Uccmal

Pulp Prices have held this week, more or less. Every week, another hack out of the debentures and the debt and lower service costs. http://www.foex.fi/

I'm not talking about outlawing junk food. Junk food itself is not the problem. Exceedingly high levels of calories, saturated fat, trans fats, etc per meal is the problem. Buffett eats junk food, but he makes sure he consumes only his daily caloric intake. The coffee drink isn't the problem...the size of the drink is. Cheers! More recent evidence suggests that it is not fat or trans fat that are the main culprits but refined carbohydrates. Low fat diets may be part of the problem in that they by their very nature force people to eat more refined carbs such as pasta, white breads, potatoes, and sugar. If you look at virtually any fast food outlet they are purveyors of refined carbs these days (fries, coke, pepsi, white bread or faux grain bread, sugar, and refined corn based sugar products). Looking at labels of my kids' processed foods shows where the real problem actually lies and its definitely not dietary fat. Its not even food volume that is the problem. As for Buffett, we dont really know what he eats on a day to day basis. For more on the topic I may suggest reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. A very insightful book. Finally, a 1 litre coffee is ludicrous but then you have always been able to get a bottomless cup in diners across the US.

Yeah, I am pretty tired of the nanny state these days. I think my last straw was being reached when people start talking about legislating helmets for downhill skiing where the hazard is miniscule, as compared to bikes or hockey. If they start looking at foods they would have to outlaw nearly every fast food outlet presently operating since about none of them have products without refined carbohydrates. Now my perverse way of thinking has me visualizing a java junkie shooting up a Startbucks after overdosing from his Trenta.

I'll take the bait as well. This action by the finance minister ensures that mortgages will stay in the private sector rather than becoming property of the federal government. In its usual balanced fashion Canada has managed to keep a degree of socialism and protect its capitalism at the same time. The US, under the GOP, managed to successfully socialize the entire housing sector of the economy by implicitly underwriting the housing sector since the early 00s. The result is that uncle Sam now owns the majority of the mortgage issuance in the US. If you keep going down one path it appears you end up somewhere you didn't want to be.

Might help with the perennial water shortage?

Looks that way to me... 20% of outstanding plus whatever debt they still hold.

You have thought alot about this. A couple of questions and clarifications: 1) The preferreds you are discussing are FNMA series of 25 and 50 par value currently listed on the OTC market, comparable issues for FMCC? 2) If the gov't announces something with a positive outcome for the preferreds will they have a sudden pop eliminating some of the risk premium? 3) Could the preferreds be continued with no dividend or reduced dividend? This is probably in the relevant legislation but you may know it off hand.

Tim, you are correct. It's been a long time since I held a mutual fund. Things are much more dire than I thought. I work all my returns out after tax. So, I will remove 25% from Chuong's numbers.

Norm, I was just reading the start of Montier's larger book of recent vintage (Value Investing, 2009). He goes into this in some detail.

Except you just did! ;) Well done.

I hear about all these numbers in personal portfolios, but then where the heck are these people in the money management business? They just don't exist. Only 1% of investment managers beat the market long-term by 3% or more. I don't think that number would be different for the average investor. And I think that percentage would be modestly higher for investors versed in "value investing"...at best 5%. Cheers! The majority get institutionalized! - not the sort between bars, but the other sort. That really bad year you had when everyone else was going up. Sorry Pal... Heard that AIC might be hiring. There is a whole host of reasons you have heard about for pro underperformance: - Having to sell mutual fund assets or partnership assets at inopportune times i.e. 2008/2009 locks in a bad year. Non-pro experts dont face this. - Having to carry cash for redemptions at all times - Non-pros can go negative cash as needed. - Drag fees that non-pros dont have - legally related. - size matters I think this is a rare endeavours where the pros are handicapped versus the non- pros, and often not as skillful.

Myth, I have refused a few people as well. Friends and relatives. Generally I will refer them to Chou Associates. Amounts are too small for General Partnerships. To be very clear... I am questioning the accuracy of Jim Chuong's results, and what exactly he is reporting, (pre-tax/after tax/partnership results)not the fact he had 1 million at 35. I dont know what his starting point was or how much he put in on the way. Further to my comments about getting publlished. When a writer at a paper or magazine has an article to write about a topic such as personal investing success they check the magazines or papers database for reference materials. Once you are in their database you are there forever and will get constantly requoted. And dont you know that once in print or on a website it must be true. There is a reason why Sanjeev has his partnership results audited. It tends to avoid folks like me legitimately questioning his results. For someone who is allegedly retired Derrick Foster sure works alot. He self published the first book with his gimmick tag line, and now sells enough books to support his meager lifestyle. Each book is written to the formula of writing the same thing every 18 months as per David Bach, Suze Orman, Robert K. etc. The Chicken Soup for the soul of personal finance.

