Uccmal

Lol, At least they would have predicted their own demise. Goin out on a pleasure cruise, plenty of women, and plenty of booze.

This has been bugging me all weekend. My thoughhts are clear but disjointed. Its a good thing shooter killed his mother. She would either have committed suicide or been murdered for providing him with weapons. The only use for guns per Lynyrd Skynyrd is for killing.... they aint no good for nothin' else. Eliminating ALL guns would dramatically reduce the homicide rate. If you are afraid your government is going to abuse its power enough that you need semiautomatics at home, then your in more serious trouble. The only way you will go down is by fighting. Recall Waco. This is a poor excuse to own weapons. The NRA needs to have one of its conventions blown up by an aggrieved parent to show them what it feels like. In order to make American streets safer all drugs need to be fully legalized, and money spent on the war on drugs put into treatment. I disagree strongly with Cardboard on this. People with mental health issues already abuse drugs. Legalizing them at ever step in the process will not change that fact. Police can then focus on getting sick people into treatment instead of into jail. Obtaining weapons for hunting, if one must, should be extremely heavily regulated. Of course none of this is going to fly in the USA where "freedom" trumps all else, including childrens lives. Freedom to live in fear. Gotta love it. Dont get me wrong. I love the US. I just think that your priorities as a Nation are very mixed up.

I generally think the NRA stance is nuts but they are not the problem in this case. Unlike gang, or domestic violence, these cases are Black Swan events, in their truest definition that Taleb intended. You cannot predict them. They are random, happen worldwide, and cannot be prevented. You would need full airport style security to enter any public place in the world. To our Canadians on this board, dont be too smug. Just this summer in Toronto was a multiple shooting at a barbeque; recall Marc Lepine in Montreal killing 14 women at the college; or Robert Pickton killing dozens of prostitutes over years, or Olsen, murdering dozens of boys, or our esteemed Colonel at the Trenton military facility killing at least two women, raping more, and stealing panties. My bet is that a population adjusted analysis since 1960 would show that these events are equally distributed across the world. Now to drug legalization. Production should be decriminalized, possession decriminalized, and the money put into treatment. This would solve violence problems across the world. Imagine Billions of dollars pouring into treatment rather than policing, and imprisoning.

lol, I am the tax accountant for this case. Value investors you know.

Thanks guys. I think it was a keying error. The used the final number, after the 50% was already calculated. It was applied against 2008 gains which was also 50% inclusion rate so it should have been a 1:1 calculated. Instead they halfed it again, after my software had already halfed it. As you suggest roundball I will try the phone call. I paid well over 100 k in capital gains taxes after all deductions in 2008-10, so that is not the concern. A.

Only for Canadians please: I have a situation where I believe the CRA badly miscalculated my 2011 tax return. Has anyone been through the process of appealing a decision? I have looked at the CRa site. I would just like to hear from anyone who has personal experience with the process. I had significant realized losses for 2011. I booked them against prior gains. My software adjusted them for the 50% rate and the CRa subsequently reduced it a further 50%.

Comment in the article "however, most hedge funds are underperforming the market this year". Dont "most" hedge funds always underperform the market over time? and, Isn't the above expecially true for customers in "most" hedge funds? To Paulson, It looks a little like his macro calls are more wrong than right. The problem with this is that after two years of being mostly wrong he is going to lose alot of his outside capital, making a come back that much harder.

Hi Shalab, Just caught this thread. Roughly 50% Us financials: In order BAC, AIG, JPM/WFC 25% FFH 25% other: SSW, RBS.pr.p, cfx-tse, and smaller residual positions. YTD gain: 30%. after losing 30% last year, so Am still down around 10% two years combined - the math is not precise, obviously. Only new stock this calendar year is AIG.

Here is the million, or billion dollar question? What will Fairfax sell at, or will they?

This guy Mortoma, is going to roll on Stevie. FBI: We have a deal for you Mr. Martoma, 20 years, and you miss your children growing up, or 2 yrs less a day, no fine, and you testify against Mr. Cohen, and provide us enough info to convict him. Given his ethics so far, he will take the easier softer way. This will allow The FBI enough info to completely raid Cohen. How cool is that?

I agree with the above. The moats created by the group of Visa, MC, Amex, and I guess we can add Paypal, are only partly related to brand name. Much of it rests in the infrastructure created, and the sales structure, rather than advertising. Greater than half the marketing would involve getting merchants up to speed on their products and offerings. What you see is the constant innovation and work required to keep an oligopoly. The fraud prevention aspect noted is something I had not thought of but it is important. I would offer well run banks as another moat. Even badly run banks keep most of their customers. We have seen this first hand through the financial crisis. The worst run operators didn't die from losing deposit or mortgage customers, but rather by their own hand. Fraud prevention and security are also important here.

When you dive a little deeper moats are the product of good management. Coke was in a weakened state when Buffett started buying. Prior to Goizueta they had been hemoraging sales worldwide to Pepsi. After Goizueta died Buffett and the other well known director whose name escapes me had to force retire one of the CEOs because management was damaging the company. When you look at many moats you see good management at the top, powerful advertising, cost control, focus, etc. Take Tim Hortons in Canada. A coffee and donut chain turned multi fresh fast food company. They have advertised extremely well for two decades inventing whole new concepts such as roll up the rim to win. They have sponsored childrens camps, entire hockey and soccer leagues for kids. Due to their skill they hold some 75% of the Canadian coffee market, and over 50% in the fast food category. No one else need apply, not Subway, Mcdonalds, Starbucks. Starbucks is another example. I am sorry I sold the SBux stock I bought in April 2009, under $10.00. I have sat in Jpjam packed Starbucks in Madrid and Paris, and yet I still sold the stock. Amex, Visa, MC, have another moat, but it is also the result of expensive marketing by each company. Pipelines are an awesome moat, based only on the product. Especially pipes that are already built. Railroads are another product moat. With current costs, and environmental hurdles will anyone ever be able to build continent spanning railways again. Big O&G cos are another product moat. They can so easily move their cash into renewables if they also have good management. It would take Exxon a couple of weeks of cash to buy all existing solar capacity in NA. In every case you pay up for the moat, except in dire circumstances. Buffett has a knack for having cash around when the prices get reasonable. in summary, a product may be good and necessary but you still need good management, or the promise of good management coming in to a company via shareholder revolt (thinking Bill Ackman and CP).

