and pass it along. MJM, if you've followed the instructions in my original post and don't see a box beside Politics, then I am guessing you are having a problem with compatibility. As I said above, I remember previously noting that some of the lesser used functions have some compatibility issues, so it could be you are having a similar issue to what I noticed in the past. I would recommend trying to use a different browser or a different device. It's worth taking a moment to find that check box, you'll save time in the long run.

Years ago I set the politics section to "ignore". It has made CoB&F much more useful and enjoyable for me. Have you set Politics to "ignore"? In the Politics section, I appreciate the contributions of Schwab711 and a few others who have actually posted real contributions, such as links to primary materials, or well reasoned analysis. The problem is that some members post their opinion with nothing to back up their assertions, or even worse, they spend their time insulting other board members. I see those posts as adding nothing of value. Please vote in the poll and, if you have set or intend to set the politics sections to ignore, please tell us why in your comments, or tell us why you haven't. If you don't know how to set a section to ignore, here's how you can do it. First, you must be a member, and you must be logged in. Choose "profile" from the navigation menu just beneath the CoB&F logo. From the drop down menu, select "account settings". On the account settings page, you will see navigation side bar. Choose "Ignore Boards Options" Click on the check box for any boards you want to ignore. Be sure to click the "change profile" button at the bottom right of the page in order to save your preferences.

Adam Neumann will step down as CEO. He will remain on the board as non-executive chairman. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/24/wework-ceo-adam-neumann-is-expected-to-step-down-amid-controversy-and-retain-chair-role-wsj-reports.html

The annuity industry has been booming over the past couple of years. We should all be on the look out for unscrupulous actors selling annuities in particular. Parsad and Oddball do a great job of laying out a range of possible responses. I suspect a salesman who has racked up 25 complaints is either working with a very sketchy organization or is likely a narcissist or a psychopath. They are likely VERY charming. Assume this salesman is charming and might even work to inspire deep loyalty among their victims. I think you have to try though. You may not have seen the fire itself, but you have seen plenty of smoke.

Good idea. Are there any legislators talking about this kind of program? These sorts of programs already exist. Many public service jobs, governmental jobs and non-profit jobs can qualify. Teachers, nurses and doctors are pretty obvious professions that are specifically targeted, but they even have programs specifically for lawyers.

Yes, and the degrees should be repossessed in the process. That is a perfectly acceptable solution...BUT FOR ONE THING...the educators that profited in the creation of these things also need to be addressed. Perhaps they should also pay a penalty? I know SCORES of attorney that have paid TENS of thousands of dollars toward their student loans, that have worked for YEARS, that would GLADLY give up their license and be barred from ever practicing law in the future in exchange for simple cancellation of their remaining student loans. Yes! Teachers should be forced to pay reparations to anyone who was ever in a classroom of any kind. And there should be special pain and suffering payments for anyone who ever received a grade that is lower than what they felt they deserved.

Yes, and the degrees should be repossessed in the process.

The Dictators Playbook http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/politics/dictators-playbook/ https://www.pbs.org/video/dictators-playbook-series-preview-1o5rpv/

Since you believe going to school with Bill Ackman was his best call, I could add "go to school with Bill Ackman" to the list of options in the poll, but it's not a stock, so I don't think it could be the right answer. I like your creative idea generation though.

On the surface, I like the idea or sentiment. Which of the three choices above would you recommend shorting? Sorry I'm a bit confused. Was Berkshire his secret stock? I'm a bit confused. Do you think there are other viable candidates for a stock Whitney would recommend?

I wasn't able to include a poll here, so I started a poll in a separate thread which can be found here: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/whitney-tilson-the-'1-retirement-stock-in-america'/

On the surface, I like the idea or sentiment. Which of the three choices above would you recommend shorting?

On April 17th, Whitney Wilson revealed the "#1 retirement stock in America". I don't know the answer. If you participated and know the answer, please don't spoil it for the rest of us. Register your vote above. https://signup.empirefinancialresearch.com/?cid=MKT403409&eid=MKT406001&encryptedSnaid=&snaid=&step=start&assetId=AST103778

When a company starts cutting costs, high priced consultants might be one of the first costs cut. So from a consultant's perspective, cost cutting is a terrible strategy. On the other hand companies with excellent competitive position frequently start to bloat. That bloat, including wasting money on low ROI consultants, can frequently go unnoticed or tolerated because of their strong position. :D To be more serious . . . I also think the passage frames the issue in a way that might confuse correlation with causation. The ability to price is driven by competitive position and that desirable competitive position or competitive landscape creates other benefits, too. In other words the ability to price is a symptom, not a cause. The willful creation of this type of competitive advantage is difficult and rare, but companies that possess this type of advantage are a rare type of needle the promise of which drives many of us to search through haystacks.

Yes to all of these comments. With respect to the previous comment, I will add a reference to the concept of "the winner's curse."