The results are good... but break them down a bit. Take out Year 1 for example, or just calculate from 2004 to now and the results are substantially weaker as he was getting more money. I know this is sort of unfair but he started posting his results effective 1998 during a period when only holding Berkshire or FFh was detrimental. If I am going to include that first year of 68% returns I want to know what he bought before that and how he did. Since he wrote his letters starting 2004 that is a reasonable starting point. Then his returns are closer to 15% which is not bad but no where near 20%. I am still wondering how much money was put in along the way. I am still wondering about Capital gains and dividend taxes for all the years and 2010 in particular (I wouldn't post my 2010 results yet since I dont know exactly how I am being taxed) - so how does he know? Reading his brokerage statements is not going to tell you about taxes. Does he pay them out of his pay check? If so then his results are severely skewed - up to 5% on the high side. That brings them down to 12%. Also, to those who run partnerships here with investors there are certain drag fees - am I correct. So. does he have a legal partnership. This brings his results down to 9%. Finally, it is extremely easy to get written up by many magazines if you have some sort of story to tell. Be a little skeptical.

A little bit of Critical thinking is in order: - What is his CAGR? Dozens on this board have beaten it - His day job is a salesperson - Is he running a partnership? Where are the partners? - Results audited or tracked on Marketocracy? - Holding Royal Bank Can. over the same time period would yield the same results. - Are results after tax? If so, how does he determine his taxes. I attach my capital gains to my net income (full time job) which gives me a rate lower than a LLP rate. Does he do the same? This is a complex issue. If he is doing what I do then how did he get his 2010 results so fast that he can post them. Or does he pay the rate for a Limited Partnership? Doesn't say on his board. - Augustabound - maybe you make better choices At least a dozen members on this board that I know of, could post BETTER results than him on a blog. BTW - I am not implying that MR. Choung is a fraud or that his results are not legitimate or good.

I doubt it. They already got their subsidy in the spring.

That will make up for the currency haircut......

Answered my own question - should have looked it up first. Anyway, in the case I have provided the following would apply: Friday, January 14 is the last day to buy FFH and still receive the dividend. Effective Monday, January 17th FFH goes ex-dividend. As an aside to my question I expect it is already trading as if the dividend has been paid given the low volume.

FFH pays its dividends to shareholders of Record on January 19th. Normal settlement is T+3 for common stock. If I sold on January 17th would I still be a shareholder of record on January 19th or is it the trade date that matters. January 16? Thanks, A.

(Boy I take a lot of things for granted) No kidding, eh?

I'm afraid to say that I am stuck as a monkey, and not a very big one at that. Doesn't mean I am not a damn good value investor though. cwericb, The profit margin of RBK is squeezed between input costs and output pricing. There appears to be a perpetual dearth of recycle supply that they can use. Who would have thought in our wasteful world that such would be the case? I am sure the relationship is complex and intertwined with location, fuel prices, etc. What seemed like a good idea at the time by prior management is now turning out to be causing one heck of a hangover and the party didn't last very long either. Kind of like the brown acid....at Woodstock.

Partner, I dont disagree with you at all. I chalk it up to being good at many things but not being good at everything. Their PR is weak to say the least. I dont think the short attacks helped matters either. Sort of your damned if you do and your damned if you dont.

By the way, we've been having this dividend vs. stock buyback vs. keeping the cash discussion for years. The dividend wins.

Norm, The Rimm holding appeared for the first time in the September 30th 13f. My guess is around 45-50 US. I am also guessing that the position could be at least 50% higher than the 13f size to account for a proportional holding at NB. ABH is my guess for biggest gains - strictly a guess - there was also the Realized Int. Coal sale.

I dont see any obvious contenders right now for Leaps among the large caps. Maybe RBS but I haven't spent enough time on the financials. I still hold a few preferreds from nearly two years discussed in the Preffered thread. WFC and BAC can be levered through the Warrants rathered than leaps although both are way up from my purchase price in the fall.

I have posted this other times... I use Leaps when I would like to buy the stock as a value investment - as a more profitable proxy. For two years now I have held GE Leaps. The first ones were 2010 and 2011s coming out of the 2008 crash. I rolled those over into 2012s and now 2013s. In aggregate I have made far more than I have lost and far more than if I had just bought the stock. I have also used them for SBUX, HD, WFC, AXP, SPY units, FFH, and MFC. The only one where I lost my shirt - so to speak - about 10000 was MFC. They trade only in Canada and are very illiquid. That is a learning experience. Stay with highly liquid positions which means big international markets. If a stock meets my purchase criteria then I will look into the Leap action, not the other way around.