Glass half full - Interview with a very humble Calculated Risk: http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-mcbride-of-calculated-risk-2012-11

lol, I thought that was a strange looking coffin. Not only that but my friend was born on November 22, 1963 - the day JFK was shot, not the day (nov. 21) the twinkie died. God, I am doofus....

A friend of mine would beg to differ. He was born today, in 1963. ;)

The case is headlining on Bloomberg today. This witness is going to roll and take down the whole house of cards. Good on the FBI and SEC. They need a big victory. Finally, It would be nice to see this prick behind bars for the rest of his career. I think the guy who wrote "the snakes among us" was writing cohen's biography.

Now, Which of you is responsible for pushing the stock back up? This really shows the bad side of index investing. In order to get an etf back in line with the index stock has to be sold at a loss, as per the day before. And when a stock is added the opposite happens. In both cases it is disadvatages to an ETF investor. Sell,low, buy high.

Jeez, I held OSG about two years ago. Dangerous space. These guys will keep operating and keep prices down on everyone else in the space.

Ben, Talk about timing. A

Your answering yourself Eric ;) Conservatively: say 15 Billion of unencumbered earnings 50/50 between share/debt buybacks and dividend * 60% payout gets me 5 Billion: I say they start at 12 cents per share in April. 5% yld on present stock price, drops to 2.5 % yld with stock at 20.

I haven't followed BB close enough. Aside from AIg, St. Joe, shld, BAC I couldn't name a stock he holds without looking them up. I think his major mistake was not closing his fund to new investments. He allowed it to get too big and as a result his long term shareholders suffer when there are redemptions at unfavourable prices. As to the risks pointed out in the article, they are real. There isn't a day when I dont get up and assess the riskiness of my holdings, in general. On the other hand investing always has risk, whether there is a theoretical margin of safety, or not. And all margin's of safety we calculate are theoretical. Take SHLD as a non financial example. SHLD has alot of real estate. As we have seen real estate can fluctuate wildly. SHLD has these brands that everyone suggests could be spun off and have value to them. How do you estimate that with anything other than fanciful thinking? The Eddie Lampert, jockey idea does nothing for me. He has proven to have no idea how to run a modern retail operation. Instead of modernizing,and investing in Sears retailing, they decided to let it go to such an extent that it is unrecoverable. Sears Canada had a Good spot in retailing and parent co. destroyed it, rather quickly. Watsa's big value investments are fraught with risk and have an intangible margin of safety: bkir, rim, dell, lvlt, ostk. I think you have to accept a certain lack of precision in this business, adjust your bet sizes accordingly, and hedge via cash, or otherwise to cover the inevitable failures. Whether BB has done this or is walking around in a cloud of illusion is up for his shareholders to decide.

The argument over whether AIG and BAC are bargains or not could go on forever without reaching a conclusion. The point the article was trying to get across was that financial companies (AIG and BAC included) are difficult to analyse because of insufficient information, they are levered and therefore the variability of outcomes is quite wide. Would you disagree? Is this something that Berkowitz openly acknowledges? No. Berkowitz has put forward some of his arguments for owning his financials. I'm sure I haven't seen everything he's written on them, but the "case studies" on his website are pretty simplistic and could be picked apart with relative ease. I know there are many BAC and AIG lovers on this board. Out of interest, how many would say that their decision to hold AIG and / or BAC has been influenced by the fact that Berkowitz holds them? I know I've done it myself in the past -- buying stocks that other well-known value investors (perhaps even "superinvestors") have bought into. Trouble is, if you don't fully understand the investment case yourself you can be easily shaken out of the position if the share price falls sharply, or the "superinvestor" that got you in there in the first place decides to sell out. A dangerous way to invest in my opinion. No, My intro to BAC as an investor was via Francis Chou buying the warrants. In a sense I coat tailed him, but he holds 30 other stocks and bonds that I dont own. I am not sure I had even heard much of BB when I first bought BAC. AIG came to the board via Plan Maestro, at least to me. I actually argued that it was too early, but after some followup took a position. After following FFh for 14 years, another insurance company was not too difficult. Since the toxic portion had been removed, it looked much simpler. There is no question these are black boxes to some extent. On the other hand, all companies that I dont run have black box parts to them. FBK (sfk.un) was a prime example of a company that looks really simple on the surface but it too has black box parts. No one knew FFH was trying to get out, at a loss until that ridiculous offer was made. No one could/can predict the future commodity pricing. The black liquor tax situation in the States was unpredictable. The wood chip supply/recycled paper supplies were unreliable. I actually find that it is easier to invest in bac or aig where much more is public. In a sense businesses with millions of small customers, workers, and suppliers, are much more predictable than little enterprises with a handful of customers, and one grudging supplier.

I have been following the KW transactions with some interest. Mcmorrow's record is incredible. I plan on looking closer at it. CRE is really beyond my competence at the moment. It trades at 1.6 BV. Does anyone have a feel for this?

alert, hang in. We all pay tuition from tome to time. a.

1 billion invested in a really good business, returning 10-15 % would go alot further than dribs and drabs invested in "long term situations" that add up to a billion. They can certainly afford it.